F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the author of this resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 853.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 853) recognizing the Boy Scouts of America for the public service the organization performs for neighborhoods and communities across the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 150, the Senate bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. In 1998, Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act to protect the Internet from crippling taxation and piecemeal regulation. The act prohibited States from imposing multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and shielded consumers from new Internet access taxes. However, some States that had already begun taxing on Internet access by 1998 were allowed to continue such taxation temporarily. During the 107th Congress, we extended the moratorium until November 1, 2003. On July 24, 2003, well before the November expiration deadline, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. Introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), H.R. 49 made permanent the ban on taxes that targeted the Internet for discriminatory treatment and immediately ended all taxes on Internet access by all States and localities. Unlike the Senate bill, H.R. 49 also eliminated the so-called grandfather clause for States that taxed Internet access prior to October 1, 1998; and through a bipartisan amendment offered in subcommittee by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the House bill preserved the original intent of the law by not punishing broadband users, then providing tax freedom for all forms of Internet access, whether by dial-up, cable, or DSL line. H.R. 49 passed the House by voice vote on September 17, 2003. Unfortunately, the other body was unable to pass legislation extending the moratorium until April 29, 2004, 6 months after the moratorium expires. The Senate bill differs from H.R. 49 in several ways. First, rather than a permanent moratorium, it creates a temporary 4-year moratorium on Internet access taxes running retroactively from November 1, 2003, until November 1, 2007. Secondly, it extends the 1998 grandfather clause for the life of the moratorium so that all those States currently taxing Internet access will continue to do so with the one notable exception of Wisconsin, which I already addressed fully when we considered the related enrolling resolution. Third, it creates a new, 2-year grandfather clause for States that tax Internet access after the expiration of the moratorium. Despite these weaknesses which I believe to be substantial, passing the Senate bill extending the Internet tax moratorium is still a big win for the vast majority of American Internet users. Without any action by this Congress, Internet commerce would still be subject to State and local taxes in thousands of jurisdictions. The digital economy and its participants are more vulnerable if we do not act, even if we must act on a weaker bill. For those reasons I support passage of S. 150, which will extend the benefits of the moratorium until 2007. At this time, let me put everyone on notice that in the next Congress, even though the moratorium does not expire during the life of the 109th Congress, I will attempt, once again, to make this moratorium permanent so that no State, when it puts together its budget in January of 2007, will fall into the trap of counting Internet access taxes as revenue. The bill, together with the enrolling resolution just passed, will at least temporarily protect against those States and localities taxing our e-mail and taxing Web service. The extension of the moratorium will help vitalize the Internet economy, provide tax relief to consumers no matter how they get their Internet access, and will stimulate equal access to this increasingly important medium. I will continue to assess future avenues that will promote greater Internet access at higher speeds and at less cost for all Americans. Let everybody be on notice that that is going to happen sooner rather than later. For now, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 150 and making the Internet a less taxing and more productive experience. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that access taxes and remote sales tax collections are two separate issues. It is like apples and oranges, and when you mix apple juice and orange juice in the same concoction, frequently it is not very tasty. But we will deal with both of those issues and consider them in the next Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the author of H.R. 49.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 150) to make permanent the moratorium on taxes on Internet access and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce imposed by the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 146) to direct the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections in the enrollment of the bill, S. 150.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. Con. Res. 146 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the enrolling resolution before us from the other body makes some modest, but important, changes to S. 150, a bill to extend the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory Internet taxes, which we will consider in a few minutes. When we move to that bill, I will describe the underlying legislation. For now I will just state that the changes made by this enrolling resolution are necessary in order for me to support passage of S. 150. The most important change to S. 150 contained in the enrolling resolution is that it will apply the same moratorium on Internet access taxes to my home State of Wisconsin that applies to at least 40 other States. Beginning in November of 2006, the special grandfathered status enjoyed by Wisconsin since 1998 that allows the State to continue to tax Internet users will end, and my State like most every other State will have to abide by the Internet tax moratorium and stop taxing Wisconsinites' Internet service. The House passed legislation reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. 49, that would have ended the special grandfathered status of all the 1998 States effective immediately. The section of language added to S. 150 by this enrolling resolution affecting grandfathered taxation is intended to apply to all States that have imposed Internet access taxes via an administrative ruling made well after the 1998 moratorium was enacted that taxes Internet access as a telecommunications service. I find this type of ex post facto attempt to circumvent the general moratorium without new State legislative action to be offensive. However, out of the 1998 grandfathered States, I believe only Wisconsin's actions today meet the requisite objective criteria in this provision. Therefore, only Wisconsin will find its 1998 grandfather status revoked by this language. The other change contained in the resolution adds a new section to the bill that would clarify that certain taxes and fees imposed by Texas municipalities are not included within the scope of the moratorium on Internet access and that such Texas municipalities could continue to collect franchising and right-of-way fees when telecommunications companies build infrastructure and use public rights of way. We believe that this provision clearly only applies to Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to extend the Internet tax freedom once again to most of our citizens and join me in supporting this concurrent resolution and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today S. 2042, for the relief of Rocco Trecosta, is being considered by unanimous consent by the House. I have agreed to move this private bill outside the regular private bill process for two reasons: a substantially similar bill passed the House under regular order in the 104th Congress; and this bill only arrived in the House yesterday from the Senate, making it impossible to move the bill through the normal process before this Congress adjourns. It is only because of these unusual circumstances that I am making this exception to the regular order. In the 104th Congress, a substantially similar bill, H.R. 2765, was introduced by then Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Representative Lamar Smith. Pursuant to the Meritorious Claims Act, the Comptroller General recommended that Congress enact legislation to treat Mr. Trecosta as a member of the plaintiff class in March v. United States. According to the GAO: ``we believe his situation is extraordinary and contains such elements of equity as to be deserving of the consideration of Congress.'' Because there is generally no controversy on cases referred under the Meritorious Claims Act, the House quickly passed the bill under the normal private bill process, however, it did not pass the Senate. This bill pays Mr. Trecosta, a former teacher in the Department of Defense Overseas Dependent Schools, backpay he would have been awarded if he had been a member of the March plaintiff class. In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that DOD had not property implemented pay- setting procedures established under a law requiring the Secretary of each military department to fix the basic compensation for teachers and teaching positions in his department at rates equal to the average of the range of rates of basic compensation for similar positions of a comparable level of duties and responsibilities in urban school jurisdictions in the U.S. of 100,000 or more population. The Court held that DOD violated the statutory requirement and directed DOD to base the salaries on current salaries paid to stateside teachers. The Court also granted the plaintiffs entitlement to recover money damages. A judgment in the District Court on June 30, 1975, provided backpay for the plaintiffs for the period from April 14, 1966, to the date of that judgment. Out of 23,000 potential plaintiffs, only Mr. Trecosta had previously brought an action in the Court of Claims which was denied. But for his suit, he would have been included in the plaintiff-class in March. Furthermore, he could have been paid administratively. The GAO denied his claim, stating that the matter was res judicata and therefore his final Court of Claims judgment barred any further claim arising out of the matters involved in the case. No one else is in Mr. Trecosta's position. He was the only teacher who challenged DOD's practices, and was excluded from the class due to that challenge. When the Senate did not move the House passed bill in the 104th Congress, Mr. Trecosta was encouraged to pursue his bill in the Senate first in subsequent Congresses. In 1999, the Senate referred his claim to the Court of Federal Claims, which determined that he should be paid the back pay as a matter of equity. Only now, after receiving that decision, has the Senate passed S. 2042 for Mr. Trecosta. First as a private bill objector for many years, and now as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have always insisted on the processing of private bills through regular order and deviate from that policy in this one instance due to the unique details of the situation. This bill previously passed the House under regular order. It was not only a Meritorious Claims Act referral, but it now also has the blessing of the Court of Federal Claims. This man has already been through a lot, for a long time, to have his claim resolved. I have checked with the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and the Republican and Democratic private bill objectors, Mr. Coble, Mr. Chabot, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Schiff, and Mr. Grijalva, and they have all agreed that this procedure is appropriate under these unusual circumstances. I appreciate their cooperation. I urge my colleagues to adopt the bill. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2042) for the relief of Rocco A. Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2042, the bill just passed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5363, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5363 to provide a cost-of- living adjustment for Federal judges in fiscal year 2005. By way of background, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act in 1975, which was intended to give judges, Members of Congress and high-ranking executive branch officials automatic COLAs accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. In 1981, Congress amended the statute by enacting section 140 of Public Law 97-92, which requires specific congressional action to grant judges a COLA. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is based on the template set forth in H.R. 3349, now Public Law 108-167. That law satisfied the section 140 requirement and thereby enabled judges to receive a COLA this past fiscal year. H.R. 5363 accomplishes the same purpose for fiscal year 2005. H.R. 5363 will ensure that Federal judges receive a COLA when other civil servants, including Members of Congress, receive theirs. The legislation will assist in the administration of justice in our Federal courts and is otherwise noncontroversial. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5363) to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of the United States for fiscal year 2005.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the author of the House counterpart to this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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