[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9254-9265]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3916, TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX REPEAL 
                                  ACT

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 511 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 511

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3916) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
     telephone and other communication services. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment recommended 
     by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill 
     shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.

[[Page 9255]]

  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 511 is a closed rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act. This 
bill is designed to amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the 
excise tax on telephone and other communications services.
  H. Res. 511 provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment 
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill 
shall be considered as adopted upon adoption of the resolution. 
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions, as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to unintended consequences in crafting tax 
policy, the Federal Government has shown a tendency to lead the way. If 
you remember, in 1991 the U.S. Congress passed a luxury tax on yachts 
to punish the rich, a tax that subsequently bankrupted American 
companies, forced sales in that sector to drop 75 percent, and resulted 
in the loss of about 30,000 jobs. That Congress thought that the luxury 
tax was a tax on the rich, and the unintended consequences of their 
actions resulted in a tax on American workers and the loss of their 
jobs.

                              {time}  1200

  Today we are going to discuss the telecommunications tax, a tax that 
is currently having the unintended consequence of limiting the 
opportunities of lower- and middle-income Americans to have affordable 
access to the information superhighway. In effect, it is a tax on 
talking and on access to the Internet.
  This particular telecommunications tax was enacted by Congress in 
1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War. While the war has been 
over for 102 years, like most temporary taxes, it is now a permanent 
tax. In 1990, the same tax-happy Congress that brought you the 
disastrous luxury boat tax, decided in its wisdom to make the 
telecommunications tax permanent.
  The tax originally consisted of a penny tax on long distance calls 
costing more than 15 cents. It is important to note that in 1898 there 
were approximately 1,376 telephones in this entire country, and that, 
of course, this luxury tax would affect only the very, very rich. 
However, in the 21st century, 102 years after this temporary tax was 
initially enacted, this tax hits not just the rich, but all Americans.
  In fact, this regressive tax hammers lower-income Americans the 
hardest. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, families earning 
between $10,000 and $30,000 a year spend between 3 and 4 percent of 
their incomes on telecommunications. Those Americans making $70,000 or 
more each year spend about 1 percent of their income on 
telecommunications.
  Nonetheless, the truth is that all Americans must now pay a 3 percent 
tax on their phone bill, an estimated 252 million business and 
residential phone lines. The tax can be applied to telecommunications 
services such as general household phone lines, cellular phones, fax 
lines, computer modem lines, subscriber line charges, add-on features 
such as call waiting and caller ID, toll call services and directory 
assistance. As you may have guessed, all Americans, rich and poor, now 
have to pay the tax.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just one more tax that makes the costs 
prohibitive for lower-income Americans to go online and participate in 
the new high-tech economy. As one who supports reducing the overall tax 
burden on American families, I wholeheartedly support this bill. H.R. 
3916, which will reduce the tax to 2 percent beginning 30 days after 
enactment, reduces the tax to 1 percent on October 1, 2001, and repeals 
the tax entirely on October 1, 2002.
  The high-tech revolution has changed the way that every American 
works and lives and has provided Americans with more freedom, 
prosperity, and job opportunities for the future. The foolish and 
shortsighted tax policies of the 101st Congress should not be permitted 
to act as an unreasonable toll against low- and middle-income Americans 
attempting to get on the information superhighway.
  This Congress will repeal the telecom tax and ensure that excessive 
government taxation does not threaten the ability of all Americans to 
participate in opportunities that will be presented in the high-tech 
future.
  This rule was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules on 
Tuesday, and I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with 
general debate and consideration of this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial measure that came out of the 
Committee on Ways and Means unanimously. The measure would repeal over 
3 years the 3 percent telephone excise tax imposed originally to 
finance the Spanish-American War. Under the bill, the 3 percent tax 
would be reduced to 2 percent 30 days after it becomes law, it will 
drop to 1 percent October 1, 2001, and would be fully repealed on 
October 1, 2002.
  The tax has been repealed on two previous occasions, but was brought 
back in different forms to pay for World War I and World War II, and 
then increased to help fund the Vietnam War. It was made permanent in 
1990, with the money going into the general treasury.
  Phasing out this excise tax is a worthy objective, as is it is 
becoming increasingly difficult to administer as technological advances 
blur the distinction between taxable and nontaxable communications 
services. I would echo the concerns expressed by the administration, 
however, that this revision should be enacted as part of an overall 
budget framework for maintaining fiscal discipline, for paying down the 
national debt and for extending the solvency of Medicare and Social 
Security. The administration estimates that Federal receipts would be 
reduced by $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 and $20 billion over fiscal 
years 2000 to 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I do not oppose the underlying bill, but the 
Committee on Rules missed a golden opportunity during consideration of 
this measure, an opportunity to address what is rapidly becoming a 
digital divide in our Nation between those who have access to 
technology and those who do not. Several of my colleagues offered 
amendments to tackle this divide, but the majority in the Committee on 
Rules chose to disallow their consideration.
  I am going to urge Members to vote no on the previous question, and, 
if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to make in order the Towns-Waters-Dingell substitute and the Wynn 
substitute. Both of these proposals immediately cut the telephone 
excise tax from 3 percent to 1 percent, and then eliminate it 
altogether by September 30, 2002.
  The Democratic amendments would use the revenues from the phased-out 
telecommunications excise tax to fund various programs and grants 
designed to bridge the digital divide. No one doubts that electronic 
commerce has the opportunity to dominate our country's economic future, 
but this will happen only if electronic commerce is available to 
everyone in the country. Electronic commerce cannot work if low-income 
populations in our urban centers, in our rural communities, as well as 
Native Americans, do not have access to it. The Federal Government has 
the responsibility for ensuring that our children and adults have the 
opportunity to acquire the skills needed to succeed in a digital work 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, here we are to talk about repealing a tax 
that was put on in 1898 to fight the Spanish-

[[Page 9256]]

American War. We thought the war lasted 8 months. I used to teach 
history at high school and then later at college, and I suggested that 
was one of our quickest wars, only to find out as we look at how many 
dollars have been collected on this tax over the years that in any 
measure of dollars, the Spanish-American War turned out to be the most 
expensive war in the country's history; $5 billion collected last year 
in a tax that was put on in 1898 to fight the Spanish-American War.
  Of course, it was a tax on only the rich, because in 1898 only the 
rich had telephones. Now it is a tax on the people whose telephone is 
the lifeline of their life. It is a tax on people who use the telephone 
only for the most basic necessity, because it is a tax on the local 
service only. If you are on a fixed income, if you are a senior 
citizen, if you have a telephone to call your family, to call the 
doctor, to make an emergency call, if you never make a long distance 
call, if you try to pay only the smallest amount you can possibly pay 
and have a telephone, you pay this tax.
  Because we have a surplus, because we have balanced the budget, the 
old arguments of we need this money, how would we replace it, what 
program would we cut, no longer work.
  This is a reaction to what can happen when you show fiscal 
responsibility. It is a reaction to what happens when the Congress 
begins to use the yardstick of common sense. It is a reaction of what 
can happen when you take a tax that has now been on the books for 
almost every telephone bill for the last 102 years, occasionally phased 
out for a brief period of time, but always snatched right back. If we 
pass this bill, this rule today, which I am for, and if we pass this 
bill today, within the next few months, Americans that have on their 
telephone bill the line that says Federal tax or excise tax on their 
local phone service, will no longer have that. We eliminate this tax on 
the rich from 1898 that became a tax on those in the most difficult 
circumstances in the year 2000.
  I am pleased that the Committee on Rules has brought this rule to the 
floor today, and pleased that the Committee on Commerce is bringing 
this bill to the floor. I urge passage of both.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the repeal of the 
telephone excise tax, to thank the dear gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), but to oppose the rule.
  I do not quite understand why my Republican colleagues, who profess 
to wish to give the consumers a tax cut, have denied us an opportunity 
to offer an amendment which would give consumers an even bigger tax cut 
than the bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means in the 
amendment which would have been offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Towns), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and myself.
  The interesting thing is the leadership on the majority side 
seriously miscalculated if they believed that this is a tax reform that 
most Americans want. I know constituents care about tax cuts, but they 
want them to put money in the pockets of the citizenry, rather than 
making Republican Congressmen look good.
  The Towns-Waters-Dingell amendment, which is widely supported on this 
side, would save consumers about $1.5 billion more than the committee 
bill over the next 2\1/2\ years. During the phase-out period, our 
amendment also puts revenues from the excise tax into a trust fund to 
pay for programs that create digital opportunity for Americans who live 
in underserved rural and urban areas.
  Why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle afraid? Why do 
they not desire our approach? We give the tax cut earlier on in larger 
amounts, but we also put the money to work in spending for creating a 
tax fund which would enable us to begin to provide for access to the 
Internet and advanced telecommunications services for people of low 
income in rural and in underserved urban areas. That is what we should 
be really doing here.
  Unfortunately, the need which has to be met cannot be met without 
active assistance of the Government in terms of opening up these kinds 
of services by putting revenues collected from this excise tax into 
funds which will expand opportunity to receive services and to 
eliminate the digital divide. Without government help, Mr. Speaker, 
there are major areas of the country, major urban areas, as well as 
rural communities, where broad band services will simply not be 
provided. For our children to know how to use on-line services, 
resources and devices, we have to have this kind of intercession; not 
to establish any Federal preference, but, rather, to expand 
opportunities for service and to expand opportunities for all people 
involved in delivering this kind of service and an opportunity to 
compete fairly.
  I hope that when the previous question is raised, my colleagues will 
vote no. I hope that when the question is raised, Members will vote no 
on the rule, so that we can get down to a proposal which in fact will 
benefit the country.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman that in 1993 
and 1994 with overwhelming majorities in both bodies and a Democrat 
President, he could have done anything he wanted with that 3 percent 
and solved all of those problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to, since he has entered the Chamber, 
congratulate my very good friend, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio 
(Mr. Portman), for having taken the lead on this extremely important 
issue. He has done a great job in pointing to the importance of it and 
putting together a coalition that has included my colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. Speaker, creating digital opportunity is the priority that we 
have. I do not like to call it the digital divide. What we want to do 
is we want to make sure that we create opportunities for every single 
American to be able to have access to this information economy.
  We have this information-based economy, and we all know that it is 
tied to virtually everything that goes through some sort of 
telecommunications area, and the hindrance that is there is a tax. Our 
great historian, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), talked about 
the cost of the Spanish-American War and the fact that last year $5 
billion was collected for that. We are finally going to declare 
victory; and at the same time, we are going to reduce that one burden 
that has stood in the way of enhancing digital opportunity.
  The fact is, again, telecommunications is the foundation of this 
information-age economy that we have developed. In my State alone, it 
is amazing to look at the number of jobs, the number of families that 
are able to maintain and expand their standard of living because of 
these opportunities. It is about 800,000 in my State that have been 
created since 1993; and nationwide it is approaching 5 million, about 
4.8 million.

                              {time}  1215

  We want to do everything we can to expand that.
  Again, in California, 45 percent of small businesses, and the small 
business sector, as we all know, is the backbone of our economy; 45 
percent of those small businesses say that they use the Internet to do 
business, and anything that stands in the way to expand that, we very 
much want to repeal and address.
  So I believe that we have a great opportunity here to strike a blow 
for our quest to expand opportunities for every single American, to get 
in and enjoy this economy, because when we look at a family that has 
earned $25,000 or less, they have said that the one thing that stands 
in the way of their getting into

[[Page 9257]]

this information-age economy is the cost. So this is one step, a very 
important step, that we can take towards decreasing that cost and 
enhancing opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote. This will be another wonderful 
accomplishment when we move this through to the leadership, the Speaker 
of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and this great 
and very, very, very successful 106th Congress.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the previous question, because 
it undermines our efforts to bridge the digital divide. I want to thank 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
for coming up with an ingenious and innovative approach to providing a 
response to this very important and very serious problem.
  It is good to eliminate the excise tax and reduce telephone bills 
across the country, but what if one does not have a telephone in the 
first place, as we found on so many of our Indian reservations around 
the country where 50 percent of the people did not have telephones at 
all and, where in so many of our low-income communities, rural and 
urban, that same problem persists where telephone lines are not 
available to even begin to think about Internet access.
  More and more, America is transforming into a technology-driven 
nation, with every institution being impacted by the Internet and e-
mail. In this new tech-driven economy, computers are becoming the 
crucial link to education, to defense, to information, and training, 
and to commerce.
  For all Americans, personal and economic success will depend upon 
having the ability to understand and use these powerful information 
tools. However, according to the Commerce Department report, Defining 
the Digital Divide, a large segment of the population have no access to 
technology at all.
  Unless this changes, these poor families in both urban and rural 
areas will be left behind. Millions of Americans will not have the 
tools necessary to compete in the new economy and will become the first 
second-class citizens of the information age.
  But let us not kid ourselves. The digital divide is not just a 
problem for the residents of these distressed and rural areas and these 
urban communities. It is a problem for the entire national economy as a 
whole. If we do not extend technology access to all Americans, our 
skilled labor force will continue to be depleted, millions of tech jobs 
will continue to go unfilled, and private industries and the military 
will continue to have problems recruiting and retaining highly skilled 
individuals.
  H1B visas are not the answer. Hiring foreign workers will not solve 
our growing, long-term needs for highly skilled workers. Surrendering 
our Nation's pre-eminence is also not an option. The answer is to 
eliminate this digital divide and ensure that all Americans are given 
access to technology and training.
  The private and public sector both understand the importance of 
bridging the digital divide in America and are taking steps to bring 
technology to schools and libraries across America. I applaud them for 
their efforts. However, these efforts are not enough.
  To truly bridge the digital divide and improve the way our children 
learn, the Federal Government must step in and help provide funds to 
bolster these efforts and extend technology access to every home in 
America. Only then can we assure that all of our children will have the 
tools necessary to compete in this tech-driven economy.
  I and many of my colleagues have numerous bipartisan legislative 
proposals to address the digital divide and extend technology for 
access to schools, libraries, computer centers and homes of all 
Americans. Many of these proposals would require Federal funding.
  Mr. Speaker, a defeat of the previous question will allow my 
colleagues and I to vote on the amendment of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Towns) to set aside the phasing out of the telephone excise 
tax in a separate digital divide fund, a fund that can be used to 
finance the massive effort needed to extend technology. We cannot and 
should not let the opportunity to set aside these revenues pass us by. 
I urge defeat of the previous question.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman), the sponsor of the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia very 
much for his support of this legislation and for allowing me to speak 
today on the rule. We are talking about the telephone excise tax. I 
want to get back to that and then perhaps address a couple of the 
points that have been made by my friends on the other side.
  First of all, to take us back to where we are here, this is a 
bipartisan effort that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I 
started some time ago; it has been bipartisan from the start. It is an 
attempt to look at our Tax Code in a time of prosperity and budget 
surpluses and see what makes sense and what does not. It is our sense 
that this is a perfect candidate for repeal.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) spoke earlier, the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, and he has also been a leader on 
this and also on the general issue of bringing to the attention of this 
Congress that telecommunications is indeed, as he said, a foundation of 
our economic growth. This is one part of that.
  This particular tax started back in 1898 at a time when the U.S. was 
engaged in a war with the Spanish and we wanted to get a little 
revenue, so we went after a luxury item called a telephone that very 
few Americans had, only the wealthy; and we said, let us put a tax on 
this telephone, that very few people have, to help pay for this war. 
Teddy Roosevelt was just emerging as a national figure, as a war hero, 
and it was 102 years ago. It has gone up and down over the years.
  The history is actually very interesting, including the fact that 
during the Vietnam War, this tax was increased to 10 percent to help 
defray the costs of the Vietnam War. In fact, people were burning their 
phone bills on the street, as well as their draft cards, to try to 
protest the Vietnam War. But it is also a great example of what seems 
to me to be a truism, which is once you put a tax in place in this 
town, it is very difficult to get rid of it. In this case, it was a 
temporary luxury tax on an item that is no longer a luxury, a 
telephone.
  From a tax policy perspective, it is even worse. First, it is, of 
course, regressive. Families with lower incomes pay a disproportionate 
share of their family budget for the phone bill. Practically every 
family in America has a phone now. Ninety four percent of Americans 
have telephones. The seniors are particularly hard hit by this. They 
are on fixed incomes. They rely on the telephone as a lifeline, as a 
lifeline to the outside world, so their budget is particularly hard hit 
by this. So it is regressive.
  Second, it is not like other Federal excise taxes used for any 
purpose. It goes into general revenues. It is a revenue-grab, rather 
than, for example, the gas tax which goes to repair our roads and 
bridges. It is not even a sin tax, and there are some Federal excise 
taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Again, this one goes to no particular 
purpose. So from a tax policy perspective, at a time when we have the 
luxury to sit back and look at our Tax Code, what makes sense and what 
does not, it makes all the sense in the world to repeal this one.
  Finally, and most importantly, I think, in addressing the questions 
that have been raised today, it is a tax on telecommunications. Mr. 
Speaker, 96 percent of the Internet goes over phone lines, as we heard 
earlier today. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talked about 
it as the foundation of our economic growth. There is no more important 
catalyst to the economic growth. We are hearing today

[[Page 9258]]

about our first quarter results, over 5 percent growth, this is because 
of technology; and telecommunications as a real driver in our economic 
growth.
  This is a tax on every single Internet user. It is a tax on every 
small company in America. The large companies often have private lines, 
they are not paying this tax, but the small companies get hid the 
hardest. So at a time when we are concerned about the digital divide 
and access to the Internet, I think this is a great product.
  Now, I understand there is another proposal coming from the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Towns); and he is a friend, a good friend. I have 
not talked to him about the proposal. It has not been through our 
committee, I do not think it has been through the Committee on Commerce 
yet either, nor have there been any hearings on it. So I, frankly, do 
not know much about it.
  Again, we have been at this for several months, and I have not heard 
of it yet. But I am perfectly willing to sit down with the gentleman 
and others and talk about this, because I agree that we need to address 
the digital divide. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) and I, 
for instance, have a bill that we have been trying to get through that 
expands the ability to give a computer to a school. Right now it is a 
tax deduction, we think it ought to be a tax credit. We think other 
computers in the current status, which is computers only 2 years old, 
ought to be eligible. So I am very sympathetic to that general notion.
  But the thought of taking this phone tax and getting rid of it and 
giving those revenues back to those families, particularly those 
families again on the lower income scale that really pay a 
disproportionate share to me is what we ought to be doing here today, 
not taking that money and putting it into a trust fund that the 
government may use, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) said, 
I understand, for underserved areas, rural areas and so on. Let us look 
at that another day. Let us let this process proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot on this floor about how, gee, we are so 
partisan in the House of Representatives, and then when we bring a good 
bipartisan bill to the floor that has been bipartisan from the start, 
and I see my colleague from Texas who has been part of this from the 
start, and others, I think we ought to, as a group, come together and 
actually get something done for the American people and send it to the 
Senate with a strong bipartisan vote. Let us not slow this down or stop 
it or make it a confused product by adding new things at this point 
that are not items that have been vetted in the process or frankly that 
have been part of this process. Let us move this on to the Senate with 
a strong bipartisan vote so that we can actually get it to the 
President's desk and get it done for our constituents.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Towns).
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question and to allow the House to make in order a 
substitute that I would like to offer with the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Given the opportunity, I do believe many of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle would enthusiastically support our substitute which 
would give Americans a bigger tax cut than H.R. 3961 and begin to close 
the digital divide, with no new costs to taxpayers. We cannot ignore 
the digital divide issue; we must improve the way our children learn.
  Specifically, our proposed amendment would immediately reduce the 
telecommunications excise tax from 3 percent to 1 percent, and would 
repeal the tax entirely by September 30, 2002. This tax cut would give 
Americans over $1.5 billion, that is B as in boy, more in tax relief 
than they would get under H.R. 3961.
  Mr. Speaker, I think all Americans would benefit from the repeal of 
this regressive tax on talking, and a vote in support of the previous 
question is a vote against giving Americans greater tax relief than the 
bill currently gives. I believe this is an important improvement.
  Our proposed amendment would also dedicate the funds collected by 
this tax to telecommunications projects to help close the digital 
divide. Just as money collected from the gasoline tax is used to 
improve our Nation's highway infrastructure, money collected from the 
telephone excise tax should be devoted to improving our 
telecommunications infrastructure.
  For example, money in our Digital Divide Bridge trust fund could be 
used to fund grants and loan guarantees to accelerate private sector 
deployment of broadband networks in rural areas such as California, 
Louisiana, and the western United States. The projects may also include 
supporting wireless high-speed Internet development to schools in 
underserved urban areas like Brooklyn, for instance.
  We believe the revenue generated from this telecommunications tax 
should be earmarked for telecommunications projects, instead of getting 
lost in the general revenue and allowing the digital divide to continue 
to go unabated. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by urging my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question and to make our proposed 
amendment in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my good friend from Ohio that 
this amendment would really, really move us in the right direction and 
begin to make certain that people that are left out will now be in. I 
think he would support that, so I am hoping that he will read it 
quickly and then join the band.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise to take a strong stand to urge defeat of the previous 
question. There is a lot of rhetoric about the digital divide, but no 
one is really doing anything about it. We now have an opportunity to 
back up our rhetoric with an investment in our future.
  Specifically, there are proposals, one by my colleague, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Towns), which I support and one which I have 
introduced which would say that yes, we ought to cut the excise tax, 
but we ought to take a small portion of the excise tax and make an 
investment in closing the digital divide.
  Is the digital divide real? Absolutely. Consider a family making over 
$75,000 is 20 times more likely to have a computer than a poor family.

                              {time}  1230

  Consider that in public schools, wealthy school districts have a 
ratio of seven students to one computer. Poor school districts have a 
ratio of 16 students to one computer. We can do something about it by 
taking a small portion of this tax and directing it not to the general 
fund but to the specific purpose of bringing our young people into the 
21st century by providing computers that can be used in schools, in 
recreation centers, for training programs, for broad-band, for other 
uses. We are making a sound investment in our future.
  It is time that we eliminate the empty rhetoric about the digital 
divide and really did something about it. This is our opportunity. I 
hope my colleagues will defeat the previous question, allow the 
substitute amendments to be considered by this body and allow us to 
really work toward closing the digital divide that everyone is so happy 
to talk about.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3916, the Telephone 
Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2000. I am pleased to be an original co-
sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a tax whose time has come and it is time to be 
repealed. It was started over 100 years ago, during the Spanish-
American War, to raise

[[Page 9259]]

revenues; and it was started as, in effect, a luxury tax when only 2 
percent of Americans had telephone service.
  I can remember as a boy some years ago being at my grandparents' 
place up in east Texas, and they still used a party line, and people 
did not have many phones. Well, today about 97 percent of Americans 
have phone service in their home or they have cellular service, and 
also now with the rise in the use of the Internet people are being 
taxed there.
  I think it is a little bit more simplistic than our colleague, the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, pointed out, that somehow this is 
going to leverage an increasing boom in the high-tech market; but I 
think it is very important that this is one of the first tax breaks 
that we have seen come to the floor that is not a targeted tax break in 
one direction or does not just benefit the top 2 percent of the people 
with higher income. This is going to benefit the broad majority of 
American citizens out there since most Americans have some form of 
telephone service, some are on the Internet; but this is something that 
is going to put money back in the pockets of working American families, 
and that is why I cosponsored this bill. It is time to get rid of this 
tax.
  I do want to say to my colleague from New York, I think he raises a 
very important issue, and his approach may well do more in trying to 
deal with the digital divide, but underlying all of this it is time 
that we repeal this tax and put some money back in the pockets of 
working Americans and send this tax back to where it goes. We have 
dealt with the deficit. We are not in a period of war, and so it is 
time that we do away with it; and I urge my colleagues at the end of 
the day, depending on what we do with the rule, to pass this bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because 
it allows us to continue the pattern of fiscally irresponsible 
legislation that will squander the budget surplus drip by drip. Once 
again, we are being asked to waive the Budget Act in our rush to pass 
politically popular and, I might add, common sense legislation without 
regard for the consequences on our promises to retire the national debt 
and on our ability to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
  I submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules that would have 
added very modest protection to ensure that this legislation does not 
jeopardize fiscal discipline. My amendment would allow the repeal of 
the telephone excise tax to take effect so long as Congress and the 
President maintain our course of fiscal discipline. Specifically, my 
amendment would have made the implementation of the telephone excise 
tax repeal contingent upon certification that Congress and the 
President have taken actions to ensure that we are on a path to 
eliminate the publicly held debt by 2013 and to protect the integrity 
of Social Security and Medicare.
  This amendment represents a common sense principle that should be 
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. In fact, a bipartisan 
majority of this House has already voted in favor of the provisions of 
my amendment when we adopted the Shadegg amendment to H.R. 701, the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I agreed with many of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle when they argued during the debate on 
CARA that they should make sure that we are on a course to pay off the 
national debt and protect Social Security and Medicare before we spend 
the surplus on a new program.
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who agreed 
with me on that principle when it applied to spending bills, why they 
are not willing to even consider applying this principle to tax cuts? 
If they believe that repeal of the telephone excise tax is more 
important than eliminating the national debt and protecting the 
integrity of Medicare and Social Security, vote for this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am here to applaud the Committee on Rules 
for giving us the opportunity today on the floor of this House to have 
the first, and given the way the Republican leadership runs this place, 
perhaps the only vote in this new millennium on genuine campaign 
finance reform. We are going to do that today through the motion to 
recommit, because what has happened in American politics is more 
distasteful than ever. It made a little fun of it last year in Roll 
Call referring to the 527 loophole airbus. It is a giant loophole that 
has been committed in our campaign finance laws, and now it is being 
used to hammer people into giving huge contributions to political 
organizations to conduct character assassination of people with hate 
ads on the airwaves throughout this country.
  One can hammer a person to give $100,000 or a million dollars after 
they think they have gotten what they call fair treatment in this 
House. What they can tell that person they are hammering is that no one 
will be able to trace the money because they are going to run it 
through something called a 527, a giant loophole in the campaign 
finance laws. Some have referred to this loophole as the political 
equivalent of a Swiss bank account, and we have already begun to see 
how these 527 organizations operate. They operate in secret.
  Common Cause has referred to them as stealth PACs. One leading 
reformer in this country has said, this is the latest manifestation of 
corruption in American politics. That is John McCain, and we are going 
to put a stop to it today, at least in part, thanks to the Committee on 
Rules providing for a motion to recommit.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, the focus here is 102 years, 102 years of a 
temporary tax. I do not know about other Members here, but I can say 
that people back home, when they get that phone bill and they have 
difficulty understanding all those charges that appear and they ask 
why, and we are forced to tell them, well, believe it or not 102 years 
ago Congress passed a temporary tax. Now this Congress, I sense in a 
bipartisan way, will do the right thing and repeal that unnecessary tax 
that impacts every American family, and there may be people who have 
and will come to the floor to defend it and that is their right; but 
one has to ask themselves, I think, if we are not willing to repeal a 
102-year-old temporary tax today, when we are enjoying the surplus 
generated by the American people, then when will we do it?
  So I applaud those who have introduced this legislation.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. As I looked over the history of this tax, I thought I 
read that after the Spanish-American War this tax was repealed, and 
then at the start of World War I it was put back on; repealed after 
World War I; then it was put back on for World War II and then 
broadened to include the entire phone bill and that is where we are 
today. It is still around. Is that accurate?
  Mr. FOSSELLA. The gentleman's point being that we should not repeal 
it today?
  Mr. KLECZKA. No. The point being that it is not 102 years old and 
around since the Spanish-American War. It was repealed after that war 
in 1902. So the gentleman is inaccurate on that point.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Reclaiming my time. So much for semantics. The 
gentleman has every right to cast his vote to keep this tax alive, to 
say to the American people that he wants to keep this tax alive. I, in 
good measure and in good faith, say to the people of America that they 
deserve a break.

[[Page 9260]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for 
allowing this motion to recommit on the issue of section 527 political 
organizations, because this will be the first vote of the new year, 
really the first vote of the new millennium, on the issue of campaign 
finance reform.
  Time and time again I hear the Republican leadership state that the 
only way to fix our campaign finance system is through disclosure, but 
it is very cynical and hypocritical that they make that claim when at 
the same time they conduct themselves and their political cronies 
through the auspices of these section 527 political organizations.
  We have seen report after report of the Republican Party structure 
creating and funding secret political organizations to funnel corporate 
dollars to further the agenda of the extreme right. To do this, they 
use section 527 of the Tax Code which allows the right wing to hide the 
names of their donors and also hide how their money is spent.
  What is particularly disturbing about this is that the Republican 
leadership is allowing this cynicism to pervade the campaigns of their 
new candidates throughout the country.
  In my own reelection campaign in 1998, my Republican opponent used 
one of these section 527 groups to funnel $5 million, I stress $5 
million, in undisclosed and unaccountable dollars to malign me and try 
to defeat me.
  My campaign had a lot of success in tracking down the corporate 
sources given to the group on our own. It was not disclosed, but we 
were able to find out about some of them, and many of the corporate 
CEOs whose corporations gave to these groups; and I spoke to them, had 
no idea how their own dollars were being donated and spent because of 
the lack of disclosure.
  Two years after my campaign now, this same young Republican candidate 
that I ran against has now moved to a new district in New Jersey and is 
using these same methods in another run for the House, and here in the 
Capitol I am reading news reports that Republican leaders of the 
Congress are publicly pressuring lobbyists to donate to these same 
secret groups.
  Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have a vote on the floor to repeal an 
antiquated tax provision like the telephone excise tax. I am, in fact, 
a co-sponsor of H.R. 3916. However, I also think it is equally 
important to strip our Tax Code of these provisions which undermine our 
political process and our electoral integrity, and I challenge the 
Republican leadership, the self-described disciples of disclosure, they 
keep talking about disclosure, to bring a bill to the floor to end the 
abuses of section 527.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), and I thank the ranking member of the Committee 
on Rules for the opportunity to be able to speak to the legislation and 
the speed and expeditiousness of the Committee on Rules to bring this 
to the floor. Let me thank them very much for their hard work, 
realizing the work we had yesterday, the importance of their meeting to 
get this done.
  This is a great day for Americans, and this is a great day for Texans 
and a great day for the constituents that I represent in the 18th 
Congressional District. It is not often that we can come forward in a 
bipartisan way to say to those who monthly and sometimes weekly, 
depending on the structure they have for their telephone bill, to try 
to look in the hidden print and find a small percentage of dollars that 
are taken out of their hard-earned income; and we are now glad to say 
today we pronounce with the passage of this legislation the opportunity 
to return those dollars to them.
  The removal of the telephone excise tax is a value to all Americans, 
and because it was a tax that was indiscriminate and thereby reached 
those hardest hit Americans who work every day to make ends meet, to 
provide for their children, work at hourly wage jobs, of which we hope 
to increase the minimum wage, this is, of course, a bounty and a much 
appreciated repeal.
  The key here is that this tax was even. No matter what one's income 
was, it was an excise tax that one probably could not track as to what 
it actually did, and I hope that as we repeal this tax we will also 
give consideration to the idea of utilizing dollars to end the digital 
divide. It is an area of interest, as a member of the Committee on 
Science and Committee on the Judiciary dealing with H1B visas, that I 
realize is key; but I think that this valuable repeal of the tax is one 
that helps to give consumers right now a tax cut that they can 
experience and appreciate, and I would hope that as we do this we would 
realize that these random, undisclosed taxes, are ones that we can 
repeal in a bipartisan manner.
  I am gratified that this bill is on the floor, and I hope that it 
will ultimately pass to give relief to all taxpayers in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3961. This is a good bill that 
would close the digital divide. I also support the Towns-Dingell 
amendment that would reduce the telecommunications excise tax from 3% 
to 1%, and would repeal the tax entirely--effective September 30, 2002. 
This tax cut would give Americans over $1.5 billion more in tax relief 
than they would get under H.R. 3961.
  In addition, this amendment would dedicate the funds collected by 
this tax for telecommunications projects to close the Digital Divide. 
See--just as money is collected from gasoline taxes to improve our 
Nation's highway infrastructure, money collected from the telephone 
excise tax should be devoted to improving our telecommunications 
infrastructure. For example, money in the Digital Bridge Trust Fund 
could be used to fund grants and loan guarantees to accelerate private 
sector deployment of broadband networks rural areas throughout the 
United States. In addition, the projects may also include supporting 
wireless high-speed Internet deployment to schools in underserved urban 
areas like Houston. See--no matter the specific project, the revenue 
generated from this telecommunications tax should be earmarked for 
telecommunications projects and closing the digital divide, instead of 
getting lost in the general revenue.
  As you may know, Houston is home to over 1,000 technology companies 
and NASA. In fact, there are many technology companies that have 
developed due to the presence of the Johnson Space Center. Despite the 
heavy concentration of technology companies in Houston, not all our 
citizens are reaping the benefits of the digital economy. In fact, to 
ensure that all in society participate in the 21st century economy, it 
is imperative that information technology be accessible to all. Access 
to computers and use of the Internet is necessary for one's full 
participation in America's economic, political and social life. Today, 
use of information technology is rapidly becoming a requisite skill for 
employment, and the technology industry generally pays 80 percent more 
than the average private sector job.
  Like many other locales in our nation, the City of Houston is 
experiencing a ``digital divide''--a gap between those individuals and 
communities that have access and training in information technology and 
those who do not. A defeat of the previous question and a vote on the 
Towns-Dingell-Waters substitute will ensure that in this new 
millennium, Congress is indeed serious about providing equal access to 
technologies for all Americans.
  In closing and for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question and to make the Towns-Dingell-Waters amendment in 
order.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I welcome this reform to the Tax Code, and I am pleased 
that this motion to recommit will be the first vote on campaign finance 
reform this year. The shadowy political hit squads being set up under 
section 527 of the Tax Code should be required to disclose their 
contributors. I agree with the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Delay), who during the campaign finance debate last year said, and 
I quote, ``What reform can restore accountability more than an open 
book?''

                              {time}  1245

  So it is baffling why he opposes opening the books on these section 
527 groups.

[[Page 9261]]

  The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett) have legislation to require disclosure of these stealth 
political groups. Good government demands that we approve that bill.
  One section 527 organization is called Citizens for Better Medicare. 
This is a front group set up by the pharmaceutical industry designed to 
give the impression that regular citizens want to keep seniors' drug 
prices as high to maintain the industries profit margins.
  Here is how they work. Citizens for Better Medicare gathers the 
database of names that it claims are concerned citizens and then sends 
postcards on their behalf, often without their knowledge, to Congress 
with the message that seniors do not deserve prescription drug 
discounts.
  Then they hire a telemarketing firm to make unsolicited phone calls 
to these seniors to tell them why their drugs should not be cheaper and 
then swiftly connect them to Members of Congress. This practice is 
confusing and deceptive.
  The latest telephone scheme by Citizens for Better Medicare is to 
prey on children. A new web site, callyourgrandma.com, offers children 
phone cards with 10 free minutes of long distance so they can call 
their grandmother and explain why she does not deserve cheaper drugs. 
The catch, the kid has to submit personal information, a name, address, 
and phone number.
  Developing a database of children to exploit and in order to justify 
their discriminatory pricing practices, that is what the drug companies 
are doing through Citizens for Better Medicare. I am pleased that we 
are going to have a chance today to stop that practice.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit and 
in support of the base bill. This motion to recommit would add to the 
pending bill language requiring full disclosure by 527 organizations, 
these 527 groups that collect secret money and never disclose who gave 
or how much they gave.
  Our system of government is based on openness, disclosure, and 
accountability. Our system of government is threatened by secret money. 
Nondisclosure allows special interest groups with unlimited funds to 
bid for seats in Congress and to buy seats in Congress.
  A patriot from Arizona who ran for President of United States this 
year is a champion and a strong supporter of full disclosure.
  This should not be a partisan issue. People on both sides of the 
aisle should come to the support of this kind of responsive campaign 
finance reform.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe this to the American people.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to give one of the examples of what our motion to 
recommit will address. It is called Shape the Debate. This is the Web 
page from Shape the Debate, one of these clandestine organizations 
whose specialty is character assassination.
  Shape the Debate advertises to those who might contribute $100,000, 
$1 million or more. It advertises on the World Wide Web, so this can be 
Iraqi money or Cuban money or Chinese money or just homegrown special 
interest corporate treasury money, that the good thing about 
contributing to Shape the Debate is that it will not disclose to anyone 
who gave how much.
  That is the beauty to those who have discovered the 527 loophole, 
because their idea of shaping the debate is to do something that no one 
else of any political persuasion is doing in America today, and that is 
to use a secret stealth attack. The hitman can take the blood money to 
engage in that character assassination and one never knows, one never 
is able to trace the money.
  That is why our Republican colleagues think they cannot control the 
House in the future unless they rely on the money passing secretly by 
stealth to these 527 committees that totally subvert the Federal 
election laws.
  We have called on them. I have called on them. The gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) has called on them to join us in a bipartisan 
correction of this loophole. At every opportunity, no matter how much 
we had pled, they said, no, wait till next year. Wait until we have won 
the next election by using character assassination with secret money 
that no one will be able to trace. Wait till that happens, and maybe 
next year we will think about doing something about it.
  I think the American people want reform now. That is what this motion 
to recommit is all about; it represents the first vote of the new 
millennium on the floor of this House for campaign finance reform. 
Despite the efforts of this Committee on Rules at every turn to block 
us from discussing campaign reform, despite the fact that the use of 
527 secretly funded ads has been called another example of corruption 
in American politics by John McCain, the Republican leadership has 
blocked us from considering reform. Today, finally we have a tiny 
opening to do what is right for the American people by beginning to 
clean up this mess.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will have to confess, when he started talking about 
all that Chinese money, I thought he was showing us President Clinton's 
1996 disclosure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to make in order two substitutes. The Towns substitute phases out 
the telecommunications excise tax more quickly than the underlying bill 
and sets aside the proceeds in a Digital Bridge Trust fund.
  The Wynn substitute also sets aside the revenues to fund various 
programs to overcome the digital divide.
  If the previous question is defeated, Members will have the 
opportunity to vote up or down on those proposals.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment to the resolution and extraneous materials into the 
Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question 
so that we may debate all the issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the amendment to the resolution and extraneous 
material that I referred to earlier, as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 511, the Rule Providing for Consideration of H.R. 
                3916, to Repeal the Telephone Excise Tax

       On page 2, line 7, after ``Ways and Means;'' strike ``and 
     (2)'' and add the following:
       ``(2) without intervention of any point of order, one hour 
     of debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in section 2 of this resolution to be offered by 
     Representative Towns of New York, equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; (3) without 
     intervention of any point of order, one hour of debate on the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in section 3 
     of this resolution to be offered by Representative Wynn of 
     Maryland, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent; and (4)''
       On page 2, after line 8, add the following:
       Section 2.

   Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3916, as Reported

  Offered by Mr. Towns of New York, Ms. Waters of California, or Mr. 
                          Dingell of Michigan

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     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.

[[Page 9262]]

       (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 1 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, 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.

     SEC. 2. DIGITAL BRIDGE TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--The National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration Organization Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating part C as part D; and
       (2) by inserting after part B (47 U.S.C. 921 et seq.) the 
     following new part:

                  ``PART C--DIGITAL BRIDGE TRUST FUND

     ``SEC. 131. TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States a trust fund to be known as the Digital 
     Bridge Trust Fund, consisting of such amounts as may be 
     appropriated or credited pursuant to subsection (b) or (d).
       ``(b) Transfer of Amounts Equivalent to Certain Taxes.--
     There are hereby appropriated to the Digital Bridge Trust 
     Fund amounts equivalent to 100 percent of the taxes received 
     in the Treasury under section 4251 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to tax on communications) pursuant to 
     bills first rendered on or after the 30th day after the date 
     of the enactment of this part.
       ``(c) Expenditures.--Amounts in the Digital Bridge Trust 
     Fund may be made available only for the benefit of rural and 
     urban areas, and Native Americans, in a manner that targets 
     such assistance for areas, communities, and populations 
     (including low-income families and individuals) that are 
     underserved with respect to information technology needs, 
     employment, and education, and only in accordance with 
     provisions of law enacted after the date of the enactment of 
     this section that provide for the availability of such 
     amounts.
       ``(d) Treatment as Trust Fund.--For purposes of subchapter 
     B of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the 
     Digital Bridge Trust Fund shall be considered to be a trust 
     fund established by subchapter A of such chapter.''.

   Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3916, as Reported

                    Offered by Mr. Wynn of Maryland

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Computers in Our Community 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) There is a growing gap, commonly referred to as the 
     digital divide, between individuals who have access to 
     computers and the Internet and individuals who do not have 
     such access.
       (2) Households with incomes of $75,000 or greater are more 
     than 20 times more likely to have access to the Internet, and 
     more than 9 times more likely to have a computer at home, 
     than households with the lowest income levels.
       (3) Although 58.9 percent of Americans earning over $75,000 
     annually frequently use the Internet, only 16 percent of 
     Americans earning between $5,000 and $10,000 annually use the 
     Internet.
       (4) Black and Hispanic households are \2/5\ as likely to 
     have home Internet access as white households.
       (5) The digital divide is an emergency that will 
     detrimentally affect the economy and society of the Nation 
     absent immediate corrective action.
       (6) The e-rate program of the Federal Communications 
     Commission ensures that schools and libraries receive 
     telecommunications services at a discounted rate. Although 
     tremendously successful, this program is insufficient because 
     there is twice the demand for funding as there is funding 
     available.
       (7) According to statistics by the Department of Education, 
     there is a dire need for additional computers in some 
     schools. Schools with the highest concentrations of poverty 
     had an average of 16 students per instructional computer with 
     Internet access, compared to 7 students for each such 
     computer in schools with the lowest concentrations of 
     poverty.
       (8) The computer industry is the fastest growing industry 
     in our country. There is a documented shortage of information 
     technology workers. Increasingly, workers in all fields of 
     employment will need to be computer literate. Ensuring that 
     classrooms have computers that are used effectively to teach 
     students will help meet this need.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 
                   INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ORGANIZATION ACT.

       The National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating part C as part D; and
       (2) by inserting after part B the following new part:

              ``PART C--COMPUTERS IN OUR COMMUNITY PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 131. PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this part to establish programs to 
     advance the computer skills of American workers in the global 
     economy and to use computer technology to advance the general 
     educational performance of American students.

     ``SEC. 132. STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Program Authority.--From 85 percent of the amount 
     made available under section 137 for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, shall make 
     grants to each participating State educational agency for 
     allocation among local educational agencies in such State.
       ``(b) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) State allocations.--The Secretary shall allocate to 
     each participating State educational agency an amount that 
     bears the same ratio to such 85 percent of the amount made 
     available under section 137 for a fiscal year as the total 
     amount allocated to such State educational agency under title 
     I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for 
     such fiscal year bears to the total amount allocated to all 
     such participating State educational agencies under such 
     title I for such fiscal year.
       ``(2) Local allocations.--Each participating State 
     educational agency shall allocate to each participating local 
     educational agency an amount that bears the same ratio to the 
     amount allocated to such State for a fiscal year as the total 
     amount allocated to such local educational agency under title 
     I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for 
     such fiscal year bears to the total amount allocated to all 
     such participating local educational agencies in such State 
     under such title I for such fiscal year.
       ``(c) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) Participating state educational agencies.--In order 
     to qualify as a participating State educational agency for 
     purposes of this section, a State educational agency shall 
     create or modify and submit to the Secretary a technology 
     plan that--
       ``(A) identifies the current ratio of students to computers 
     in each school district in the State, and specifies the 
     Internet connectivity of the computer systems in such 
     districts; and
       ``(B) complies with such other criteria as the Secretary, 
     in conjunction with the Secretary of Education, shall 
     prescribe to assure that the funds provided under this 
     section are being used properly in schools to advance the use 
     of technology to effectively teach students computer skills 
     and improve the general educational performance of students.
       ``(2) Participating local educational agencies.--In order 
     to qualify as a participating local educational agency for 
     purposes of this section, a local educational agency shall 
     create or modify and submit to the State educational agency a 
     technology plan that proves such local educational agency is 
     meeting the goals of the technology plan of the State 
     educational agency.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--Funds provided under this section may 
     be used for the following:
       ``(1) The purchase of computers that meet a minimum 
     standard as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) The electrical wiring that schools may require to 
     connect computers to each other and to the Internet.
       ``(3) Hiring technological assistants to ensure that each 
     school has access to a trained computer professional to 
     provide technology training for teachers and perform 
     maintenance of computer systems. A maximum of 1 technological 
     assistant per 5 elementary schools, 1 technological assistant 
     per 3 middle schools, and 1 technological assistant per

[[Page 9263]]

     2 high schools may be paid for with such funds.

     ``SEC. 133. DIGITAL DIVIDE WORKFORCE TRAINING INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) Program Authority.--From 5 percent of the amount made 
     available under section 137 for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, shall 
     carry out a program to award grants, on a competitive basis, 
     to nonprofit organizations for the establishment of job 
     training programs for preparing individuals for computer and 
     technology related jobs.
       ``(b) Criteria.--The Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall establish the criteria for 
     administering the grants under this section, which shall 
     include the following:
       ``(1) Grants under this section shall be for 2 years.
       ``(2) Grant applicants shall serve low income individuals, 
     as such term is defined in section 101 of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801).
       ``(3) Grant applicants may submit an application under this 
     section only after consulting with the appropriate local 
     workforce investment board under such Act, and obtaining a 
     favorable recommendation of the application by such board.
       ``(c) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to applications that--
       ``(1) are submitted by nonprofit organizations that have 
     experience in providing technological training;
       ``(2) propose job training programs that will serve 
     individuals most in need of computer and technology training, 
     as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(3) provide flexibility in training in order to 
     accommodate a greater number of individuals.
       ``(d) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, an 
     applicant shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     Secretary of Labor, may reasonably prescribe. Each such 
     application shall provide a system for tracking the 
     employment success of individuals who attend any proposed job 
     training program.
       ``(e) Follow-up.--The Secretary shall review the success of 
     the program under this section and submit a report to 
     Congress thereon not later than 2 years after amounts are 
     first available for implementation of the program.

     ``SEC. 134. COMMUNITY CENTERS AND LIBRARIES TECHNOLOGY ACCESS 
                   GRANTS.

       ``(a) Program Authority.--From 5 percent of the amount made 
     available under section 137 for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, shall 
     carry out a program to award grants, on a competitive basis, 
     to provide assistance to community centers and libraries to 
     provide greater access to, instruction on, and assistance 
     with computers and the Internet
       ``(b) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish the criteria 
     for administering the grants under this section, which shall 
     include the following:
       ``(1) Any entity requesting funds under this section shall 
     provide such assurances as the Secretary may require to 
     demonstrate that the entity will provide, from other sources 
     (which may include contributions from State or local 
     government), an equal amount of funds for carrying out the 
     purposes of the grant.
       ``(2) Eligible recipients of grants under this section 
     shall be community centers that receive Federal, State, or 
     local government funding, public libraries, and nonprofit 
     organizations working in conjunction with such centers and 
     libraries.
       ``(3) Each recipient of grant funds under this section 
     shall use such funds to establish a program for providing 
     greater access to, instruction on, and assistance with 
     computers and the Internet.
       ``(4) Grants under this section shall be for 3 years.
       ``(c) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to applications that 
     demonstrate that the program for which funds are sought--
       ``(1) will be able to sustain funding in the absence of 
     Federal funding; and
       ``(2) will serve areas with a low rate of access to 
     computers and the Internet.
       ``(d) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, an 
     applicant shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably prescribe. Each 
     such application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the proposed program, including how 
     the program would will make technology available to areas 
     with a low rate of access to computers and the Internet;
       ``(2) a demonstration of the need for computers and access 
     to the Internet in the area to be served; and
       ``(3) a description of the type technology that will be 
     provided.

     ``SEC. 135. COMPUTER CURRICULUM PARTNERSHIP.

       ``(a) Program Authority.--From 5 percent of the amount made 
     available under section 137 for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, shall 
     carry out a program to award grants, on a competitive basis, 
     to institutions of higher education that create successful 
     partnerships between their education and computer departments 
     to create software or Internet applications--
       ``(1) to train teachers in using computers, and using 
     computers to teach students; or
       ``(2) to use in the classroom to teach students.
       ``(b) Criteria.--The Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of Education, shall establish the criteria for 
     administering the grants under this section. Such criteria 
     shall include priorities for awarding funds under this 
     section--
       ``(1) based on the need of the schools being served and 
     their educational priorities; and
       ``(2) giving preference to those applicants that will 
     operate their programs in conjunction with local educational 
     agencies.
       ``(c) Clearinghouse.--The Secretary shall, in conjunction 
     with the Secretary of Education, develop a clearinghouse to 
     make available information derived from the activities of 
     recipients of funds under this section to other schools 
     throughout the United States.
       ``(d) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, an 
     applicant shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     Secretary of Education, may reasonably prescribe. Each 
     application shall include a description of the format of the 
     software or Internet applications to be created.

     ``SEC. 136. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       ``Of amounts available to carry out a program to award 
     grants under each of sections 133, 134, and 135, the 
     Secretary may not use more than 1 percent to pay 
     administration costs under that section.

     ``SEC. 137. REGULATIONS.

       ``The Secretary may prescribe such regulations as may be 
     necessary to carry out this part.

     ``SEC. 138. APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part for any fiscal year an amount not to exceed the amount 
     deposited to the Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund for 
     such fiscal year pursuant to section 9511 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

     ``SEC. 139. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this part--
       ``(1) the terms `State educational agency' and `local 
     educational agency' have the meanings provided such terms in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965; and
       ``(2) the term `institution of higher education' has the 
     meaning provided such term in section 102 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.''.

     SEC. 4. COMPUTERS IN OUR COMMUNITIES TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 
     9510 the following:

     ``SEC. 9511. COMPUTERS IN OUR COMMUNITIES TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund', consisting of such 
     amounts as may be appropriated or credited pursuant to this 
     section or section 9602(b).
       ``(b) Transfer to Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund 
     Amounts Equivalent to Certain Taxes.--There are hereby 
     appropriated to the Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund 
     amounts equivalent to 100 percent of the taxes received in 
     the Treasury after September 30, 2000, under section 4251 
     (relating to tax on communications).
       ``(c) Expenditures From Computers in Our Communities Trust 
     Fund.--Amounts in the Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund 
     shall be available for making appropriations to carry out the 
     provisions of part C of the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration Organization Act.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     subchapter A is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 9511. Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund.''

     SEC. 5. REDUCTION OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER 
                   COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4251(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--The term `applicable 
     percentage' means 1 percent.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered 
     after September 30, 2000.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``To amend the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     Organization Act to establish a program to distribute funds 
     to State educational agencies to advance the use of 
     technology to effectively teach our students computer skills 
     and improve the general educational performance of students, 
     and for other purposes.''.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I

[[Page 9264]]

move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
  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 agreeing to the 
resolution and also on agreeing to House Concurrent Resolution 331 
postponed from yesterday on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 201, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 229]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     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
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     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
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bateman
     Becerra
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Hilliard
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy
     McInnis
     Minge
     Scarborough
     Spence
     Weiner

                              {time}  1312

  Messrs. MOAKLEY, SPRATT, ROEMER, CUMMINGS and NEAL of Massachusetts 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette.) The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 404, 
noes 15, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 230]

                               AYES--404

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     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
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     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
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     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
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     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

[[Page 9265]]


     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     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
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     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
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--15

     Berry
     Dingell
     Engel
     Hinchey
     Klink
     Markey
     Meeks (NY)
     Obey
     Owens
     Stenholm
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Waters
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bateman
     Becerra
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Hilliard
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy
     McInnis
     Meek (FL)
     Minge
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Spence
     Taylor (NC)
     Weiner

                              {time}  1321

  Mr. BERRY and Mr. MARKEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________