Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman once again does make a meal of a term which I used in an attempt to determine whether or not someone wanted to be included in a unanimous consent or a motion. In using the term ``serious'' it seems to me that someone who may have been serious previously, watching the political antics of the gentleman's side of the aisle in arguing that they are serious about moving forward, but failing to do so, may have lost some interest, and I am hoping to make sure that everyone who involves themselves in the process has a level of interest equal to the gentleman.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. Does the gentleman now, after refusing to set a structure for orderly debate----

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 108 on page 10, lines 1 through 10 of H.R. 4112, on the ground that this provision violates clause 2 of House rule XXI because it is in fact legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an issue which will have a dramatic impact on our children, small businesses, and the global economy--the taxation of the Internet. The Internet has not reached its full potential, but electronic commerce has already generated $1 billion. Congress should support H.R. 4105, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, because unwarranted taxation of the Internet would only stifle the growth of this young and dynamic communications system. This bill is crucial to communications in the 21st Century. Taxation leads to a lack of competition, with the telephone industry as a perfect example. The Internet is a valuable resource to which as many people as possible should have access. If competition is hindered, less people will be able to utilize this important communications tool. There are many problems with Internet taxation. Several States tax Internet access under existing statutes, including Iowa, Connecticut, Illinois, and the District of Columbia. We need this legislation now because the number of States taxing this industry could expand very quickly as States search for new means to expand their tax base. This bill needs to be passed as a proactive measure, and not a reactive measure after every State has adopted different taxation laws. There are more than 4,000 Internet Service Providers in this country, and most of them are small businesses. How can these small businesses survive when individual States are playing with different tax codes? The Internet has no specific boundaries and its transmissions are therefore vulnerable to multiple taxation from States and localities. If everyone takes a cut from different points of creation, then State and local taxes will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Multiple taxation would cause confusion and would provide a disincentive for free dissemination of information and ideas. Because of the Internet's easy accessibility from anywhere in the world, home-bound, disabled, and elderly people have access to information and resources that they would not otherwise have. American providers of this service need a level playing field in order to remain competitive with other global providers. The growth of Internet and online services will increase the productivity of many different businesses, making them more competitive globally and therefore expanding U.S. sales of new products and services. As we are move toward international agreements on Internet taxation, we must first move to come to a consensus on how we tax the Interet within our own country. Finally, the Internet has shown great possibilities in the future for commercial users. It allows people to create their ``own'' market. Our goal is not to permanently make Internet transactions tax-free. We simply want to provide safeguards against multiple or special taxation. We are not trying to make Internet transactions tax-free. Rather, we want to stop multiple or special taxation. For example, a business selling goods in a retail store operates under a single set of tax rules, but a business selling goods over the Internet is subject to much more uncertainty. It is also potentially subject to thousands of State and local taxing jurisdictions. H.R. 4105 would establish a moratorium on State and local taxes which specifically target the Internet, such as taxes on Internet access or online services. It would also commission a 2-year study of sub- national and foreign taxation of Internet commerce. This study would ensure that lawmakers do not enact new taxes without proper data. Last, the bill calls on the Clinton administration to be as aggressive as possible in keeping the Internet free from anti-competitive taxes and tariffs. I urge Congress to support H.R. 4105, the Internet Tax Freedom Act. If we allow the Internet to be taxed at different points along the way, we are ultimately restricting access to it. Americans already pay enough taxes. Why should we expose them to multiple taxes on the Internet when it will only restrict the access to, growth of, and competition in this essential resource? With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will yield further, the bottom line is the Gillmor amendment will be the last vote of the day, whenever that occurs prior to 2 o'clock. Amendment Offered by Mr. Gillmor to Amendment No. 13 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has a correct understanding with the only correction being that if we can begin the Gillmor amendment and we can conclude it before 1 o'clock, there is no reason to wait until 1 o'clock to vote on it, if there are only two or three speakers on the Gillmor amendment. My understanding is that both of the authors of this particular substitute are willing to accept the amendment as written if we could keep to a minimum the discussion of that amendment. As soon as the Gillmor amendment is voted on, that would be the last vote for the day. But if we begin discussing any other amendments, there would be no more votes and we would rise at 2 o'clock regardless of where we were in the discussion of any amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an initial 7 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am pleased that we have begun the process. As part of the structure around here, to be able to get time, you have to be in favor of or opposed to. The fact of the matter is, given the time that I have been involved, which is now two decades, in working on campaign reform, I am frankly, on every one of these bills opposed in part and supportive in part, and I will participate extensively in this process. My goal will be to try to create an orderly process, one that is comprehensible and in which, to the extent possible, we create periods of time in which what we do is comprehensible to the folk outside as well as those of us who are carrying on the debate. As the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction, as I said, I have mixed feelings on a number of these bills because we have been wrestling with the way in which the system might be changed for some time. What I want to do at the beginning of this debate is to set a tone, not on this particular bill, but on most of the bills that we will be looking at in a general sense because frankly the shadow of the Supreme Court is over us in the process of discussing campaign reform. It is over us because the Court has repeatedly said that the First Amendment is vital and critical, and where Congress steps over the line the Court will correct Congress in making sure that fundamental First Amendment freedoms of expression and assembly are maintained. But the Court stands over us in another way, because after the Court said that, all I want to know, how come the Court is able to say that. We have three clear independent branches in the Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Court can tell Congress that what it did was unconstitutional. Nowhere am I aware that the oath of office taken by Members of Congress is somehow inferior to the oath that members of the Supreme Court take. Now obviously the answer is historically the Supreme Court usurped that power, and it has never been taken away, and so they have the power of judicial review whether it is in the Constitution or not. But because of the ability of the Court to tell the Congress that, ``Perhaps in part you were constitutional and in part you were unconstitutional,'' it creates a dilemma for us as we debate change in campaign finance laws and the manner in which we conduct our elections. Mr. Chairman, what I have in front of me is a chart to illustrate the way in which the current law is in fact a product of the Supreme Court. It is not a product of Congress. If my colleagues look at the original Federal Election Campaign Act, there were a number of areas where the Congress acted comprehensively, as we are attempting to do now on a number of these bills. It not only dealt with individual contributions limits, it dealt with spending limits for elections. Congress passed a limit per election. Congress passed a limit on independent expenditures per election. Independent expenditures will come up time and again, both in substitutes, and in amendments being treated in a number of different ways. For those of my colleagues who have not been involved in this process as extensively as some of us, understand that back in the early 1970s the Court said, ``Notwithstanding Congress' desire, it's overturned.'' If my colleagues look down here in terms of limit on candidates' personal funds, we talk about millionaire candidates and how we have to deal with that. Congress dealt with that, but the Court overturned that portion. And in fact the original structure of the Federal Election Commission was overturned by the Court as well. My point is that for the last quarter of a century we have been dealing with a law which was not the way the Congress created it. The congressional package was far more comprehensive and rounded, notwithstanding the fact that the Court said portions of it were unconstitutional. Many of the problems we have wrestled with find their basis in the Court picking and choosing a comprehensive plan and not allowing a comprehensive plan to go forward. A lot of the debate over these substitutes over the next several weeks and even perhaps months will be about how our plan deals with the problem in a comprehensive way. What I am here to tell my colleagues is that if someone tells them their plan deals with the problem in a comprehensive way, but it has a severability clause, it ``ain't'' going to be comprehensive in all likelihood. It means we will turn the clock back, we will send this legislation out into the world, and in the process of its examination the Court will overturn portions of various bills, and we will be living with a makeshift structure. We have done that, Mr. Chairman, for the last 25 years. Let us not create the opportunity for doing it again. And that is why on this particular bill, because it contains a severability clause, and on every comprehensive substitute which contains a severability clause, or is silent, because the Court, if it is silent, can go ahead and chop it up the way it wants to, will offer an amendment which will say that the comprehensive package that the Congress offers stands or falls as a structure. Now this is not an attempt to destroy the process. It is an attempt to retain Congress' ability to define what the law is. Notwithstanding bipartisan efforts over the last quarter of a century, we have not been able to make adjustments that my colleagues would think would be reasonable and prudent. The Court made its adjustments. We were never able to come back and make ours. Now what happens if the Court strikes down one of these provisions when there is no severability? Well, we are back here rewriting. But I think that is a far better position to be in than to leave the final product up to the United States Supreme Court. And so I will offer a severability clause, and I am pleased to tell my colleagues that in a July 1997 publication by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), notwithstanding the fact that it was in reference to the comment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) about a severability clause, and the gentleman from Texas joins me in this effort, I might mention, talked about the advantages of not having severability. And so, as we begin this process, I want to focus our attention on whatever product it is that Congress generates. If we believe strongly enough, and if the House works its will, we ought to believe strongly enough to make sure that the Court does not get to write the law in the final process. The only way we can guarantee that is to make sure there is no severability clause. And, as I said, I propose to offer an amendment to each of the major substitutes that has as a provision severability. It is not good. It lets the Supreme Court control us. It lets the Supreme Court write the law as it has done for the last 25 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. THOMAS. And if the gentleman would yield, that is exactly what happened in the 1970s when we did not preserve the product. We created a law which did not work, and for 25 years we have not been able to make it work. What we are trying to do, and I hope the gentleman understands the intent because it will be applied to every bill that has severability. Not all of the bills have severability. Some of the authors are willing not to include severability. The intent is to make sure that what Congress intended in fact occurs. If we have a severability clause, we are betting the Court either believes it is all constitutional or they will only pick out a minor portion. I think the gentleman will find it will not be a major portion, it will be a minor portion, and we are right back in the box of unintended consequences.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman, if he will yield, hodgepodge is not advancing the cause.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows: Amendment No. 132 offered by Mr. Thomas to Amendment No. 13 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Shays: Amend section 601 to read as follows (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I asked to offer this amendment. As I said during general debate, this will be offered to any major substitute that has a severability clause. I talked earlier about the fact that when the first Federal Election Campaign Act was passed, Congress took a comprehensive approach to campaign reform. When the Court reviewed it, they struck as unconstitutional portions of the plan. There really is no constitutional basis for the Court having the ability to impose its will on any other branch. They are supposed to be coequal branches. Our oath to the Constitution is not inferior to the Supreme Court's. Notwithstanding that historical relationship, 25 years later, the portions that were struck down by the Court are simply null and void. We have before us the first example of a number of comprehensive bills which contain a number of provisions that desire to go after certain behavior. The Court has been on record in some areas, especially where political parties operate as an independent expenditure rather than as a party. If it is soft money the Court has said, and the most recent court example would be Colorado v. The Republican Party in which the Court upheld the right of the party to follow this model. And this particular legislation tries to correct that. Issue advocacy is now a strong point, and there is an attempt to change the relationship that the Court has advocated in issue advocacy. I believe that we could try to test the Court to see if they would now hold constitutional a provision that they have held unconstitutional in the past. My belief is we would run that risk and lose. It seems to me far more prudent that on any bill that contains multiple provisions which the Court could rule on that if Congress wants to retain control of campaign law, what we ought to say is that if someone takes the law to court and they beat a piece of it, then the entire law falls. What happens? We come back and rewrite a law. The folks who do not want this amendment that I am offering, the nonseverability, the folks who want to be able to say, notwithstanding a piece of the law falling, all the rest of it stands, will tell us this, ``we will come back and fix that piece.'' I am here to tell my colleagues that, as a product of 25 years of labor to try to change the pieces that the Court changed, it is not nearly as easy as that. What we have had for 25 years is a piecemeal law that does not work in many instances. We are here tonight and will be here over the next several weeks because what the Court did does not work. Why in the world would we repeat the same mistake again? This amendment will be offered to every comprehensive substitute that has a severability clause. Does it mean that I am a masochist, does it mean that I am trying to defeat the effort to make change? No. What I am trying to do is guarantee Congress retains the ability to make the change, that we do not let the Court make the change. If my colleagues do not accept my amendment, which is joined by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), so I can gladly say this is a bipartisan amendment, then what we have been under for the last 25 years is doomed to repeat itself for an open-ended number of years as the Court picks and chooses as to what to declare unconstitutional from a comprehensive bill. I think that the choice is not a good one in either case: Live under this hodgepodge that the Court was allowed to create because of historical usurpation of a power, or for Congress to come back and rewrite the law in its entirety. Either one of those are going to be the choices, and I think the far better choice is to say that if a piece falls, it all falls and we come back and rewrite it. That way we know in a given time frame we will be able to produce a product that works. The other way has not worked. I would urge all my colleagues when we do have a vote on the amendment, that amendment No. 132 sponsored by myself and the gentleman from Texas be accepted and that it be accepted and placed in every substitute that has a severability clause, because I believe, no matter what we do, no matter what the particular provisions are in a measure, Congress ought to retain control of what is campaign finance law. The only way we can retain control is to remove the severability clause that is in the measures. I would ask Members to support the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I think the points the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) made in opposition to the amendment are exactly the reasons why I think the amendment needs to be supported, and the gentleman from Texas concurs. First of all, the Court does not make constitutional decisions on minor provisions. I think my colleagues will find that the Court makes decisions on major provisions.

Mr. THOMAS. Exactly.

Mr. THOMAS. And if the gentleman would continue to yield?

Mr. THOMAS. What the gentleman is asking is the same position the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) my friend asked, and that was that we should rely on expertise first of all--

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding and affording me an opportunity, having waived the committee's jurisdiction on the funding, to respond to an amendment that is not in order. And, frankly, I am pleased that the Committee on Rules did not make the amendment in order, because as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said, after all, these are serious matters and it should be debated seriously, he then yielded to the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) who, as part of his appeal on his amendment, brought up the question of funding in a context which, if anybody objectively examined his discussion, was to impugn other investigations or the expenditure of money in this particular Congress by the majority for efforts that apparently they believe do not fit the profile of serious matters debated seriously. I am sorry the gentleman from California felt it necessary to inject that, because this gentleman from California would love to remind him, since he was a member of the majority in the 103rd Congress, at that time, the committees, in totality, spent more than $223 million. Now, that is not adjusted for inflation, because, frankly, constant dollars look good enough, two Congresses later in the 105th we are not spending 80 cents on the dollar. We are only spending $180 million. So if the gentleman is looking for savings. The new Republican majority has provided it both in the 104th and in the 105th. We are not spending at the level my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent. In addition to that, the amendment that was rejected said that the money should have to come from another committee in its unobligated and unexpended context. That money would nowhere near meet the needs of this particular committee, if that was where the ``not more than $2.5 million'' would be found. Let me say that the $2.5 million that we are discussing is nowhere near, when the gentleman was in the majority, the $2.9 million in adjusted dollars that the Iran contra hearings cost, which produced absolutely nothing. Our hope is that we get a serious resolution of what we believe to be a serious matter that will be discussed seriously. And finally, let me say this, as the gentleman leaves. In all of those other previous select committees, not once, whether it was Iran contra, whether it was the Select Committee on Aging, whether it was the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, whether it was the Select Committee on Hunger, not once in those previous Select Committee creations was there a distribution of the resources, in terms of staff, two-thirds, one-third, not in any of those instances. Iran contra, for example, was 80 percent majority, 20 percent minority. I want to underscore that the chairman of this committee, working with the ranking member, has committed that outside of those joint staff, which they will agree to jointly, that the majority will use two-thirds of the resources and the minority will get one-third. So that this Select Committee, thank goodness, will not be in the tradition of the select committees that had been created in previous Congresses by the previous majority, which hogged all the resources and did not produce results. What we have here will be a fair, equitable distribution. We will have a serious discussion of serious matters. So I want to compliment the chairman of the Committee on Rules and the other members of the Committee on Rules who saw the wisdom of voting down this very poorly drafted and constructed amendment, which would not only invade the prerogatives of another committee, but frankly, would not provide near the resources that I believe will be used wisely by this particular committee. When we begin the discussion of funds and how and where they are going to be used, if it is necessary to remind the now-minority of their previous transgressions, we will be more than willing to do so. If my colleagues provide time on their side to go beat dead horses, we will keep the record straight. They did not create a fair funding mechanism under previous select committees, and they spent more money than this Select Committee. This Select Committee will spend less than Iran contra, and it will be fairly divided. That is the difference with the new majority.