[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3842-H3854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX REPEAL ACT

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 511, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3916) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
repeal the excise tax on telephone and other communication services, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3916 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3916

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER 
                   COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to facilities and services) is amended by 
     striking subchapter B.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 
     and 4121) and subchapter B of chapter 33,'' and inserting 
     ``and chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 
     4064 and 4121),''.
       (2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 4251 or''.
       (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``imposed by--'' and all that follows 
     through ``with respect to'' and inserting ``imposed by 
     section 4261 or 4271 with respect to'', and
       (ii) by striking ``bills rendered or''.
       (C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``Communications Services and''.
       (3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``4251, 4261, or 4271'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``4261 or 4271''.
       (4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), 
     by striking subparagraph (C), and by redesignating 
     subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
       (5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of such Code is 
     amended by striking the item relating to subchapter B.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered 
     more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is 
adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3916, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3916

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS EXCISE TAX.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to facilities and services) is amended by 
     striking subchapter B.
       (b) Phase-out of Tax.--Paragraph (2) of section 4251(b) of 
     such Code (defining applicable percentage) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--The term `applicable 
     percentage' means--
       ``(A) 2 percent with respect to amounts paid pursuant to 
     bills first rendered on or after the 30th day after the date 
     of the enactment of this subparagraph and before October 1, 
     2001, and
       ``(B) 1 percent with respect to amounts paid pursuant to 
     bills first rendered after September 30, 2001, and before 
     October 1, 2002.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 
     and 4121) and subchapter B of chapter 33,'' and inserting 
     ``and chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 
     4064 and 4121),''.
       (2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 4251 or''.
       (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``imposed by--'' and all that follows 
     through ``with respect to'' and inserting ``imposed by 
     section 4261 or 4271 with respect to'', and
       (ii) by striking ``bills rendered or''.
       (C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``Communications Services and''.
       (3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``4251, 4261, or 4271'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``4261 or 4271''.
       (4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), 
     by striking subparagraph (C), and by redesignating 
     subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
       (5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of such Code is 
     amended by striking the item relating to subchapter B.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Repeal.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (c) 
     shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered 
     after September 30, 2002.
       (2) Phase-out.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall 
     apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered on or 
     after the 30th day after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous matter on H.R. 3916.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today Congress will vote to repeal the 102-year-old 
Federal excise tax on telecommunications services. This is a bipartisan 
bill introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). It repeals an excise tax which 
is regressive and hits low-income families and people on fixed incomes 
like older Americans the hardest and it is a tax that has truly 
outlived its usefulness. The telephone tax is a showcase example of bad 
tax policy and its endurance over the century proves again that once 
the Government gets its hands on the taxpayers' money, it is hard to 
get it back to the people.
  In addition to helping people today, repealing this tax will help 
avoid a potentially big tax increase in the future. It used to be that 
each household had only one phone, and that was it. But today homes 
have at least one phone line, many have two. Mom and Dad and maybe one 
of the kids has a cell phone or a pager, and the family might have a 
computer and use e-mail. So they are paying this tax on a number of 
telecommunications services, not just on their one telephone anymore.
  The point is, as more Americans use more and more telecommunications 
services, this tax must surely not continue to grow. That is why I am 
pleased that we are taking this action today to repeal a tax first 
levied in 1898. As the old saying goes, Better late than never.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  First I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), 
the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding 
to me and allowing me to manage this bill. I would like to commend the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the committee, for 
bringing this bill up in an expeditious fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas has mentioned, this tax is a 
tax that should have been repealed years ago. It started in 1898 to 
actually pay for the Spanish-American war. It had been repealed and 
reinstated numerous times over those years, but the fact of the matter 
is this tax is a tax on telephone service communications between 
Americans.
  When it was first instituted in 1898, 102 years ago, there were, 
believe it or not, 1,356 telephones in America. It was clearly a luxury 
tax. It was a method that very wealthy people used to communicate with 
each other probably more as a novelty than as a real source of 
communication. The fact of the matter is today that 94 percent of the 
American public of 270 million people now use telephones. Now they pay 
a 3 percent tax. As we know, this tax hits across everybody, low-income 
people, moderate-income people, the rich; but everybody pays the same 
percentage. This is probably one of the most regressive taxes that the 
Federal Government has. It should be repealed, particularly in a time 
of surpluses.
  I might also mention that there is another aspect of this as well. As 
we know, we have numerous different modes of communication in America 
and throughout the world today. We have the Internet, we have cable 
modems and everything else. At this time the IRS and the Treasury 
Department is having a very difficult time on how to apply this tax. 
Some can use the Internet with cable modems to avoid the tax, and 
others who use the basic telephone service end up paying the tax. As we 
know, average low-income Americans are the ones that do not have access 
to the Internet. And so again this tax is even more regressive,

[[Page H3843]]

given the fact that many Americans cannot afford the new technology 
that we have. This tax is currently at approximately over a 5-year 
period $20 billion. This is not just a small amount. This is a very 
large tax on American citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, this tax needs to be repealed. I urge my colleagues to 
vote yes on this repeal effort.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time. I salute my colleague from Ohio and my colleague 
across the aisle from California for bringing this forward. Credit is 
also due to a new Member of our institution, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller), who brought this to our attention last 
year.
  As the chairman of our committee pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is an 
object lesson on tax policy in our constitutional Republic. One is 
almost tempted, Mr. Speaker, to return to my profession of 
broadcasting, ``This bulletin just in. The Spanish-American war is 
over. We won. But in the process American consumers lost.''
  As my colleague from California correctly points out, this has been a 
stop-start, on-again off-again procedure. Yet it is compelling because 
it was a tax levied for the most noble of purposes over a century ago; 
but it has stayed around and, far from a luxury, we know today the 
telephone is a necessity. We know today that as we live in the 
information age, as we depend on computers more and more, information 
so vital to our everyday lives need not be taxed. Especially egregious, 
these funds from this luxury tax are not even devoted to the 
telecommunications process. No, they go into the general fund.
  And so it is long overdue that we repeal this Spanish-American War 
telephone tax, this tax on talking; and in much the same way, we need 
to continue our review and one day reform our overall tax policy 
because historians note that the current taxation on personal income 
made possible by the 16th amendment to our Constitution was 
preconditioned through judicial review on the notion that it is 
temporary.
  Well, today the temporary century-plus telephone tax will be 
repealed. Again, as we congratulate each other in a bipartisan fashion, 
Mr. Speaker, the American people ask, What took you so long? We are 
finally getting the work done for the people.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really tickled pink to have the opportunity to come 
down here and talk about this repeal of the phone tax. As was 
indicated, this repeal will cost some $20 billion to the treasury, or 
putting it another way, Americans will be saving $20 billion over a 5-
year period. To put that into perspective, the President has 
recommended this Congress pass a drug benefit for the senior citizens 
on Medicare. The 5-year cost of that is $40 billion. But my Republican 
colleagues do not support that so we probably will not do it for the 
seniors; but this phone repeal could fund one-half of that Medicare 
drug benefit for seniors, just to put it into perspective.
  Now, I guess people are going to ask, what is this worth to me? I 
have a copy of a phone bill here from the State of Virginia from the 
Bell Atlantic Phone Company. This is for the other services and 
charges. If I could direct Members' attention to number seven, it is 
tax and Federal, the savings to the consumer here, 97 cents. People ask 
me, where did this idea come from to repeal the tax? Clearly the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) introduced a bill, but we also 
had an advisory commission established by Congress to look at the 
Internet tax.

                              {time}  1345

  It was headed up by the governor of the State of Virginia, Governor 
Gilmore. His colleagues not only wanted to put a moratorium on Internet 
tax, but they also had this real thing about the Federal phone tax. 
They pushed and shoved, and part of the recommendation to Congress was 
to repeal this 97 cent tax here.
  As I look at this bill, Governor Gilmore, my eyes dropped to the next 
line, and that is the State sales tax on your phone bill. That is 
$7.00, 700 percent more, and I do not recall the governor saying 
anything about knocking that down, but he is so gracious to help us out 
by eliminating this 97 cents on the phone bill.
  I just read in the Post today that Governor Gilmore wants the 
taxpayers of the country to give him another half a billion dollars to 
rebuild the Wilson Bridge, which is in part Virginia and in part 
Maryland. I say we could sure help him out if we had this $20 billion, 
but we have to give that back. But the point here is the consumers by 
our action today are going to save 97 cents on this phone bill, but we 
are not doing anything about the $7 tax going to Richmond.
  So this is a great day. We are really going to do something for the 
consumers. Massive tax relief. Great day.
  I have got some bad news. Bell Atlantic, same company, sent out a 
letter, and they sent out the letter to the phone people, to those who 
use their telephone, and they say, hey, important notice, folks. 
Optional wire maintenance price plan increase. What is that? Well, for 
the phone wire inside your house, these folks are currently paying 
$1.25 a month. The phone company is telling them, effective June 17 of 
this year, we are going to increase that almost 100 percent to $2.45, 
$1.20 a month.
  But, wait a minute. We just saved 97 cents, and the phone company 
took it away. Before we got the savings, this phone company took it 
away. So right now, as we stand here, we are 23 cents in the hole, 
because after we give you this phone tax relief, your bill is going to 
go up 23 percent anyway.
  So now I am thinking, my gosh, how are we going to help the consumer 
out? Well, I came up with a couple of ideas. It is going to cost some 
money to change the Tax Code. There will be some administrative costs 
once this bill is signed into law. I am thinking of producing an 
amendment today to amend the bill, and instead of sending the 97 cents 
back to the consumers, send the $20 billion to the phone company. My 
friends, they are going to get it anyway.
  The other idea is to move the previous question, which means cut off 
all the debate, because the longer we sit here today and talk about 
this, the less the consumers are going to save.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my friend from Wisconsin has pointed 
out some other potential targets. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress will 
not be able to do much about it. Maybe some State legislators from 
Virginia were watching, maybe some of our regulators downtown were 
watching from the FCC, and maybe even some members of the Committee on 
Commerce are here.
  But I know that it is very important to most Members of this Chamber 
that we go ahead and reduce that 97 cents, which is $6 billion a year 
on the consumers of this country; and regardless of what States may do 
or what other regulations may require, I am delighted that this has 
been, from the start, an effort that has been supported broadly on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I want to point out the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) in 
particular. He is my partner on this legislation, has been from the 
start. He makes some very good points every time he speaks on this 
issue. He just made them previously about the difficulty we are having 
at the IRS right now even identifying what is a telephone tax and what 
is not, given the emerging technologies and given the very fast pace of 
change out there.
  The gentleman also has talked, I know, about the history of this 
legislation. I do not want to go over all of it, but I hope people 
understand that this was a temporary luxury tax put in place during the 
Spanish-American War to pay for that war at a time when very few 
Americans had telephones, only the wealthiest of Americans. This 
temporary luxury tax, which was put in place at a time when the country 
was just being introduced to the glamorous young war hero, Teddy 
Roosevelt, has lived on. It has gone up, it has gone down, it has gone 
all around.

[[Page H3844]]

  But it is a classic example of a tax in Washington that just will not 
die, and in this case a temporary tax on a luxury item that is no 
longer a luxury item, rather something all of us use every day in our 
lives and is clearly a catalyst to the economic growth we are all 
enjoying.
  So at a time of prosperity, at a time when we can look out to the 
future with budget surpluses projected, and have the luxury of looking 
at our Tax Code, what makes sense and what does not, this should be for 
this Congress a target for repeal.
  It is a 3 percent Federal excise tax; you will see it on your phone 
bill. Sometimes it is called FET. Look at the bottom of that bill, if 
you can look past all the other charges and so on that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin talked about. This is one this Congress can do something 
about and should do today.
  From a tax policy perspective, there are number of reasons why this 
does not make sense, in addition to the fact that it is no longer 
necessary, since the Spanish-American War is 102 years ago. One is it 
is regressive. Lower-income families, of course, pay a higher 
percentage of their family budget than most Americans do on the 
telephone use. Everybody has a phone. Ninety-four percent of American 
families have it. Seniors are particularly hard hit by this on fixed 
incomes who need the telephone as a lifeline to the outside world.
  Second, unlike other Federal excise taxes that go for some specific 
purpose, this simply goes into general revenues. The gas tax is a 
Federal excise tax, but it goes to fix our roads and our bridges. We 
also have Federal excise taxes on sin, being the sin taxes, so-called 
sin taxes, on alcohol and cigarettes.
  But this is something that we should not be discouraging, telephone 
use. In fact, just the opposite. We should be encouraging it, again, 
because it is such a fundamental driver in the economic prosperity we 
now enjoy.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this is anti-Internet, having 
this tax in place, anti-telecommunications, at a time when that ought 
to be encouraged. Ninety-six percent of Internet goes over phone lines.
  So at the very end of the day, all I can say is this is a great 
example where the Congress gets together, reflects on our Tax Code, 
what makes sense, what does not, comes together on a bipartisan basis, 
making it bipartisan from the very start, then brings it to the floor 
in a bipartisan way, to send a strong message to the United States 
Senate, which sometimes needs a strong message, and to the President, 
because I hope it will end up on his desk, hope it will happen in the 
next month. I hope it will happen before we go out of session certainly 
this year, so we will be able to give our consumers a little break and 
help our economy and get rid of this, again, outdated part of our Tax 
Code. The Spanish-American War is long over, but in the 21st century, 
the telecommunications revolution is very much on. We need to assist 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
California, the original Democrat sponsor of this bill, for yielding me 
time.
  As a cosponsor of H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act, I 
am proud to not only support it, but also be a cosponsor. It adds $6 
billion annually to our bills and about $2.00 a month to our 
constituents' phone bills.
  While this tax was created to fund the Spanish-American War and has 
been reinstituted during different conflicts, telephones were a luxury. 
Well, that is not the case anymore. In fact, it has long since not been 
a luxury. So this regressive tax should be repealed.
  This is a broad tax cut that I think a lot of us can support, and 
that is why you have a broad number of Members that are cosponsoring 
it. It covers everyone, but particularly it covers senior citizens in 
my own district who can see when their bill comes in after this is 
effective, their Federal tax will be reduced.
  I do share with my colleague from Wisconsin the concern about whether 
their regular phone bill will be increased, but hopefully they will 
deal with their State legislature and their regulation on that. The 
only funds that should be collected from the telecommunications device 
should be the digital divide.
  I am also glad we are having a motion to recommit to close the 527 
loophole that requires 527s to be able to list who is giving to them 
and how they are spending their money.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), my colleague on the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his efforts as well as those of the gentleman from 
California to move forward to repeal this fantastically antiquated tax.
  Mr. Speaker, recently I had the opportunity in visiting Egypt for the 
first time to do something that every archeology buff wants to do, and 
that is visit the pyramids. As I descended into the bowels of the great 
pyramid of Cheops, I developed a fresh appreciation for the ancient 
Egyptian belief in resurrection.
  Mr. Speaker, as we move to inter this tax finally, we are looking at 
a provision in the Tax Code that would reaffirm the beliefs of the Old 
Kingdom in resurrection. This tax was first introduced in 1898, before 
income taxes were levied. It was designed as a temporary tax to pay for 
the Spanish-American War, as the last speaker noted. Since then, this 
tax has been repeatedly resurrected by Congress to no end.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of repealing this outdated tax on our most 
basic communications. In my home State of Pennsylvania, this would mean 
$245 million in tax relief, with $75 million of that going to families 
who earn less than $30,000. The time has long passed to eliminate this 
regressive tax on the American people and on small business.
  For the first time in decades, with the Federal Government running a 
budget surplus, it is particularly perverse to continue this tax on 
talking when telecommunications play such a vital role in the 
information superhighway. The revenues from this tax, as the last 
speaker noted, are not even earmarked to support telecommunications 
infrastructure. It goes to the general treasury.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge every one of my colleagues to vote for this 
bill, and, in doing so, vote for tax fairness, for tax relief, and for 
easier Internet access. I urge the passage of the legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
motion to be offered by my good friend and colleague on the Committee 
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the motion 
to recommit. It simply says that section 527 political organizations 
will not get the benefit of the telephone excise tax repeal unless they 
disclose their donors. It is that simple.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) had tried to offer this 
amendment in the Committee on Ways and Means twice, once today and once 
during the debate on the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. Both times, the 
Republicans have voted it down and blocked it from coming to the floor.
  Every person in America realized the importance and necessity of 
fixing our system of financing elections. The Doggett amendment is an 
attempt, but an important attempt, a necessary attempt, to bring about 
campaign finance reform. It will close another loophole in campaign 
finance disclosure laws. It will clean up the mess created by section 
527 political organizations. These organizations can take unlimited 
money from almost any source, even foreign money, and make expenditures 
without any disclosure to anyone. It is a sham, it is a shame, and it 
is a disgrace. The American people deserve better.
  The Doggett amendment only requires simple open disclosure by these 
organizations, these 527 organizations. The American people have a 
right to know. They have a right to know who is funding political 
campaigns in our country. They have a right to know who is behind the 
attack ads. The American people have a right to a free and fair 
election process.

[[Page H3845]]

  There is already too much money in the political process. There is no 
room for secrecy too. We need to fix the mess. I urge my colleagues to 
support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my slow-talking, fast-
thinking friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, when Theodore Roosevelt issued the order to charge, he 
was referring to the Rough Riders and ordered them towards San Juan 
Hill. Well, evidently the Congress heard the order of charge at the 
same time, and they implemented this 3 percent luxury tax on those at 
that time who had a telephone. Well, that time in Congress and Theodore 
Roosevelt have passed, the Spanish American War is over, and it is time 
that we cease charging, charging the American people this ridiculous 
tax on their telephones.
  The charge was to pay for the war. The war had a cost of about $250 
billion. Today, we are collecting better than 20 times the cost of that 
war each year. This is just another example of excessive taxation, but 
Congress too is responsible for the excessive taxation because of our 
excessive spending habits. But it is an excessive cost to families and 
to business. At a time that we have a savings rate that is negative in 
this country, at a time that we are trying to encourage investments, 
and at a time when we are trying to compete in a global market, it is 
time for us to repeal and/or change tax provisions that will assist 
families and business.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this charge. The war is over. Let us 
sunset this tax.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask rhetorically one 
question on this issue: why would anybody not want to repeal this tax? 
And then I thought about it and I came to the conclusion, with 4 
teenage children, maybe I am wrong. Do we really want to encourage them 
to stay on the phone longer? But even after that, I have come down on 
the side of repeal, primarily because changing technology, as the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has pointed out, will make the 
collection of this tax more and more difficult and digital technology 
will continue to blur the lines between audio, video, and tech 
transmissions. In the coming era, we will ask ourselves what will 
define telephone service. It is a bad tax, and we have an opportunity 
to get rid of it.
  Mr. Speaker, let me shift gears for a second to stand in support of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) who is going to speak in a few 
minutes. In the late 1960s and the early 1970s after Watergate, the 
American people recoiled in their anger at the idea that in the 
basement of the White House there were suitcases full of cash, 
unacknowledged by the donors, and we are headed down the road to that 
same practice unless we do something about the idea of disclosing who 
gives what.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is right on target, and to my 
friends on the Republican side and my colleagues on the Democratic 
side, these groups are bipartisan political assassins. We should know 
where their money comes from. The idea of disclosure was that it would 
be a disinfectant to campaign money. People would have an opportunity 
to examine where the money originated, for what purpose it was given, 
and then they would cast their decision.
  Well, we know now that there are independent expenditures that are 
made against many Members of this Congress, not only on issues, but 
just as importantly, directed at the candidates. The public should know 
who gives the money.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saluting the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), my 
friends, for offering this legislation, legislation that is so 
important. Let me begin by just sharing a couple of statistics that 
illustrate why it is so important.
  Today, there are 100 million U.S. adults using the Internet. There 
are seven new Internet users every second. Think about that, seven new 
Internet users every second, more millions of families in America. Of 
course, school kids at home use the Internet as a way of doing their 
homework, accessing the Library of Congress.
  Today, we are responding to a pretty important question and that 
question is, do we want the information superhighway to be a toll way 
or a freeway. I believe, of course, that we want it to be a freeway. 
Today we are voting to remove one of those toll booths on the 
information superhighway by voting to repeal the telephone excise tax.
  Mr. Speaker, when we think about and look at who has Internet access 
at home, the higher their income, the more likely they have it. 
Families with incomes of $75,000 or more are 20 times more likely to 
have Internet access. If we ask those with low or moderate means why 
they do not have Internet access, they tell us it is because of the 
cost, that the cost is the barrier which denies their children the 
opportunity to use the Internet for school work. Today, we are 
eliminating one of those barriers.
  I think it is important to note that 96 percent of those who access 
the Internet use their telephone line, so by lowering the cost of 
telephone use, we are increasing digital opportunity for millions of 
Americans.
  I am proud of the leadership this House has shown in creating more 
digital opportunity and eliminating that so-called digital divide. Just 
a few weeks ago, we passed a 5-year extension of the Internet tax 
moratorium that specifically prohibited new fees and taxes on Internet 
access at the State and local level. Just 2 weeks ago, we passed 
legislation which cut off at the pass the FCC's authority to impose new 
fees and taxes by the FCC; and I am proud to say that today, we are 
going to eliminate the telephone excise tax, one of those toll booths. 
So we are removing three toll booths on the information superhighway 
with this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, let us remove those toll booths 
on the information superhighway. Let us do the right thing. This bill 
has bipartisan support. Let us send it with a strong vote to the 
Senate. Let us create digital opportunity by lowering cost to access 
the Internet. By eliminating the telephone excise tax, we lower the 
cost, we remove a toll booth, we increase digital opportunity, and we 
are going to help millions of Americans gain the opportunity to join 
the information superhighway.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that 
will repeal the 3 percent telephone Federal excise tax. The tax should 
be repealed, it has outlived its use, it passed originally, as has been 
stated by several colleagues as a luxury tax. Virtually every home in 
America now has a telephone, even those that can afford very few 
luxuries.
  Indeed, the tax was first passed a century ago when the telephone was 
a new and simple device. Today, at the dawn of another century, 
telecommunications has changed so much that it is impossible to apply 
the tax even fairly. If consumers use a telephone line to access the 
Internet, they will pay this tax. If they use a cable modem, they will 
not. Furthermore, how does this tax apply to new delivery systems? Will 
people who use delivery systems like DSL be taxed when they use DSL for 
telephoning, but not be taxed when they use the Internet?
  I think our responsibilities include repealing old, outmoded laws and 
also make it possible for our constituents to enjoy new advancements in 
technology. This legislation does both.
  In the recommittal, I urge my colleagues to vote for disclosure. The 
American people deserve it, they deserve the right to know. None of us 
can brag that this campaign finance system is something that is good 
for the country. Vote for disclosure.

[[Page H3846]]

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Republican Policy 
Committee.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman) for the extraordinary work that he has done in a 
bipartisan fashion to bring this legislation to the floor. I am pleased 
to join with him and the rest of my Republican and Democratic 
colleagues today in support of this legislation to repeal the Spanish 
American war tax. It is no longer a luxury tax. It is not fair; it is 
extremely regressive. The reason for its enactment, to fund the war 
with Spain, no longer exists.
  In preparing for this debate, I did some research into the genesis of 
this tax. I went to the report issued on April 26, 1898, 102 years ago, 
in the Committee on Ways and Means, and I found that the author of this 
bill, a Representative Dingley, not Dingell from Michigan, not my good 
friend and colleague who is the dean of the House, because even he has 
not been here anywhere near that long, but a Representative Dingley who 
said about his bill which was entitled, Revenue to Meet War 
Expenditures, ``All of these additional taxes are war taxes which would 
naturally be repealed or modified when the necessities of war and the 
payment of war expenses have ceased.''
  Well, I think we can all agree today that that time has come, 102 
years later. This tax was created over a century ago to pay for a war 
in which the father of General Douglas MacArthur, a commander of note 
in his own right, capped his career. Some years later, a half century 
ago, his son stood here in this chamber and told us in one of the most 
memorable addresses ever given in this Chamber, that old soldiers never 
die, they just fade away. But this old tax will neither die nor fade 
away. So today, more than a century after Spain and the United States 
signed a treaty of peace in Paris, we need to invoke the memory of 
those rough riders who charged up San Juan Hill and mount a charge on 
this unnecessary and unfair confiscation, run a bayonet through it, and 
kill it.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of the act to repeal the 
telephone excise tax, but I am rising now in support of the motion of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) to recommit, because we need to 
make the public aware of section 527.
  So-called 527 groups are tax-exempt, political organizations that try 
to influence elections. They can spend millions of dollars on negative 
ads, direct-mail campaigns, and phone banks. Not too long ago, I had 
never even heard of section 527s of the IRS code. Now, our constituents 
face the possibility of a negative ad campaign streaming into their 
homes paid for by undisclosed, far-off donors, distorting their 
elections.
  Mr. Speaker, 527s pose a great threat to our current democratic 
process. Unfortunately, the House leadership will not give us a vote on 
this important issue, so voters do not know who is behind the 30 second 
TV ads trashing their candidates.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit 
so that we can make the public aware of section 527s and the damage 
that they are doing to our current political system.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is time we repealed 
this outmoded and regressive tax. I hope we will make another change to 
the Tax Code through the motion to recommit. Section 527 organizations 
simply should disclose their contributors.
  One of those organizations is called Citizens for Better Medicare, 
though it is not really made up of citizens. It is funded with vast, 
but undisclosed, sums from the pharmaceutical industry; and they run 
ads to persuade Americans or try to persuade Americans that it is okay 
to price prescription drugs at twice the level that they charge HMOs, 
big hospitals, the Federal Government, Canadians, Mexicans, and the 
rest of the world. Citizens for Better Medicare is a political 
organization, it runs political ads that urges people to call your 
Congressman. It has secret funds, and it spends some of its money 
attacking the Canadian health care system.
  Well, last year, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), during the 
debate on campaign reform said what reform can restore accountability 
more than an open book? It is incredible and baffling that we will not 
support this motion to recommit today.

                              {time}  1415

  We have a chance to require disclosure, to open the books and to let 
the sunshine in on big money and politics.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the telephone excise tax repeal, 
but I also rise to speak in favor of the motion to recommit.
  It is really a sad day here when we have to bring up our only serious 
discussion about campaign finance reform this way in this manner as a 
motion to recommit. It is because of the latest abomination that has 
crept into our political process, the so-called 527 corporations that 
can accept unlimited contributions and spend it for political purposes 
without disclosing at all where the money is coming from. For too long 
opponents of campaign finance reform have claimed that the only thing 
we need to do to reform campaign finances is to require full 
disclosure. Well, here is their opportunity.
  What is it going to take to enact long overdue campaign finance 
reform in this Congress, illegalities of the magnitude not seen since 
the Nixon administration, when the last wave of campaign finance reform 
measures were finally enacted. I hope not.
  Support the motion to recommit and let us shut down the 527 loophole, 
as we are the excise tax today.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  (Mr. HILL of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the telephone 
excise tax as well. This legislation will make telephone bills cheaper 
and easier to understand. People in my district in southern Indiana 
have told me they do not understand their telephone bills, the 
confusing fees and surcharges on their phone bills. They do not know 
why their bills are so high even when they make few or sometimes no 
long distance calls.
  I petitioned the Federal Communications Commission last fall to make 
phone bills more fair. The laundry list of flat fees and taxes drive up 
phone bill costs and confuses consumers. Today we, as Members of 
Congress, have an opportunity to take an immediate step to lighten the 
burden on consumers by supporting this bill. Eliminating this 
unnecessary tax will be just the first step toward making phone fees 
more fair and easy to understand.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just make the point again that this is a great 
example of bipartisan legislation that has been so from the start that 
has come to the floor after extensive discussion and hearings. We have 
a broad-based coalition that is involved in this effort. It includes 
the Hispanic business community. It includes the African American 
business community. It includes, of course, consumer groups. It 
includes telephone companies that now pay the administrative costs to 
impose this tax.
  It includes people who have been trying for years to get the Congress 
to focus on this outdated tax that is actually a barrier to Internet 
access and to the telecommunications revolution that this Congress is 
trying to encourage rather than discourage. I would just hope that 
maybe we could keep this discussion focused on that.
  There will be a motion to recommit. I understand it is going to try 
to connect some new issues to this that have

[[Page H3847]]

to do with campaign finance reform. We have heard a lot of the speakers 
address that, and I appreciate the fact that they are supporting this 
repeal which is long overdue; but I would also hope that when we do 
bring a piece of bipartisan legislation to the floor, as the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Matsui) and I have today, that we might as a 
Congress respond to those very people on both sides of the aisle who 
say, gee, we are so partisan around here, we can never get anything 
done together, we can never move forward to do something for the 
American people that is in their interest, I would hope some of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle would listen to some of their 
own words and perhaps respond accordingly, and that we could move 
together without the kind of confusion and potentially partisan 
acrimony that seems to be building with regard to this motion to 
recommit and send something over to the Senate with a very strong 
bipartisan signal that we feel strongly about this issue; we want to 
get it done this year. We believe this is something we can do for all 
of our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, we could all be here on this bipartisan 
motion today, this bipartisan bill, and actually pass it on a 
suspension. I do not see a great deal of controversy about what is 
going on with the subject matter of this bill. The fact that I would 
like to hear discussed in a bipartisan way is the motion to recommit.
  I would ask the gentleman from Ohio why is it we do not hear anybody 
in a bipartisan way from that side of the aisle talking about the 
recommittal to have that go into effect and have that be bipartisan? We 
need disclosure. 527s are, in fact, a blight on our election system. We 
have heard Members on that side of the aisle talk for a long time about 
how they want disclosure. The majority whip tells us he wants 
disclosure. I would hope he would come to the floor and say that he 
supports this in a bipartisan way.
  The head of the conference has said that he supports disclosure. He 
intends to raise a lot of money under 527s. Let us hear him come to the 
floor and talk about how he wants to be bipartisan on this bill, and 
then we can pass the subject bill which is virtually a no-brainer with 
its regressive nature. At this point in time, we are spending an awful 
lot of time reaching around slapping ourselves on the back. Let us do 
something really heroic for the American people. Let us do something 
that really gets to the serious part of business. Let us do something 
for campaign finance reform and get rid of these 527s.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman would not yield to me, I will just 
make a couple quick points. One is, if the gentleman is so interested 
in disclosure, it would be awfully nice if in the context of this 
telephone tax repeal, which is what we are talking about today, that 
many of us have worked for months on, that the motion to recommit would 
be disclosed to us.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I have not seen it.
  No. Let me just make my own points, if I might.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I would be glad to disclose it.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Since no one yielded to me on the gentleman's side, I 
will let the gentleman take his own time.
  Second, I would make the point that if campaign finance reform is 
going to be connected to every issue that comes up on the floor that is 
bipartisan, that is constructive, that is something that is moving 
America forward, then I think it is very easy for people who are 
watching out there and other Members to think, gee, perhaps the folks 
on that side of the aisle are trying to obstruct what goes on in this 
Congress, are trying to make everything that is bipartisan into a 
partisan issue, are trying to keep this Congress from getting its work 
done and in fact helping the American people.
  That is what this is all about today. This is an effort again that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I, and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Becerra) and I, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen) and I, and many other Members of this conference and the 
conference of the other side have worked on; and we are happy to 
proceed with a debate on the telephone tax because we think it is the 
right thing to do for the American people.
  We are also eager to see the motion to recommit since the gentleman 
is so concerned about disclosure, and it would be interesting to see 
how it is tied in.
  What I heard from the speaker earlier, although we do not have the 
motion to recommit so we cannot see it, is that the gentleman was 
interested in saying that he could tie this to, again, this 
constructive effort to repeal an outdated tax by saying that if folks 
do not disclose who are in certain kinds of organizations then they 
would have to continue to pay the 3 percent telephone tax, which is an 
interesting way to tie it in; and I must commend the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett) for his creativity. But I will say that I do not 
think that does a whole lot; I do not think that is much of an 
enforcement mechanism.
  So if the gentleman is really trying to get something done, maybe he 
ought to back up and go to his own Treasury Department in the Clinton 
administration and say where is the report on political activities and 
the appropriate tax structure of political activity that was due under 
the 1998 IRS Restructuring Reform Act that we are still waiting for? 
Where is that report?
  Maybe the Treasury Department could help us because they are the 
experts in this.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. They could give us some perspective on this. Is a 527 
any different than a 501(c)(4) that is also doing advertising without 
any proper disclosure?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Is a 527 different than a 501(c)(5)?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time is controlled by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, again I am happy to let the gentleman talk 
on his own time. He did not yield to our side, and there is plenty of 
time on the gentleman's side.
  I would just say that it would be nice if in one day in this Congress 
we could come together, join arms as Republicans and as Democrats, and 
do something that is good for all of our constituents, which we have 
done up to this point on this legislation, both in terms of the 
subcommittee hearings, in terms of the committee hearings, the 
committee markup, in terms of working with outside groups to come 
together and bring people together, rather than making it a partisan 
issue, rather than again raising issues that are going to confuse and 
muddy the waters as we try to send a strong bipartisan signal to the 
U.S. Senate and to the President that this phone tax is one we want to 
repeal and we want to get it done this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am greatly disappointed 
that our friends across the aisle are not joining Senator John McCain, 
who has shown great leadership in an attempt to close this loophole, 
and are not joining us on this side of the aisle who want to close this 
loophole.
  Now here is why we should do this together: it is a fundamental tenet 
of Americans' values that we like a fair fight. Americans like a fair 
fight, and these 527 organizations are nothing more than secret 
assassins. They are secret character assassins, and they assassinate 
people on both sides of the aisle on a bipartisan basis.
  With all due respect to the last speaker, we do not need any experts 
from the Department of Treasury to tell us this. Look at 527. I have it 
right here, that defines these terms. It says, the term exempt function 
means the function of influencing or attempting to influence the 
selection, nomination, election or appointment of any individual for 
these offices.

[[Page H3848]]

  These are born and bred to try to assassinate candidates, and yet the 
public does not know who is doing the assassination. We have a 
bipartisan interest in a fair fight. We ought to have a bipartisan 
effort. The other side ought to join us in closing this loophole. 
Americans are entitled to know where this money is coming from for 
these back-handed secret assassinations.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the motion to 
recommit from my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). What 
we are trying to do here is condition tax relief that is in this bill 
for 527 organizations on their making simple disclosure as to where 
money comes from.
  Now I understand that there are some people that think we should not 
be doing this in this bill; we should have a campaign finance reform 
bill to deal with 527s. We did, and we passed the bill and abuses have 
continued.
  Let me remind the Members how we got a vote on campaign finance 
reform this year and in the last session. We walked over here, and we 
signed discharge petitions, and we got attention from all over the 
country from public interest groups. That is how we move campaign 
finance reform on the floor.
  Now what we are attempting to do here is look at how the Internal 
Revenue Code defines a 527. It is an organization that accepts 
contributions or makes expenditures for the purpose of influencing or 
attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or 
appointment of an individual to any Federal, State or local public 
office.
  By definition, these self-527s exist to influence elections, and yet 
somehow opponents of reform insist that these ads funneled by these 
organizations, that mention candidates' names, that criticize their 
voting records, that are aired on the very heels of elections are not 
subject to disclosure laws.
  Now many of us debated campaign finance reform on the floor of this 
House and many of the opponents of reform, I recall the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) articulately coming down to this floor and 
saying disclosure is what we need; any ads that are meant to influence 
election, we should simply have disclosure.
  What have we seen happen across the country over the last several 
months? We have seen an explosion of these stealth 527s spending 
literally millions of dollars; and we do not know, the public does not 
know, where the money comes from.
  This is not a partisan issue. Just look at what happened to Senator 
McCain when his campaign started taking off across the country because 
people wanted reform, because people wanted change. What happened? 
Well, just as his campaign took off, these ads popped up questioning 
his environmental record, precisely at the time when he faces key 
primaries in New York and elsewhere. Was it just a coincidence that an 
issue discussion on his environmental record seemed to take off exactly 
when his candidacy was taking off? No, it was not a coincidence.
  This is an abuse, an abuse of the campaign finance laws. If we do not 
want to be partisan about it, we do not have to. Let us, both sides, 
agree to disclose any of these 527s, disclose where the money comes 
from.

                              {time}  1430

  The problem is, under the law, they are not being disclosed. This is 
an abuse of the system. The time for action is now. At a minimum, and 
this motion to recommit by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is a 
bare minimum, we should deny tax relief to 527s that do not disclose. 
It is as simple as that. Let us deny the tax relief to those who will 
not disclose.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I am going to be having a town 
hall meeting in my district with Senator McCain. As my colleagues know, 
I was one of the few that was willing to sign a discharge petition and 
was right there from the beginning in the creation of our campaign 
finance reform.
  My support for campaign finance reform is based on a lot of reasons. 
One, this issue is near and dear to me. I have been a victim of these 
very unfair and hideous attacks that so-called independent groups can 
do.
  But my support for campaign finance reform is to bring back some 
integrity to the electoral process. But sadly here today the issue of 
bringing back integrity to the electoral process is being brought in as 
a way to stop us or restrict us from bringing back integrity about this 
Congress and about this government when it comes to taxation law.
  Now, I have also been the original cosponsor of repealing this quite 
unfair law, the law that said, oh, just let us tax a few rich people in 
1898 for a little bit to pay for the Spanish American War and, and do 
not worry, we will not tax the working class, and we will repeal it 
after the war.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have got a choice tonight. We can play 
partisan politics and try to take advantage of this issue of a 
bipartisan bill. Democrats and Republicans have come together and said 
this tax is wrong and it is immoral and the credibility of Congress is 
being called in on this and that we need to set an example to the 
American people that, when it comes to the laws of this Congress, that 
when we say we are going to raise taxes for one purpose and for that 
purpose, that when the purpose is over, eventually even if it is 100 
years later, we will come back and eliminate that tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that what we are saying today is that both of 
us, both Democrats and Republicans, agree it is a credibility of our 
taxation system that we repeal this tax.
  I want to say something about this tax because I think that we hear 
on the floor again and again the issue of class warfare. I think that 
this tax is an example of the failed concept of trying to tell and 
promise the American people that, do not worry, we are going to tax the 
other guy. We are going to get them, but it will not get you.
  Now, I come from a working-class community, and I have heard again 
and again on this floor that, do not worry, we are only going to tax 
the rich, as if the middle class is so stupid that they do not know 
what goes around comes around; that the middle class always bears the 
brunt and the burden of taxation. This tax is an example. In 1898, it 
was focused only to the very wealthy; now it has gone around.
  I am asking us, let us stop the partisan fighting. Quit tying to take 
political advantage. We have a bill that both sides agree on. There is 
no excuse except partisan advantage not to repeal this tax at this 
time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
each side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  (Mr. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to repeal the tax. This is 
truly bipartisan and should be bipartisan. But at the same time, I rise 
in support of what should again be a bipartisan effort to support the 
motion to recommitment. 527s would not get the benefit of the tax 
repeal unless they disclose under the language of the recommittal 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and I, and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is the person who proposed this 527 
recommittal language, we are on each other's bills, have similar bills.
  Earlier this week, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) of the 
NRCC signed on my bill. Just yesterday, he removed his name from the 
bill. I was overjoyed when he signed on, because I thought this at last 
is an effort, an attempt, to move on a bipartisan basis, by Republicans 
and Democrats, on what should be a nonpartisan issue, and that is full 
disclosure.
  I can understand, I can understand truly people having honest 
differences of opinion about limitations on contributions. But I have 
heard from my

[[Page H3849]]

colleagues on both sides of the aisle over and over, we may have 
differences about limitations, but everybody agrees with full 
disclosure.
  Well, now we have a chance for full disclosure, and now is the time 
to put one's vote where one's mouth is. It is that important to the 
American people, because, frankly, secrecy threatens democracy. Secrecy 
in government threatens our system of government and electoral process. 
We can overcome this secrecy by opening up these records, by full 
disclosure, and telling the people in this country who is trying to 
influence Federal elections.
  At the very bottom line, the people of this country deserve to know 
who is trying to influence their votes, so when they make an informed 
decision, when they make a decision to vote, they can make an informed 
decision and cast an informed vote.
  I think it is that vital that we act on a nonpartisan basis, and I 
invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) to support this motion to recommit for full 
disclosure.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. Davis of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to highlight what the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) was referring to by the 527. A lot of 
times, when an issue comes before Congress, we need to spend a 
tremendous amount of time collecting information, conducting a hearing, 
and then acting. But there are those issues that are so compelling and 
fundamental, we need to act immediately. This is one of them. It is the 
incredible loophole that is being exploited.
  I think a lot of criticism has been directed at Republicans, but I 
think the Democrats could easily succumb to this temptation one of 
these days, too. So this is a problem that affects every American. It 
should not have to be characterized as a Democrat or Republican issue. 
The point is we should have disclosure.
  I have sat in meetings where groups that attempt to influence this 
process, which is their constitutional right to do so, said, do not 
tell us to put our name on a political ad we want to advertise because 
we will not run the kind of ads we want to run if our name has to be 
put on them.
  That is exactly the point. If one is not willing to stand up and 
associate oneself publicly with a message one is sending to the 
citizens of this country, one does not deserve the right to put 
information out there. Because it is clear one is trying to distort and 
mislead.
  So what we are offering in our motion to recommit is a very simple 
proposition. If one is going to engage in this type of political 
advertising, there ought to be disclosure of where the money came from. 
There ought to be disclosure for the good of the citizenry.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) 
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have the ability to close, so the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) may proceed, then I will close.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) for his bipartisanship on the issue of the Federal excise tax 
repeal. I certainly appreciate his leadership and his effort. Of 
course, the majority and minority have worked very well on the issue of 
the excise tax repeal, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, over 200 Members of this House of Representatives have 
called for full disclosure by the new political superweapon of this 
political season, the 527. The 527 is not some new type of aircraft, 
but it is a superweapon designed to undermine the election process in 
this election year.
  Today is our only opportunity, not because we wanted an opportunity 
like this today to be the vehicle for doing this, but because every 
other opportunity has been denied.
  Our colleagues say that they are surprised and that they did not know 
about this. Well, they were not surprised when I asked every one of 
them, even the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to join as a cosponsor 
with over 200 other Members in support of the Underground Campaign 
Disclosure Act. This legislation would require these groups to open 
their records, disclose their donors, and engage in a fair fight like 
everyone else.
  Last year, they stood here on the floor of this Congress after they 
tried for months to block the efforts of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays). They stood here, and they fought those efforts by saying that 
it is unconstitutional. They said the only thing that would be 
constitutional was disclosure. Now, I read from the chairman of the 
Republican Campaign Committee in this morning's newspaper he thinks 
disclosure is unconstitutional.
  What they think is that anything that would be a genuine reform of 
the corrupt campaign finance system that we have today in America is 
unconstitutional or any other excuse that they can come up with.
  We have pled with our Republican colleagues to join with us in a 
bipartisan effort. We have offered other opportunities for them to 
participate, such as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, to give the taxpayers 
the right to know what is happening with this subsidized activity.
  But they have reached the conclusion that they cannot keep their 
power in this Congress, and their power over the American people, if 
they operate in the open. It is essential to them that they begin--and 
they have already begun--a program of political character assassination 
where the gun for the political assassination is pointed and the 
bullets are paid for, but we do not know who paid for them.
  That is the whole idea. One can take corporate money, one can take 
Iraqi money, one can take Cuban money, one can take any brand of money 
one wants and no one will ever find out.
  The reason they will not engage us in debate today is they have 
nothing to engage us with. They know they are wrong. They are afraid. 
That is why they have previously blocked us from coming to this floor 
after telling us we would have an open opportunity to debate the issue. 
They are afraid to debate the issue of why they have to rely on secret 
money. They know it is wrong. They absolutely know it is wrong to 
pollute the political process of America with hidden money. They are a 
big standard barrier for reform.
  A great man from Arizona has said this is the latest indication of 
the corruption of the American political system. He has joined in a 
bipartisan effort with Members in the other body to reform this system. 
We cannot even get a fair vote on the floor of this House.
  So we must rely on a motion to recommit to deny these 527 
organizations the opportunity to get the telephone tax cut that is 
being proposed here today.
  Let me make it clear to my colleague from California who talks about 
bipartisanship. This motion to recommit is not going to delay the 
approval of this telephone tax repeal by one second. As soon as this 
motion to recommit is approved, it will join my amendment with this 
bill, we will repeal the tax, and, at the same time, we will get a 
little equity for the people of America and a little openness in our 
democracy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) 
still has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by returning the compliment to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). It has been a pleasure to work 
with him. I also want to commend him for his efforts yesterday, not so 
much the victory of normalizing trade relations with China, the world's 
most populous country, but rather the way in which he went about it. It 
was a bipartisan vote. I think it was a good and informed debate, 
profound debate on the floor of this House yesterday.

[[Page H3850]]

  I have got to say today's debate has been disappointing, because it 
has not been about the topic at hand, which is tax policy, which is 
specifically this Congress finally, after 102 years, coming to grips 
with the telephone excise tax that was put in place as a temporary 
luxury tax to fund the Spanish American War that has continued to 
burden our consumers, and today is actually a burden and a barrier to 
telecommunications, which is the point of the debate today.
  I want to tell my colleague that I was informed by the staff some 
time ago during this debate that the parliamentarians had informed them 
that I could raise a point of order to say that the speakers on this 
debate would have to keep their comments within the subject matter, 
which is the telephone tax, and not campaign finance reform. I chose 
not to do that, because I did not want to close down debate 
unnecessarily. We did try on our side.
  We beseeched our colleagues on this side to try to keep it on the 
issue, because this is a great issue in the sense that Republicans and 
Democrats came together to try to solve a very real problem to move our 
country forward, in this case, to repeal an outdated telephone tax that 
is a burden on our economy and it particularly burdens low-income 
families.

                              {time}  1445

  We hear a lot from the other side of the aisle about how various 
Republican tax proposals are not properly distributed across the 
economy so that they really impact the poorest among us. Ninety-four 
percent of America's families have telephones. So we are talking about 
getting rid of a tax every one of those families pay every month on 
their phone bill. It is a disproportionate burden on the budgets of the 
lowest-income families in our country. It is a disproportionate burden 
on our seniors in this country who rely on telephones. It really is a 
lifeline for their everyday communication with the outside world.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has pointed out a 
number of times, this is also a tax that, frankly, is very difficult to 
impose now because of new technology, because of the difficulty of 
deciding what in fact is appropriate to have the telephone tax attached 
to in the new world of modern telecommunications.
  So I am sorry we did not have a better debate today on the issue 
before us. With regard to the comments of my colleague from Texas on 
the Committee on Ways and Means, I am sorry he had to put a partisan 
spin on the debate before us. I disagree with what he said. I do not 
think we can draw a line through this Chamber through the middle and 
say, gee, all Republicans are against this, all Democrats are for that. 
I do not think we can castigate Republicans for being against reform. 
We are for reform. I myself put in a campaign finance reform bill every 
session I have been here.
  I believe in disclosure, as do my colleagues. We also believe in 
doing it the right way, and not a telephone tax bill; not with regard 
to one narrow piece of legislation; not without the proper information, 
as I said earlier from the Treasury Department of the Clinton 
administration, which is way overdue on its report to us on this very 
topic.
  Let us do this in a smart way. Let us do it in a way that is 
comprehensive, so that whether we are called a 527 or a 501(c)4 or 5, 
or whatever number is attached to a candidate, they are treated the 
same way, with the same principle, which is that that candidate should 
have to disclose the sources of their donations. I applaud my colleague 
from Massachusetts because he has done that in a comprehensive way in 
his campaign reform proposal.
  But today is a cynical partisan attempt. Again, it is disappointing 
to me, because I thought in this case we had something we could come 
together with as Republicans and Democrats and do for our constituents 
in a positive way. At the end of the day, we will. We will. We will be 
able, I think today, by sending such a strong message from this House 
on a bipartisan basis to move forward a repeal of a tax that probably 
should have been repealed 101 years ago, a tax on everybody's telephone 
use.
  I would just make one final comment, and that is that when we talk 
about civility in this Chamber, when we talk about how to work in a 
bipartisan way, when we talk about how we can move legislation forward 
that all of our constituents care about, I think it is important we 
begin to cultivate certain kinds of approaches and certain kinds of 
Members and a certain approach to issues. And I would ask my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, and on both sides of the aisle, to look 
into their hearts and say is this the way we want to proceed? Is this 
what is going to encourage civility and encourage moving us ahead as a 
country in this Congress? Even in an election year, colleagues, we 
should be able to get together and do the right thing for other 
constituents.
  I think we will do that today. I strongly encourage my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to join us in finally repealing this tax, 
joining the telecommunications revolution of this century and repealing 
a tax from the end of the 19th century.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3916, ``The 
Telephone Excise Repeal Act''. I am proud to be an original cosponsor 
of this overdue piece of legislation. The Spanish-American War is over 
and so should this tax which was imposed on talking to fund the 1898 
war. This tax is a ``tax on talking.'' It has been extended, lowered, 
increased and temporarily repealed but yet it continues to exist today. 
This 102-year-old tax affects telephone service, cellular phone service 
and access to the Internet.
  Americans work very hard in this country. It is unfair to impose an 
additional burden on these hard working Americans by requiring them to 
pay a tax that was implemented to fund a war that has been over for at 
least a century.
  H.R. 3916 will eventually eliminate the 3-percent Federal excise tax 
on telecommunications services. A 1-percent reduction will occur each 
year for the next 3 years, allowing the telephone excise tax to be 
fully repealed by October 1, 2002.
  H.R. 3916 repeals an antiquated tax that hurts many American families 
and small businesses. This unsubstantiated telephone excise tax clearly 
violates our economic principles. When it was implemented in 1898, it 
was considered a luxury tax. I guess access to a telephone in 1898 was 
considered a luxury. Today, access to a telephone is a necessity. The 
repeal will encourage growth in telecommunication services and will 
give all Americans a tax break on their phone bill. This excise tax 
does absolutely nothing to promote the use of phone service. It merely 
goes into the government's general revenue account to be spent on 
anything the government desires. There is absolutely no economic or 
social justification for this outdated tax.
  When I was elected to represent the second district of Nebraska, I 
maintained two priorities: one, was to fight any and all attempts by 
the Federal Government to take more money away from Nebraskans; and 
two, let Nebraskans keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their 
paychecks. Nearly 40 percent of the average American family's income 
goes toward taxes. We need to give Americans a tax break. Now is the 
time to eliminate the telephone excise tax. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. President, I rise to take this opportunity to thank 
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman, and the chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, Mr. Archer, for bringing H.R. 3916, the Telephone 
Excise Tax Repeal Act, to the floor today.
  On February 16, 1898, the Federal Government enacted a temporary 
excise tax on telephone service to fund the Spanish American War. 
Although the war lasted just under 6 months, the Federal excise tax 
created to fund it, is still in effect over 100 years later, forcing 
consumers to continue to pay this tax on all their telephone services.
  The Federal excise tax on phone service has long outlived its purpose 
and relevance. It is a regressive tax that is inappropriate in today's 
world where the telephone is not a luxury but a practical necessity. 
The Federal excise tax is a tax that discourages communications in a 
world that is becoming more and more dependent upon technology and 
communications. It disproportionately hurts the indigent, particularly 
those households on either fixed or limited incomes, and rural 
customers, because they have higher phone bills on average, due to 
comparatively more long distance calling. The Federal excise tax is 
essentially a tax that discourages communications.
  H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act, would eliminate the 
3-percent Federal excise tax on telecommunications services phasing in 
a complete repeal of the tax over the next 3 years. A 1-percent 
reduction will occur each year for the next 3 years, allowing the tax 
to be fully repealed by October 1, 2002.
  The removal of the Federal excise tax on consumers phone bills will 
immediately lower consumer phone bills, saving American consumers over 
$5 billion a year. Accordingly, I

[[Page H3851]]

urge our colleagues to join us in repealing this antiquated ``tax on 
talking,'' by supporting H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal 
Act.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues, Mr. Portman and Mr. 
Matsui, and support H.R. 3916, the Phone Tax Repeal Act. In 1898, 
Congress approved a ``temporary'' tax of one cent on long distance 
phone calls, as a way of funding the Spanish-American War. When this 
tax was implemented, there were only about 1,300 phones in America. 
Today, more than 94 percent of American households have at least one 
phone, not to mention multiple phone lines or celluar phones.
  The Spanish-American War ended that same year, but the ``temporary'' 
tax still exists. Currently, anyone who makes a phone call or uses a 
phone line to dial up to the Internet pays a 3-percent Federal excise 
tax on that call. Low-income families, senior citizens, and anyone else 
on a fixed income are especially burdened by this tax. They should not 
have to spend their hard-earned money on a useless and outdated tax.
  Telephones, and other telecommunication technologies, have become a 
necessity in today's world. They are no longer a luxury enjoyed only by 
a privileged few. To tax necessities such as these, especially when we 
have a surplus, is unfair, repressive, and senseless.
  This legislation would have a real and beneficial effect. Families 
would see an immediate reduction in their phone bill once the tax is 
repealed, giving them more money to spend as they, and not the Federal 
Government, see fit.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Americans have put 
up with this outdated tax for too long. It is time to permanently 
repeal this not-so-temporary tax.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support 
of repealing the grossly outdated Spanish-American War phone tax. The 
3-percent Federal excise tax on phone calls that was created in 1898 to 
pay for the Spanish-American War. At that time, it was called a 
``temporary'' tax.
  Parents have to pay the tax every time their child calls home collect 
from college; grandparents pay it when they call their grandchildren; 
and sons and daughters pay it every time they call their mom on 
Mother's Day.
  This ``tax on talking,'' is a regressive tax, that unfairly adds to 
the tax burden of hard-working Americans.
  It also demonstrates how hard it is for the government to end a tax. 
Even though the Spanish-American War has been over for a century, and I 
have been assured that the Spanish threat has ended, the Federal 
Government has continued to collect this tax.
  President Ronald Reagan said, ``Government does not tax to get the 
money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.''
  It has taken a Republican Congress to find the courage to curb the 
growth of spending, balance the budget, and to continue to reduce the 
tax-bite on hard working American families. The Republican House is 
poised to repeal this unfair, regressive tax, but the latest reports 
from the Clinton-Gore administration indicate that they want to 
continue to make Americans pay it.
  Reagan was right, ``government always finds a need for the money it 
gets.''
  Vote ``yes'' on this bill. The Spanish-American War is over.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Doggett moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3916 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 6, after line 11 (at the end of section 1(d)), add the 
     following new paragraph:
       (3) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to bills 
     rendered to an organization described in section 527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 unless that organization elects 
     to make the disclosures within the reporting requirements in 
     the Internal Revenue Code contemplated by the bill H.R. 4168 
     of the 106th Congress.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who has been a part 
of the effort to get a discharge petition so that we can take up, 
through regular order but has thus far been blocked, this whole issue 
of the 527 stealth PACs.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and as I have been listening to the debate, I have found it 
interesting that people would be talking about why are we mucking up 
this bill with this nonrelated issue. There is a pretty simple answer 
to that question.
  If we only allowed the regular legislative process to work, we would 
not have to do this. But remember, when we had the Shays-Meehan bill on 
the floor, opponent after opponent after opponent of the bill came 
forward and said, all we really need to do is to have disclosure. That 
is what this is all about.
  I would hope that the majority would finally agree to allow a simple 
disclosure bill, the bill of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore). All 
we are trying to say is, the 527s should not promote secrecy. Money is 
going to be spent in politics. What we are saying is it should not be 
spent in secrecy. We ought to shine the good sunshine and let the 
people know who is spending how much money in political races.
  This being our only opportunity, I commend the gentleman from Austin 
for coming up with a very innovative amendment today. This will give us 
a clear up or down vote on whether we are for it or whether we are 
against it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who has led this House in the effort to get 
campaign finance reform through a number of sessions, and who I am 
pleased to have support this motion to recommit.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett) not only for his motion to recommit, but his commitment to 
this issue, as well as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who has 
done great work on this.
  What we are trying to do here is to get Members from both sides of 
the aisle to come together and at least say we are not going to give 
this tax break to those 527s.
  Now, I do not know why anyone would be confused or puzzled or 
nonplussed as to why we would use any opportunity in the rules to bring 
this to the attention of the Members. We cannot get a vote up or down 
on this. This is an abuse of the campaign finance law that we are 
seeing every day abused. This is our opportunity to do something about 
it.
  It is not good enough for Members to say we are all for disclosure. 
Talking the talk is not good enough. Walking the walk is what is 
required. In this instance, there are 527s that will not disclose where 
the money comes from, and it is our responsibility to make sure that 
they do, and that is why we need to pass this law and pass it now.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen), who has been already a victim of these 527 stealth 
PAC attacks.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The gentleman from Ohio was saying earlier this is a partisan effort. 
Well, there is no reason why this should be a partisan effort. It is 
our democracy that is at stake. Republicans and Democrats have a stake 
in restoring some credibility to this system, and we cannot have that 
credibility, we will not gain that respect unless we have full 
disclosures for these stealth organizations, these section 527 
organizations, that are out there raising unlimited amounts of money 
with no accountability, no disclosure.
  If it is a fundamental principle on the other side that they want 
disclosure, this motion to recommit will give it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore), who is a large man in stature but gentle in 
personality; and I

[[Page H3852]]

am convinced that contrary to today's Roll Call, he did not jump anyone 
on the floor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), or anyone else 
concerning this bill.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say today that this is not a 
Democratic idea, this is not a Republican idea, this is an idea that is 
good for the American people, and this should be the law in our 
country, and that is full disclosure.
  As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) pointed out, we are 
not here to try to abuse anybody; we are just asking for an opportunity 
for an up or down vote on this proposition of full disclosure.
  The people in this country are cynical about our form of government, 
about our electoral laws, because they see scandal after scandal about 
campaign finance fund raising. We can get people enthused about our 
government again, we can get people excited about the opportunity to 
participate in our democracy if we will only go with this proposition 
of full disclosure and tell the people in this country who is trying to 
influence their votes so, again, they can make an informed decision 
when they cast their ballot.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is not only linked to this 
telephone tax; it is linked to everything that is happening in this 
building and throughout this country.
  The gentleman challenged me to look into my heart, and I will do 
that. I look into my heart, and I think of the seniors who are out 
there who are forced to choose between getting a prescription and 
buying food. I see a pharmaceutical company that can dump unlimited 
amounts--millions of dollars--into attack ads, as they have done 
against the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and other Members of this 
body.
  I look into my heart, and I see the problems of public health; and 
yet I know the tobacco companies are dumping millions of dollars of 
undisclosed money to assassinate the character of those who would do 
something about it.
  I look into my heart, and I think about those who are getting managed 
right out of their health care and cannot get the health care they 
need, and I know the managed care companies are dumping millions of 
dollars into these campaigns to be sure this Congress does nothing 
about that or any of the other issues I have mentioned.
  And perhaps even more importantly, I think of the schoolchildren of 
this country. They cannot even get their agenda up in the Congress 
because they do not have a 527. That is what I see when I look into my 
heart.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say this: I am tired of people coming to 
this Congress and being hammered into giving money to secret stealth 
organizations and then having their cohorts come out and say, we will 
duck, dodge, twist, and turn, but just do not make us do anything about 
it this year. Wait until we have left the House. Then, maybe 100 years 
from now, like this tax we are repealing, we will get around to doing 
something about it.
  The American people demand reform now and this is our one 
opportunity. I challenge my Republican colleagues to buck their 
leadership. They know we are right; that is why they have not been out 
here speaking against it. They know the American people deserve full 
disclosure for a complete democracy. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of 
the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton) oppose the motion to recommit?
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to crank this thing down to a little lower 
level of intensity. I do not know why we are having this discussion, 
anyway. We all want illumination. We do not want to have people hiding 
behind 527s or 501(c)3s, or 4s or 5s or 6s. No one wants that. It is 
just the process we are going through. And we want to do it right, so 
it is right by not only us but also the American people.
  Two years ago in the IRS reform bill we directed the Joint Committee 
on Taxation and also the Treasury Department to report to the Congress 
by January. The joint committee report was completed on time, the 
treasury report was not. At the request of my boss, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer), I have been working for several weeks to develop a 
meaningful, sound and responsive package of proposals to expand the 
disclosure by tax exempt organizations, and work on that package is 
well underway.

                              {time}  1500

  I hope we will complete it relatively soon. We have been working all 
day on this thing. We worked yesterday. We will be working tomorrow on 
into next week. I would like to feel that when this is completed it 
will satisfy many of the things which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett) is interested in.
  But the point is we are still hearing, and we are waiting to hear 
from the Treasury Department. Earlier today, the Treasury passed on the 
opportunity to tell the Committee on Ways and Means when we are going 
to hear from them. It is really unfortunate that the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett) continues to insist on consideration of the limited 
aspect of political activities by tax exempt without insisting on 
guidance of from the administration.
  Let me be clear. The administration's report was mandated by law. We 
do not have it. We are waiting for it. We do not have it. My friend 
accuses us of stalling, and I wonder whether this is not the pyromaniac 
posing as the firefighter.
  Today we are considering repeal of the telephone tax, which was 
enacted even before I was born, which is a long time ago. That proposal 
has broad bipartisan support and has been fully considered. The same 
cannot be said, I am afraid, of the proposal of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Today I have got to say in my heart, he talks about his heart, I will 
talk about my heart, is not the time and not the place for this debate. 
I wish to assure my colleagues on the other side and on this side that 
there will be an opportunity for full consideration of the important 
issues raised by my colleague from Texas. We are getting at it. We are 
trying to do it. We are trying to get that report out of the Treasury. 
And as soon as it comes, maybe even before it comes, we are going to 
have a suggestion here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, for yielding 
me the time; and I appreciate his words as to his commitment to doing a 
thorough investigation of the issue of disclosure, not just 527s but 
all of the tax-related committees, including the 501s.
  I do have a copy of the motion to recommit now. I appreciate, with 
all the talk about disclosure, that it was disclosed to us several 
minutes ago. I have looked at it. I would just make two very simple 
points.
  One is, it has nothing to do with the bill before us, which is repeal 
of a 102-year-old telephone excise tax. That is what is before this 
Congress.
  Again, I want to applaud my friends on the other side of the aisle 
for working with us together in a bipartisan fashion to finally put an 
end to this Spanish-American War tax as we go into the 21st century and 
which is a barrier to telecommunications and an unfair tax that should 
have been repealed a long time ago. It was put in as a temporary tax 
and a temporary luxury tax at that. Finally we are getting rid of it.
  Second, I will say, having looked at this, it is a very interesting 
motion to recommit. It, basically, says that 527 corporations could 
continue not to disclose anything so long as they agree to continue 
paying a 3 percent Federal excise tax. So it is a clever way to attach 
it to the legislation at hand in order to avoid, I suppose, the 
germaneness problems that the parliamentarian would otherwise raise or 
we would raise and he would confirm. But it is not a very strong 
enforcement mechanism.
  I would say, if the gentleman is serious about it, he ought to go 
back to the drawing board, work with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton), work with others who want to put

[[Page H3853]]

this together in a strong bipartisan way to come up with legislation 
that makes sense in a comprehensive way to deal with this real problem 
in a real comprehensive way.
  So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if they 
want to get something done for the American people, vote for the repeal 
of the telephone tax. If they want to do it in a clean way that sends a 
strong message that does not involve partisan political politics with 
what should be a very straight forward and a very important 
constructive step by this Congress, vote ``no'' on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208, 
nays 214, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               YEAS--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--214

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bateman
     Clay
     Coburn
     Davis (FL)
     Kennedy
     McInnis
     Meek (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Scarborough
     Spence
     Weiner

                              {time}  1522

  Messrs. METCALF, EVERETT, TANCREDO, LAZIO and SIMPSON changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HORN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420, 
noes 2, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 233]

                               AYES--420

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode

[[Page H3854]]


     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--2

     Murtha
     Stark
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bateman
     Clay
     Coburn
     Kennedy
     McInnis
     Meek (FL)
     Minge
     Ortiz
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Scarborough
     Spence
     Vento
     Weiner

                              {time}  1534

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, due to family commitments in Colorado, I 
was unable to vote on final passage of the following bill, H.R. 3916. 
Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 233, I was unavoidably 
detained. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 233.

                          ____________________