Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to prevent this Congress from betraying the veterans of the United States, a betrayal of a promise made to them by this Congress only 2 years ago. Two years ago, in the teeth of opposition from all of the veterans' organizations, Congress repealed the ability, repealed the ability of veterans to recover in disability payments for tobacco-related illnesses. But in partial compensation for that deed, the same bill, section 8209 of the law, Public Law 105-178, called on the Attorney General, I am quoting now, and the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, as appropriate, ``to take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies amounts corresponding to the costs which could be incurred by the Department of Veterans' Affairs for treatment of tobacco-related illnesses of veterans if such treatments were authorized by law.'' In other words, with one hand Congress said, we want to take $16 billion that we are paying out annually to veterans in compensation for disabilities caused by tobacco smoking; and we are going to say, you cannot do it any more. We are going to take it away from the veterans. But we are not going to be quite such hideous people; we are going to see that we ask the Attorney General and the Department of Veterans Affairs to sue the tobacco companies and see if they can recover money on behalf of the veterans that will go to the veterans in compensation instead of the disability payments. Now this bill comes. In 1999, the Department of Justice initiated a lawsuit, a Federal lawsuit, against the tobacco companies seeking to recover claims against tobacco companies, as most of the States have done, as many local government cities and towns across this country have done. Why should the Federal Government not recover on behalf of our citizens and in particular on behalf of our veterans recover monies because of damages they sustained because of the improper actions of the tobacco companies, especially after Congress promised in 1998 to urge the Department of Justice to do so? The Department of Justice initiated the lawsuits, and what do we have now? In this bill and in other appropriation bills, we have directions that say, you may not use any funds for this lawsuit; not for lawsuits in general, for this lawsuit on the tobacco companies. Congress is coming in almost like a bill of attainder and saying, we do not like this particular lawsuit; we do not want you to recover money for the veterans. We want the veterans to continue to suffer uncompensated, not compensated through disabilities, we closed that off 2 years ago; and we will not allow you to try to recover benefits for them through a lawsuit. We are afraid of what the courts may find. The tobacco companies are going to defend themselves in court; and maybe the court, after hearing the evidence, will say they are not liable, but we do not want to take that chance. We want to say to them, you do not have to defend yourselves in court because of your actions. We will not let the Attorney General and the Department of Veterans Affairs participate in a lawsuit to recover the money. Never mind that we promised it 2 years ago. Never mind that this is completing the betrayal of the veterans that this Congress started 2 years ago. How can we not hang our heads in shame if we do not adopt this amendment to change the policy in this bill? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment must pass in order to save the honor of this Congress so that it cannot be said that this Congress, and I must add in good conscience, the Republican leadership of this Congress, consciously and deliberately betrayed the veterans of the United States because they preferred that the tobacco companies not have to defend themselves in court and not have to pay the veterans for damages they caused them, if the court would find they caused them such damages. Never mind the promise that this Congress and the Republican leadership made 2 years ago. Now it is time to renege on that promise, because now it is time to deliver on that promise; and it was never intended that that promise be delivered on. If we are people of honor, if we are people of honesty and probity, if we want to be able to not hang our heads in shame before our veterans, we will vote yes on this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise to speak in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is another year and another debate on a modest increase in funding for the NEA and the NEH. Most of us could probably dust off last year's statement and just use that again because the issues have not changed; they are the same every year. Every year supporters of the National Endowment for the Arts come to the floor, and we present overwhelming evidence that the NEA is a good investment for our country. We talk about the broad geographic reach of the NEA, with grants to all 50 State arts agencies as well as to the hundreds of communities across the country. We talk about how the NEA has extended the reach of the arts into rural communities to which the arts never reached before all across the country. We talk about the importance of NEA seed money in leveraging private support, like the $4 million in total funding Chamber Music America was able to raise from just a $300,000 NEA grant. We talk about the economic benefits of the NEA, pointing to the tens of billions of dollars in economic activity generated, the millions of jobs supported, and the billions of dollars in Federal income tax generated by the arts every year. And we talk about the numerous educational projects supported by the NEA from programs for young children to life-long learners. Finally, we talk about the inherent value of supporting a vibrant arts community in this Nation, how the arts lift the spirits of our citizens and bring us together, how they entertain us and make us think, how they leave a lasting legacy for our children and their children to remember and celebrate. But as I said, we bring up these arguments year after year. Of course, a few years ago we were debating whether the NEA should even exist, whether it was the proper role of Government to subsidize the arts. But we have won that fight. Clearly, the American people support the NEA and the work it does. Clearly, the American people believe the Federal Government also has a role in promoting the arts and cultivating artists throughout the country. But in order to carry out this mandate, we must fund the NEA at a level that enables it to fulfill its mission. Today, resources are stretched too thin to adequately fund worthy projects. The average grant size has dropped by over half since 1997 and is expected to drop even further unless we provide an increase this year. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, this agency is funded at a level 40 percent less than a decade ago. When we limit funding, we also hamper the ability of the agency to continue its work in expanding the reach of the NEA to underserved areas. The massive cuts to the NEA enacted a number of years ago has reduced a once thriving agency to a very valuable but still shell of its former self. In these times of unparalleled prosperity, of unparalleled huge and increasing budget surpluses, it is nothing short of outrageous that we have not provided a nickel's increase for this vital and popular agency for the last several years. I think we should return to the glory days of the Reagan and Bush administrations when the NEA received almost twice what it does today. Short of that, I urge my colleagues to support the modest increases we are talking about in these amendments. As is pointed out, the offset provided in this particular amendment poses no danger to anything because they cannot spend that money now. The offset has no negative impact. The modest increase of $15 million to the NEA and $5 million to the NEA and $2 million to museums is less than we should do, but we can do no less today. I urge the adoption of these amendments.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to provide a $1.7 billion increase to the NIH in order to keep us on track to double its budget by 2004. Mr. Chairman, the last century will be remembered as the century in which we eradicated polio, developed gene therapy, and discovered some treatments for breast cancer. At the center of this research has been the NIH. NIH funded scientists have learned how to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases that were once great mysteries. The decoding of the human genome, soon to be completed, will lead to yet more opportunities for research that will revolutionize how we look at and treat diseases. Our efforts will shift increasingly to the genetic level, where we will learn to cure diseases now untreatable. We should not abandon our commitment to double the NIH budget in 5 years. Let this new century see humanity vanquish cancer and heart disease and genetic diseases and AIDS. Let us not start reversing that goal now. We are now the most prosperous society in the history of this planet. We have unparalleled budget surpluses. We should not deny medical research the funds it needs because of artificial budget restraints in an artificial and politically motivated budget resolution. In the names of the thousands, perhaps millions of people whose lives will be prolonged and saved by adoption of this amendment, I urge its adoption.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are a form of terrorism, and they demand a national response from this Congress. My own State of New York is expected to pass a hate crimes bill later today. But Congress stays silent. The Federal hate crimes bill should be marked up in the Committee on the Judiciary and debated on this floor as soon as possible. We should stand together to ensure the safety of our citizens and to punish those who terrorize large groups of people with vicious acts of hatred. Some people say that all crimes are hate crimes, that this bill would seek to punish thoughts. That is simply not true. The bill does not create a new crime for thinking racist or homophobic thoughts, it simply strengthens laws to punish those who physically attack others based on their perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, or gender. It punishes action and intent, not thoughts. Hate crimes are especially odious because they victimize more than just the individual victim. They are acts of terrorism directed against an entire class of citizens. They are intended to terrify people simply because of who they are. We should act now before new names join those of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd as victims of hate crimes. We should pass a sensible hate crimes bill this year.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, last year, the House voted overwhelmingly 230 to 197 to stop funding the Army School of the Americas. We voted that way because this House finally decided that the record of atrocities of murders and mayhem committed by graduates of that school can no longer be ignored or condoned. Does the Pentagon believe that renaming the school will fool those of us who voted against funding it last year? Mr. Chairman, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. This new school proposed by the Pentagon would have the same mission, the same grounds, the same commanders, the same purpose but a different name. The Army claims it would teach human rights, but there is no credibility to that school teaching human rights. If the Army thinks that the Latin American officers being trained by the United States should be trained in human rights, they should require all students to take courses sponsored by nongovernmental organizations that are qualified to do that. The gross violations of human rights and the murders perpetrated by graduates of this school argue convincingly that we must not be fooled, we should again vote to remove funds for this school from the budget, to close it down once and for all, so that the American role of Latin America can once again be an honorable role and the shameful record of some of the graduates of this school can no longer besmirch the honor of the United States.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I join Representative Cunningham in introducing an important bill to rectify a fundamental unfairness for seniors stricken with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ALS, and other debilitating diseases that render one unable to speak. Our bill would extend Medicare coverage to Augmentative and Alternative Communication, or AAC Devices, which have been previously unavailable to seniors who cannot afford the enormous cost, so that all seniors may enjoy the benefits of communication. AAC devices are remarkable machines that allow a severely speech- impaired person to speak through a computer. Perhaps the most famous user of these devices is physicist Stephen Hawking, who relies on this device to conduct his brilliant work. Fortunately, he is able to afford an AAC device, but countless others who are stricken with ALS, and similarly debilitating diseases, find themselves without the means to purchase these expensive, yet invaluable, devices. Amazingly, HCFA, the Health Care Financing Administration, has refused to cover these devices, labeling them ``a convenience item.'' Is it merely a convenience to be able to communicate with your family, your friends, or your caretaker? Is it just a luxury for people suffering with ALS to lead safe, healthy, and productive lives? That is what HCFA must believe by refusing to cover AAC devices. HCFA's resistance toward covering AAC devices is made even more inexplicable by the fact that every other federal health care provider, like the Veterans' Administration, every state Medicaid program, as well as hundreds of commercial providers cover these unique devices, recognizing that communication is more than a convenience, it's a necessity. It is a cruelty to deny individuals the power of speech, when then devices are readily available. I first became interested in this cause after meeting with the wife of the late actor Michael Lazlo, a constituent of mine, who first told me of HCFA's refusal to cover AAC devices. Over the last year and a half many of my colleagues, particularly Mr. Cunningham, and I have worked to reverse this short-sighted decision. I am pleased that recently they removed their non-coverage decision, allowing local carriers to cover AAC devices if they determine it is appropriate. However, this decision goes only half-way toward what is necessary. While I have no doubt that coverage is the only reasonable decision these local providers could reach, I feel we must affirmatively cover these devices. According to HCFA itself, AAC Devices ``can greatly improve the quality of life of people who either cannot speak or whose speech is unintelligible to most listeners . . . this technology gives severely speech-impaired people ways to communicate their thoughts to others.'' I ask them today to listen to their own words and cover AAC devices. Mr. Speaker, I ask my collegues to join us in providing the power of speech to those who could benefit from these devices and cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3519, the World Bank AIDS Marshall Plan Trust Fund. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bipartisan legislation, which would address one of the greatest crises facing the world today, the tremendous spread of AIDS in Africa. The AIDS epidemic has ravaged the nations of Africa, with over 23 million people estimated to be living with AIDS today in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Most heartbreaking is the effect this disease has had on the children of that continent. Roughly 8 million children in Africa are orphaned due to AIDS today and this number is expected to reach nearly 40 million in ten years. The World Bank Trust Fund would harness the power of the world's public and private sectors to combat this devastating situation. This public-private partnership is a great example of the role the United States can play as an international leader in public health. This bill demonstrates that we have the resources and the bill to help those who are suffering with this terrible disease. Along with the recent steps taken by the Clinton Administration and several major pharmaceutical companies to ensure that affordable treatments are available in Africa, this bill would go a long way toward finally eradicating the spread of AIDS in Africa and bring some relief to a much beleaguered part of the world. I applaud the efforts of all of those who have worked hard on this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for the Million Mom March. I am looking forward to participating in the march this weekend which welcomes concerned mothers, fathers and their children to join in the call for reasonable gun safety measures. This House should certainly pass reasonable gun safety measures, and we should call upon the leadership to convene the conference committee that has sat for over a year without meeting because they do not want to deal with these issues. One of the main goals of the march is to urge Congress not to pass merely some of the very mild gun safety legislation that has been considered here, which is apparently too much for the Republican leadership, but to pass, in addition handgun licensing and registration legislation. In the spirit of this effort, I strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor the handgun licensing and registration bills, H.R. 2916 and H.R. 2917, that I introduced in September of last year. Senator Feinstein has just introduced very similar legislation in the Senate. Handgun Control, Inc. has endorsed these bills which would require States to establish handgun licensing and registration systems. H.R. 2916 would require individuals to pass a Brady background check, take a gun safety course and obtain a photo license from their States in order to receive a license to purchase a handgun. H.R. 2917 would require States to implement handgun registration programs. These common sense measures are supported by about 70 percent of Americans according to the recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup polls, if you want to own and operate an automobile, which, used improperly, can be a deadly weapon. Every State in the union requires that the automobile be registered and that you obtain a license to drive. With respect to guns, which are by definition deadly weapons, we should take similar precautions, and as the polls I mentioned shows, 70 percent of Americans agree with this common-sense assertion. These bills have been awaiting action by the House Committee on the Judiciary since last September. In response to the huge outpouring of support for these ideas, I, again, urge the House Republican leadership to schedule hearings and markups on these two critically important bills. The House Republican leadership is fond of embracing motherhood and apple pie; now they should listen to the moms and pass handgun licensing and registration legislation as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to thank the organizers of the march for their efforts, and I look forward to joining many New Yorkers and tens of thousands of people from all across the country in the Million Mom March this Sunday on Mother's Day. Let me add, I also want to thank the delegate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for arranging this special order.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, in light of the fact that the other side of the aisle refused a unanimous consent request to have a reasonable limit on debate on the last amendment so that we can have proper time here, and there is no unanimous consent request, I believe that the Chair is not in order in using discretion to impose a time limit like that.

Mr. NADLER. When we are under the 5-minute rule, what rule says a Member has to be in support or opposition to be recognized first?

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NADLER. No, Madam Chairman, I am in support.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today we consider a matter of vital importance to our Nation's future: how to nurture the development of the Internet commerce; how to provide a clear and predictable environment for e-commerce, free from multiple and discriminatory taxes, while at the same time protecting our local communities which need revenues to fund schools, to fund emergency services, such as fire and police, and hospitals, and so forth. I take that balance very seriously. In New York Silicon Alley, which I am proud to represent, emerging high-tech firms are on the cutting edge of the new economy. They provide a vital new engine for economic growth and innovation. We need to foster that innovation and ensure its future. For that reason, as the ranking member on the subcommittee, I took a leading role in seeking enactment 2 years ago of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which provided for a moratorium on various taxes on the Internet and established a commission to recommend a rational, fair and predictable system of taxation that placed e-commerce on an equal footing with similar businesses. The purpose was to ensure that the new economy not be stifled by multiple or unfair or discriminatory taxes, and that economic decisions in the private sector, insofar as possible, be made on economic, not tax avoidance grounds so as to maximize economic efficiency productivity, growth and fairness. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the commission dropped the ball and could not agree on any approach. Rather than taking the time to deal with this important responsibility ourselves, we are faced today with a rushed piece of legislation that extends the moratorium, but fails to address the important questions of fair, nondiscriminatory taxation that will protect the new economy for multiple taxes, discriminatory taxes and other unfair burdens that could undermine the ability of the Internet to grow, prosper and continue as an engine for economic growth. In fact, as was mentioned, the bill was rushed through the Committee on the Judiciary so quickly, on orders from the House Republican leadership, that we will not have time to hold any hearings until next week, after this vote is taken. First you vote on the bill, then you have hearings to find out what you are talking about. Is that any way to deal with something this important? Shoot first and ask questions later? Are we doing e-commerce or our communities any favors by acting so rash and irresponsible a manner? There are 16 months left in the current tax moratorium. I think we could have taken a day or two to hear from the industry and other interested parties and experts to craft more comprehensive legislation before voting. It did not have to be this way. Instead of pushing through a bill that will not provide predictability and long-term protection for e- commerce that ducks the major issue, Congress today punts by simply extending the moratorium and dodging the important questions. These issues will not go away. State and local governments will need clear rules on what they can and cannot tax. E-commerce companies will need to know what their future situation will be. Main Street businesses need to know that they will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage. If we fail to address these issues, as this bill does, we may very well face years of complex and costly litigation before the courts straighten it out. But we are not doing that today, we are voting on a press release today instead of legislation that would take some responsibility for the future of the Internet. We need to deal with the sales tax issue, the nexus issue and the access issue once and for all. We do no one any favors by avoiding the hard questions as this bill does. That future is too important to play politics with. While I am disappointed with the incomplete legislation we have before us today, I am also determined to move the process forward in the hope when the time comes to vote on a conference report, the bill will address these important issues. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this bill today, knowing it is a terribly flawed product, hoping that before we have a conference report it will deal with the issues we are dodging today. If the conference report does not, a lot of us will have a lot of difficulty supporting such a flawed product.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me start by making two comments on some things that have been said before by some opponents of the amendment, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Virginia. It was said that this bill seeks to give effect to the recommendations of the commission, the commission that was appointed under the first Internet moratorium bill, which I supported 2 years ago. It simply is not true. The commission made no recommendations whatsoever. The law establishing the commission was very careful to specify that the commission could only make a recommendation of anything by a two- thirds vote. The commission was divided, nothing got a two-thirds vote. The chairman of the commission, the governor of Virginia, took it upon himself to disobey the law, and in the name of the commission, to make a recommendation, even though it did not have the two-thirds vote. We should give no weight to those recommendations as recommendations of the commission. They are recommendations of some members of the commission. The commission made no recommendation whatsoever, because they could not agree. Second, we are told that by supporting a 2-year moratorium, we are going to be very unfair to business. We are going to be very unfair. Is the governor of Ohio, Mr. Taft, suggesting very unfair provisions? Is Governor Ridge suggesting unfair provisions, Governor Leavitt, Governor Thompson, Governor Engler, most of the Democratic governors in this country, are they all being very unfair here or are they all simply being prudent and asking us not to interfere with the welfare of their States, which is what I think is happening. Let us go back to basics here as we look at this amendment and as we look at this bill. The Internet is a great thing. We want to promote its growth. We do not want burdensome or unfair taxation to inhibit its growth. There are certain problems that arise when we talk about how to tax the Internet. Mr. Chairman, there are 6,000 jurisdictions in this country, and it might very well be burdensome to say okay, if you ordered something in New York from a seller in Wisconsin and the signals go through 22 other States, however the Internet is routed, I do not understand it, there may have 22 different States levying sales tax or trying to, and who knows how many jurisdictions, obviously we cannot have that. We have to figure out a different way of doing that. We have to simplify it so that it is not a burdensome thing for an Internet company or a seller over the Internet to adhere to the law and to levy or collect a tax. Fine, to figure out how to do that, we enacted a 3-year moratorium, and we appointed a commission, the States are working it out. The governors tell us it will take another year or two to work a very simplified sales tax, uniform sales tax system throughout the country that will permit a simplified collection that would not be burdensome; okay, that makes sense. We also want to make sure that everybody is on the level playing field. We know that the economy grows fastest. We know that economic growth is greatest, productivity is greatest, wealth creation is greatest when economic decisions are made on the basis of economics. When people in the private sector make their decisions what to buy, what not to buy, how to ship their goods, how to order something, where to buy it from, on the basis of efficiency and economic utility not on the basis of taxes. So we want taxes insofar as possible not to affect economic decisions. If you want to order something, whether you order it by walking into the store on Main Street or into the mall a couple miles away or from a catalog seller or over the Internet, should be decided on the basis of any number of factors, but not on the basis that one has an advantage of tax over the other. Mr. Chairman, that is an improper consideration. If the Internet is going to grow, and it is, it ought to be on its own merits. If brick- and-mortar companies are going to be advantaged or disadvantaged, it should be on the basis of their economic advantage, not on the basis of tax advantage or disadvantage, that, too, is something we have to make sure we do right, that taxes raise revenue, but do not unfairly advantage one sector over another because it is unfair. It inhibits the growth of the economy; that we have to make sure we do. A 2-year moratorium extension, especially a year in advance of the moratorium end that we have, we have another year and 16 months to go into the existing moratorium, gives ample time to figure all of this out. A 5-year moratorium would be another 6 years, as was said by the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), would freeze into practice too many practices, it might be impossible to change them 6 years from now, especially at the rate that things are growing. Now, we are told that this bill does not deal with the sales tax question. It is true, it does not. But to allow half a solution and not the other half would freeze things, and that we should not do.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the perfecting amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) which would provide for a permanent extension of the moratorium on Internet taxation. I obviously do not support multiple or discriminatory taxes, but I oppose a permanent moratorium because I fear, if we pass a permanent moratorium, we will never return to the more important issue of State tax simplification. Failure to revisit this issue will harm all interested parties: retailers, both electronic and otherwise, State and local governments, and consumers. The fact is that we have a moratorium in order to allow the States and the Governors and the Federal Government to address the issue of how one fairly taxes transactions conducted over this new medium, without giving an advantage, without stifling it, without burdening it, but also without giving it an unfair advantage over other types of business and over other media for the conduct of business. If we do not solve that problem, one of two things results. One could have stifling taxation on the Internet which would inhibit its growth, and that is why we want a moratorium to avoid that. I have no problem with the moratorium. I was one of its sponsors 2 years ago. Secondly, if we do not allow sales taxes on goods purchased over the Internet, then we, to a very large extent, destroy the tax bases of State and local government, and we give an unfair advantage to purchases over the Internet compared with purchases not over the Internet. As I said before, the economy, the growth of the economy, the efficiency of the economy demands that economic decisions be made on economic bases, not in order to avoid tax by going in one direction and not the other. That is a formula for less economic growth, less economic efficiency, lower economic productivity. If we make this moratorium permanent now, without dealing with the problem of how to fairly and without undue burden taxing transactions over the Internet, we may never get back to that. The Internet entrepreneurs quite properly want relief and assurance against future multiple or discriminatory tax. The moratorium gives them that for the time being. But to give them that permanently without dealing with the other half of the problem is probably to mean we will never get to the other half of the problem. That is wrong. Why rush? We are first having hearings on that question next week in the Committee on the Judiciary. We should, from those hearings, come to some agreement on how to deal with it legislatively. We do not have to act now at all until those hearings and until we know what we are doing, but we are acting anyway for purely political reasons. The moratorium has another year to run. If we want to extend it 2 years, okay, so we have 3 years to solve this problem. A permanent extension now, when the moratorium has not finished and we have another year, is simply saying we do not care about solving the problem of sales taxes; and that would lead, as the Washington Post notes in its editorial today, to damage to our State and local governments which we claim to care about. I notice the cavalier attitude on the part of the majority of this House today toward unfunded mandates in this bill. We give lip service to opposing unfunded mandates. I do not mind them. I voted against the unfunded mandates bill. But most of the Members in this House give lip service to not imposing unfunded mandates in this bill, but we are doing it even though one of the sponsors of this bill says he has no idea the amount of the unfunded mandates. He does not want to take the time to find out. So I suggest that we should not have a permanent moratorium. A 2-year moratorium is adequate to enable us to do what we have to do; namely, figure out a rational and fair way of giving everyone fair and equal taxation while burdening the Internet with multiple and discriminatory taxation. So I urge the defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, may I inquire of someone over there how much time, perhaps the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), if 5 minutes on each side is not acceptable for a UC request, ask how much might be?

Mr. NADLER. Would 10 and 10 be acceptable?

Mr. NADLER. Would 10 minutes on each side be acceptable to the gentleman?

Mr. NADLER. I am simply trying to ascertain if there is any amount of time. I do not know what other amendments people have.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for a 20-minute time limit for this debate, to be divided equally between the two sides. That would allow 40 minutes for all other amendment combined.