Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman. I would say to my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I are extending our hands again, just like we did last year. We do not need the Wu amendment to help provide more funding for important wildlife programs. I urge Members to put the politics of this debate aside and choose instead to work together to meet our common objectives. That is a far better approach. I urge Members to accept this offer in good faith. Vote no on the Wu amendment, and work with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and me to meet our common objectives to deal with wildlife programs, like we did last year, in a collegial and reasonable way. Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, a bill to grant permanent normal trade relations status to China. The central tenet of America's trade policy should be threefold: opening markets for goods produced by American workers, improving our nations economy, and promoting American values and ideals abroad. In this sense, I believe that our trade policy should encourage reform, while demanding a level playing field for international commerce. This has already yielded many benefits for America in rural and urban areas alike. Indeed, within my congressional district in southwest Virginia, approximately one in every four jobs is tied to exports. The expansion in free trade in recent years has allowed Lynchburg and Roanoke to become two of the 25 fastest growing export regions in the U.S. However, we have yet to include one of the world's largest emerging markets in this process. China, a nation of over 1 billion people, has been hamstrung over the years with outmoded laws and trading practices put in place by the Communist regime. Even with these barriers in place, China is becoming a thriving market for U.S. products and services, and is already our 5th largest trading partner. If we can bring China into a rules-based trading system and dismantle the barriers put in place by it's failed economic philosophy, we can open up a massive new market to American goods and services. Some have argued that opening the U.S. market to Chinese-made goods will have a detrimental effect on U.S. workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States already has an open market for most goods originating in China and the rest of the world. It is China whose market is closed to the products designed by U.S. engineers, manufactured by U.S. workers and exported by U.S. companies. If we open this market to U.S. goods and services, American workers stand to gain a tremendous benefit from the additional demand generated by China's huge population. At the same time, I do share the concerns many have raised regarding our national security and China. Specifically, I am concerned with the findings of the Cox Commission that indicates that China is engaged in a concerted campaign to steal militarily sensitive equipment. These efforts by the Chinese government combined with the provocative stance towards the democratic republic of Taiwan, are a cause for serious concern. I am also deeply concerned with the pattern of human rights abuses by the Chinese government. Human rights in China is imperative and the United States must continue to press China in that direction. As a nation dedicated to freedom and the rights of the individual, we have a responsibility to speak out when those rights are violated, whether at home or abroad. The most effective way to influence change in China is to engage the Chinese government in ways that emphasize open trade and democratic reform. If we attempt to isolate China, the reality is that we will lose jobs to other nations that will not cut off trade, but rather take advantage of the situation. With PNTR the United States can use the WTO to eliminate unfair Chinese trade barriers that exclude American products. Failing to pass PNTR simply gives the lion's share of trade benefits away to other nations, while doing nothing to help U.S. workers and consumers. It is critical that we adopt the approach of opening China up through increased westernization of the Chinese people. Trade and contact is building greater desire for western ways, including democracy. The Chinese people have a long history and change will be slow. The way to fight for progressive reform in China is not by abandoning the playing field, but through continued exposure to democratic ideas such as free markets and free speech. The Internet revolution has eliminated economic and political barriers throughout the world. Free markets and free speech go hand in hand. With 8.9 million Internet users and over 15,000 web sites already based within China, the Internet has the potential to offer a dramatic improvement in the quality of life for millions of Chinese citizens as well. By offering China the opportunity to enter the community of rule- abiding nations, we have a chance to create real and lasting change in China. At the same time, we must continue to work aggressively to ensure that China follows the rules of the international trading community. Trade and commerce will lead directly to progress and freedom. We must continue fighting for a level playing field for trade--one on which our nation, our American workers and American consumers alike can win.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, all relevant committees have filed their reports on H.R. 3615, the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, and I was unable to add Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina as a cosponsor. However, Congressman Spratt is a strong supporter of the legislation and agrees that rural citizens deserve to have the benefits provided by the legislation, which passed the House on April 13. I regret that he was not able to be included as an official cosponsor.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the bill considered by the House today should put to rest any undue concern on the part of the American people that Congress intends to tax their Internet access. By keeping Internet service unregulated and unburdened by taxation, we have allowed millions of Americans to access these services and, in turn, created a boom in electronic commerce that has transformed the way we live and do business today in this country. H.R. 1291 reaffirms the decision made more than a decade ago that access fees should not be imposed on Internet service providers. This has allowed consumers in droves to access the Internet on an affordable flat-rate basis, rather than a per-minute basis. It's simple economics: the less you tax supply, the more consumer demand you create. I recognize that parts of this bill might create the mistaken impression that Congress is encouraging Federal regulators to impose access fees on Internet telephone services. I want to make clear that this bill is no way meant to encourage the FCC to apply existing access charges to providers of Internet telephone services. Rather than pile on additional charges for Internet users, we ought to first figure out how to reform telephone access charges as Congress instructed the FCC to do in 1996. The last thing we want to do is impose charges that will discourage consumers from embracing the Internet and the innovative services that will revolutionize the way we live and work.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and commend him for this excellent substitute. Mr. Chairman, many Members of this Chamber feel like I do. They support many of the conservation and resource management programs and objectives of this bill, yet they are concerned about the way the bill treats such thing as property rights, land acquisition, and important budget priorities like social security, Medicare, and debt reduction. I agree with the gentleman from New York, that this legislation has the potential for being a great legacy piece of legislation, but we have to make sure that that legacy is not a mountain of debt. The Thornberry substitute is designed to give these Members a place to go. Simply put, this amendment provides some essential fixes to CARA. First, it defers spending on CARA to 2006, thus reducing the competition between the spending in this bill and other more important priorities, like preserving social security, strengthening Medicare, reducing the debt, and improving education. Second, it improves and strengthens funding for PILT, payments in lieu of taxes, something vitally important for the Members of this House who represent districts, as I do, where there is already a very substantial ownership of land by the Federal government. In my district, one-third of all the land in my district, more than 1 million acres, is owned by the Federal government. The localities in my district do not receive adequate compensation for the loss of the use of that land which could be used for a whole host of purposes that generate revenue for schools, for roads, for other local needs. Funding PILT is a very high priority, and that is a good improvement in this substitute. Third, the substitute improves the protection of private property by protecting inholders and maintaining current property protection laws. Finally, it ties a portion of the Federal land acquisition money to a demonstrable reduction in the $13 billion operations and maintenance backlog in our national forests, parks, and rangelands. To wrap up quickly, this backlog in much needed work on our currently owned Federal land is vitally important. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture, I can tell the Members the pressing need we have to take care of the land we own now, and this substitute will do just that. The Thornberry amendment will move this bill in the right direction and bring us much closer to supporting conservation and resource management without jeopardizing our budget priorities, the protection of private property, and the appropriate balance between land acquisition and land maintenance. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GOODLATTE. And that is 10 minutes on each side?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would have to defer to the gentleman whose amendment is on the floor.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this sales tax debate is very interesting. In fact, we are going to continue that debate with hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary soon. But as far as this legislation today is concerned, it is nothing more than a red herring attempt to divert the attention of this Congress and the American people from the task we have at hand today, which is to protect folks like the young students that were at our E-contract 2000 press conference with the majority leader a little while ago, who themselves, 15-year-old kids, said do not put taxes on access to the Internet. That is what this bill is about, keeping some of the most unfair, most regressive taxes, taxes that hurt the lowest income Americans from being imposed on the Internet and denying those people the opportunity to participate in the information age, the educational opportunity, the opportunity to shop on-line. When we allow States or other entities to impose those taxes, they hurt the lowest income people the most, but they hurt the Internet, which is benefitting the United States as well. It is vitally important that we take a very, very cautious approach towards allowing taxes of any kind on the Internet, because the Internet is the engine causing our economy to grow. Nearly half of the growth in our economy is attributable to the high-tech industry, and the Internet is the engine that is driving that growth. We have, so far, been very successful in encouraging 135 nations around the world, members of the World Trade Organization, from restraining this impulse to put more and more taxes onto the Internet. And that is what we are trying to do today, is to set an example for the States, but, even more importantly, for the rest of the world; that as this economy grows, we not tax it to death. There is a saying here in Washington that when government sees something moving, they try to regulate it to death. If it keeps moving, they try to tax it to death. And then, of course, if it stops moving, well, then they subsidize it. That is not the model for the Internet. We have been able to keep it free of taxes, we need to continue in that direction. This is a great first step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to reject amendments that would shorten this extension of the moratorium of 5 years and to reject amendments that would eliminate the provisions in this bill that take out the grandfathered States. Let us be fair to everybody and let us reject the idea that this has anything to do with the States collecting their sales taxes. It does not. It is simply a way for us to protect American citizens from unfair and discriminatory taxes on the Internet. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and reject these amendments that are going to be offered. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letter to the Speaker from the Governor of Virginia in the Record: Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Governor, Richmond, VA, May 9, 2000. Re: H.R. 3709 Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Office of the Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Hastert: Thank you for your efforts in moving H.R. 3709 to a floor vote tomorrow. You and Majority Leader Armey are to be commended for the leadership you have demonstrated in moving the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce's recommendations from concept to swift legislative action. The people of the United States can be proud of your efforts on their behalf. Please extend to your colleagues in the House my encouragement to vote for H.R. 3709 in its current form. Congressman Cox and Congressman Goodlatte have crafted a bill that will protect millions of women and men who use the information from unfair and discriminatory tax burdens and from taxes on their monthly Internet access charges. The extension of the moratorium against ``multiple and discriminatory'' taxes targeted at the Internet is necessary to protect the Internet from tax and regulatory burdens that will inhibit full growth of the Internet. In the words of President Reagan, ``The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'' What's moving in the Internet Economy are bits and bytes and electrons of Internet through cables and wireless satellite connections--and the moratorium presented in H.R. 3709 is necessary to protect government's inherent appetite for more revenues even during times, such as we enjoy today, of economic plenty. The prohibition against taxes on monthly Internet access fees is necessary to reduce the financial burden on working men and women and families who want to log on the Internet. This is crucial for several reasons. First, America's policy should be to encourage all Americans to log on the Internet and empower their lives with access to all of the social, educational and economic opportunities located on the world wide web. Second, a prohibition against taxes on Internet access would reduce the price of Internet access and thereby help close the ``digital divide.'' Third, Americans already pay a tremendous tax load to log on the Internet because of the taxes they pay on telephone and cable lines they use to connect to the Internet. Moreover, these basic tax protections are necessary if the people of the United States are to realize all of the social and economic benefits promised by the Internet and if the United States is to maintain its economic dominance in the Information Economy. For all of these reasons, I encourage the House to pass H.R. 3709 tomorrow. Very truly yours, James S. Gilmore, III, Governor of Virginia.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit. It was just mentioned on the other side that we are all going to have the opportunity, and it is a great opportunity to vote against new and discriminatory taxes on the Internet, to vote against taxes on access to the Internet, one of the most regressive taxes there is because everybody pays the same amount no matter what their income is. If that is the case, why would we vote to only make that provision for 2 more years instead of for 5 more years? It is important to understand this has absolutely nothing to do with the sales tax. The sales tax is a separate debate. We will have the opportunity to have hearings on it and debate it. This is an issue about discriminatory taxes on the Internet, taxes that appear on people's phone bills and other bills that get them on the Internet, and we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to keep it at 5 years. Those who voted for the Delahunt amendment earlier because they were concerned about their grandfathering, can now join us in voting against this motion to recommit because the grandfathering is left eliminated, as it was in the original bill, which is the way it should be. This should be equally and fairly applied to everyone. So we have the opportunity today to send a message to the American people that we do not want to tax children's opportunity to be educated on the Internet, people's opportunity to shop on the Internet. This is what this is about, not the sales tax issue.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Madam Chairman, this is extraneous to the purpose of this bill. This bill is not about sales taxes on the Internet. The gentleman has attempted to craft this in such a way that it does not cover sales taxes, but this is an issue that we have not gotten into. We have announced that we are going to hold hearings on this. We would love to have the gentleman's participation in the process, but this amendment is not germane to the legislation at hand. I strongly urge my colleagues not to adopt an amendment which has not been examined or properly debated. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will have the effect of shortening of length of time that taxpayers of this country are protected from some of the most regressive taxes that we can imagine, taxes on access to the Internet. It is important to remind everybody again, this legislation had absolutely nothing to do with the collection of sales taxes on the Internet. That issue is going to be addressed starting with hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary this month. If we are going to try to mix these two things together, we are going to do so to the great detriment of the American people. Five years is actually a compromise. There were members of the Committee on the Judiciary who wanted to make this extension permanent. And why not make it permanent? After all, permanent extension of very unfair taxes on people's charges, the things that show up on their bills from their Internet service provider companies, where they have to pay $2, $3, $5, whatever the charge might be to be able to just get online and to experience all the benefits of the Internet, we have to pay that same amount no matter what our level of income is, that is a real effort to dig the hole deeper that many people have called the digital divide. The way to close that divide and get every American on the Internet is to eliminate these access charges. I oppose it for that reason. I also oppose it because it takes away something we have done in this legislation, and that is to stop some States who were grandfathered under the old law from being able to continue these very unfair access charges. This bill ends those grandfathered provisions in the bill. This amendment takes that away. So to me, when I hear the other side talking about fairness, yes, if they want to talk about sales tax fairness, I would love to participate in that debate at another time. If we want to really talk about fairness, let us have a law that applies fairly to everybody with regard to these very unfair taxes on access to the Internet. Five years is the amount recommended by the Commission report. At the appropriate time, I will introduce a letter that I have just received addressed to the Speaker of the House and asked to be made in order in the full House, a letter from my Governor, who was the chairman of this Commission, strongly endorsing the provisions of this legislation as they stand. It is my hope that we will follow it, because it was not just the majority who wanted the 5-year extension of this moratorium. Governor Leavitt, the opponent of the recommendations of Governor Gilmore, his alternative proposal included a 5-year extension of the moratorium on these very unfair taxes on access to the Internet. So if we are going to be fair and we are going to recognize a truly consensus opinion, we ought to go forward with the 5-year extension and reject a 2-year extension, which quite simply puts the taxpayer in this country at jeopardy in a short period of time of again facing these very unfair, regressive charges that have nothing to do with the imposition of sales taxes on the Internet. There is nothing to prevent the Congress or the States from addressing the sales tax issue individually, collectively, in cooperation with the Congress, at any time during this extension of the moratorium. So this 2-year extension is simply a way of taking away from taxpayers a protection against an unfair tax that creates this digital divide. Instead, I would hope that everyone would reject this amendment and promote closing the digital divide by removing some of the most unfair taxes on the Internet. Some that exist now in some States, they should be removed, and in the States that are under the current moratorium, that moratorium should be extended for 5 years. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, the gentleman has asked for a total of 20 minutes additional time?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in a few minutes, we will have the opportunity to all join together and vote for final passage of this legislation, which will do a great thing for the American taxpayers. In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit. Let us not miss the opportunity to keep these access charges, these regressive charges. We talk about the digital divide. This is the kind of thing that keeps a lower-income person off of the Internet, these kind of taxes on access to the Internet. That is what this is about. It is not about the sales tax. That is to be saved for another day, and we are going to take that up and hold hearings on it in the Committee on the Judiciary soon. This is about another issue that we ought to join together and pass and send to the American people a message that we want them all on the Internet, we want them all availing themselves of these new opportunities in the Information Age and no one should be left out because of discriminatory taxes, because of multiplicitous taxes or because of taxes on access to the Internet. I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and join with me in supporting final passage of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I am concerned that I have a lot of speakers over here. How would that time be managed?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, Congress created the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce in 1998. The purpose of the Commission was to study the Internet taxation issue and submit a report of its findings to the Congress. The Commission consists of representatives from State and local governments, the administration, the business community, and others. In its recent report to Congress, the Commission suggested that the Internet tax moratorium that was in existence, created at the same time the Commission was created, be extended for 5 years. While there was disagreement on several Internet tax issues, which we are not addressing today, including the sales tax issue, which some want to keep bringing up, there was complete agreement on a 5-year moratorium extension. While Congress is not bound by the Commission's report, we should follow its suggestions unless there is good reason to do otherwise. After all, that is why Congress created a Commission. No good reason exists to deviate from the Commission's suggestion that the moratorium be extended for 5 years. Choosing to extend the moratorium for 2 years is completely arbitrary. There is no evidence that a 2-year extension is better than the Commission's suggestion of 5 years. Again, Congress should follow the Commission's lead, especially on an issue where there was complete agreement unless there is good reason not to, which does not exist here. While it is true that the recent Commission report was not supported by two-thirds of the commissioners, which was a requirement for submitting formal recommendations to Congress, it is also true that some of the issues examined by the Commission were supported by two- thirds of the commissioners. Extending the moratorium for 5 years was one of those issues. If we take this amendment and extend it only 2 years, we are depriving the American taxpayers a protection against one of the most unfair, most regressive taxes one can imagine. Sales taxes, which the gentleman wants to take up and find a way to impose on people who buy goods and services on the Internet, they are regressive taxes because, generally speaking, they hit lower income people harder than other taxes. But taxes on access to the Internet, which is what we are addressing in this bill, not the sales taxes, are far more regressive because, regardless of one's income, regardless of one's wealth, one pays the same amount of tax for that access to the Internet. So, again, for everyone here who wants to close the so-called digital divide and make sure that every American has the opportunity to have access to the Internet for the educational benefits that arise from it and the ability to do business on it to have jobs related to it, to be able to shop on the Internet, to be able to advocate political points of view on the Internet, we should not be allowing a tax on that access. So we should extend this moratorium as long as we could. But we certainly should extend it no less than what the two-thirds majority of the commissioners recommended, what the Committee on the Judiciary has recommended, because we are, in effect, simply keeping people free from some of the worst taxes that one can possibly impose. I urge my colleagues again to reject this amendment. Amendment Offered By Mr. Chabot to the Amendment Offered By Mr. Delahunt

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I would insist upon my point of order.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I object to the consideration of another amendment when there are two amendments pending on the floor.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3615, the bill just considered.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute considered as adopted to H.R. 3615 under the order of the House of earlier today be the amendment in the nature of a substitute that I have now placed at the desk, which shall be considered as read.