Date: 2015-06-09
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all. let me again say that in the Judiciary Committee. we have consistently worked together on issues dealing with the Internet. continue to work together on issues dealing with innovation. so I would hope as this bill makes its way to the Senate we will find an opportunity to work together again. But I want to make mention of the fact that in addition to Texas. Wisconsin will lose about $127 million. Ohio will lose about $65 million. and South Dakota will lose about $13 million. Should this bill become law. State and local governments will have to choose whether they will cut essential government services. such as educating our children. maintaining needed transportation infrastructure. and providing essential public health and safety services. or shift the tax burden onto other taxpayers to increase property income and sales taxes. Now let me be very clear: I am not interested in taxing the Internet. I am interested in the process that most States are utilizing. It is the purchase of items that juxtapose against those who have bricks and mortar. and particularly small businesses. Meanwhile. the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the permanent moratorium will deny the nongrandfathered States of almost $6.5 billion in potential State and local sales tax revenuesales tax. not access to the Internet. H.R. 235 will burden taxpayers while excluding an entire industry from paying their fair share of taxes. I want this industry to grow. and. again. I do not want taxing on access. You can be on the Internet from morning until the early sunrise again. the next day. But for those States who have worked and worked with our committee. trying to find a pathway forward. I would like to see us find a compromise. Finally. this bill ignores the fundamental nature of the Internet. The original moratorium was intentionally made temporary to ensure Congress. industry. and State and local governments would be able to monitor the issue and make adjustments where necessary to accommodate new technologies and market realities. such as acts. The act was intended as a temporary measure to assist and nurture the fledgling Internet that back in 1998 was still in its commercial infancy. yet this bill ignores the significantly changed environment of todays Internet. The bills supporters continue to believe that the Internet still is in need of extraordinary protection in the form of exemptions from State taxation. but the Internet of 2015 is drastically different from 1998. It is standing on its own two legs. It is not a toddler. It is a fullgrown adult. Permanently extending the tax moratorium severely limits Congress ability to revisit and make any necessary adjustments. though I hope we will. Simply put. the permanent moratorium is unwise. and I urge my colleagues to consider the problems of H.R. 235. H.R. 235. I think. should be addressing these issues dealing with the many who have opposed it. Let me. as I close. mention that the National Governors Association recently introduced the following statement: "The National Governors Association is disappointed that the House Judiciary Committee is moving to make the Internet access tax moratorium permanent."