[House Hearing, 111 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] CELL TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009 ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 1521 __________ JUNE 9, 2009 __________ Serial No. 111-41 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 50-140 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ROBERT WEXLER, Florida STEVE KING, Iowa STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas Georgia JIM JORDAN, Ohio PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico TED POE, Texas MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM ROONEY, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California GREGG HARPER, Mississippi TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York ADAM B. SCHIFF, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida DANIEL MAFFEI, New York Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel ------ Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chairman WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts TRENT FRANKS, Arizona MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina JIM JORDAN, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California DANIEL MAFFEI, New York J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ZOE LOFGREN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan Michone Johnson, Chief Counsel Daniel Flores, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- JUNE 9, 2009 Page THE BILL H.R. 1521, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009''................. 3 OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law......................................... 1 The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.............................. 10 The Honorable Jim Jordan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law............................................. 10 The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law............................................. 11 The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. 12 WITNESSES Mr. Robert D. Atkinson, Ph.D., President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Oral Testimony................................................. 14 Prepared Statement............................................. 16 The Honorable Mara Candelaria Reardon, Indiana House of Representatives Oral Testimony................................................. 21 Prepared Statement............................................. 23 Ms. Joanne Hovis, Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the Natiional League of Cities Oral Testimony................................................. 26 Prepared Statement............................................. 28 The Honorable Joseph A. Gibbons, Florida House of Representatives Oral Testimony................................................. 32 Prepared Statement............................................. 34 The Honorable Don Stapley, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities Oral Testimony................................................. 36 Prepared Statement............................................. 39 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Prepared Statement of the Federation of Tax Administrators, submitted by the Honorable William D. Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts..... 63 APPENDIX Material Submitted for the Hearing Record Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Robert D. Atkinson, Ph.D., President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation..................................................... 77 Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Mara Candelaria Reardon, Indiana House of Representatives........... 80 Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Joanne Hovis, Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the Natiional League of Cities............................. 84 Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Joseph A. Gibbons, Florida House of Representatives...................... 88 Response to Post-Hearing Questions from The Honorable Don Stapley, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.................. 93 CELL TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009 ---------- TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:35 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve Cohen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Cohen, Delahunt, Watt, Sherman, Lofgren, Scott, Franks, Smith, Jordan, and Issa. Staff Present: (Majority) Norberto Salinas, Counsel; Adam Russell, Professional Staff Member; and (Minority) Daniel Flores, Counsel. Mr. Cohen. This hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will now come to order. Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing. I will now recognize myself for a short statement. In 2000, the National Governors' Association issued a report concluding that existing State and local telecommunications tax systems were inefficient, complex, and not competitively neutral. However, only some States have reformed their telecommunications tax policies, with many others possibly losing out on economic growth while costing their residents billions of dollars in taxes and fees. Most State and local tax policies do not reflect today's market for communication services, particularly the wireless industry. For example, some jurisdictions impose both a gross receipts tax and a general sales tax on wireless services. Others impose higher tax rates on wireless services when compared to other services. Still other States arguably discourage investments in telecommunications infrastructure by imposing excessive taxes on the telecommunications industry's capital investments. These forms of discriminatory taxation affect the pocketbooks of consumers. This has the effect of chilling investment and impacting interstate commerce. Having been a legislator, I am aware of the need for revenue and also the difficulties sometimes in catching up with technology. Today we hold a hearing on H.R. 1521, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009.'' H.R. 1521 would impose a 5-year moratorium on any new discriminatory tax with respect to mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service property. The legislation would prevent increasing taxes imposed solely on wireless subscribers and wireless providers. More importantly, the 5-year moratorium would provide the telecommunications industry and the State and local governments the opportunity to come together and work on reforming the current communications tax structure. Doing so will maintain a steady stream of revenue for State and local governments while ensuring a fair tax burden among communications mediums, including wireless services. It reminds me of Lyndon Johnson: Let us come together. This hearing will provide Members of the Subcommittee the opportunity to hear testimony from State and local governments' reliance on taxes and fees on wireless services. Members will also hear testimony about how those taxes and fees impact consumers and wireless providers. Finally, Members will hear testimony about how important affordable access to wireless services is to the growth of broadband access in this country. This testimony should help us determine whether Congress should intercede with this legislation. I am cognizant of the current plight that State and local governments are experiencing vis-a-vis revenue. They are all cash strapped and I can sympathize with their concerns. They receive lower revenues but still are expected to provide essential services. This legislation is not intended to affect current State and local Government revenues. In fact, H.R. 1521 will not prevent taxing authorities to continue to tax wireless services and providers. It merely imposes a short moratorium on certain new discriminatory taxes. We need fair tax policies to encourage capital investment to help consumers. Accordingly, I look forward to today's testimony. I now recognize my colleague, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Franks, for his opening remarks. [The bill, H.R. 1521, follows:]Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking the Chair for holding this hearing. I really appreciate what you are doing today. Today's hearing is the second in less than a year on this topic. H.R. 1521, the Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009, has 112 cosponsors in the 111th Congress. This is a nearly identical amount of support to a similar bill in the 110th Congress. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be one of those 112 sponsors, as I know you are. And I hope that with your leadership and that of Ms. Lofgren, we can have a markup of this legislation in the near future. I support the legislation because it is my belief that States and localities unfairly burden cell phone consumers with excess taxes. Nationwide, the average tax on wireless service is 15.19 percent, which is more than double the average sales tax rate for all businesses, which is 7.07 percent. These tax rates are more in keeping with sin taxes; that is, taxes on alcohol and tobacco, than with general business taxes. It is my understanding that these taxes on the wireless industry are estimated to be over $15 billion a year. That is an astonishing number, and something that warrants the attention of the Subcommittee. I know that discrimination, at least in this context, is often in the eyes of the beholder. However, by any definition imposing taxes on a wireless procedure that are more than double what general businesses pay should be considered discriminatory. I will also continue to oppose discriminatory taxes or excise taxes that are imposed by States that excessively punish individual industries. I strongly believe that consumers should be the ones to pick winners and losers and not government. And finally, I am heartened to see the two State representatives testifying today because I know that many States are hurting financially. My State is currently trying to close a $3 billion deficit, and I respect those concerned about this bill's effect on State revenues. However, this legislation merely freezes current tax structures on wireless services for 5 years, and I believe that is a worthwhile purpose and one that will benefit consumers and technological advancements in the long run. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome one of the panel members especially today. Don Stapley is a member of the Board of Supervisors in my county, and he is a good friend, and I appreciate him being here. He is a little bit disoriented on this legislation today, but that is all right. We understand. That can happen even to people from Arizona. But I am very grateful for him showing up here. And with the Chairman's permission, I would like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Jordan for a brief opening. He just wants to go 60 seconds. Mr. Jordan. I thank the Ranking Member. And I want to also thank the Chair and Ms. Lofgren for sponsoring this legislation. I have to go to an Ohio delegation meeting here at noon, so I won't be able to stay for much of the testimony. I just want to say that I appreciate that this bill is being brought forward. I am a cosponsor and, like the Ranking Member indicated, it is good to see some State legislators here who support this legislation as well. I understand that tax fairness is important, particularly in this area. So with that, I would yield back the balance of my time and thank the Ranking Member for yielding. Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I would now like to recognize the distinguished lady from California, who is a sponsor of this legislation, if she would like to make some remarks. Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I very much appreciate that you have scheduled this hearing today. I introduced this bill because I believe that wireless services and mobile devices are increasingly essential to affordable broadband access in the United States. Now, there is no doubt that expanding broadband speed and access should be a national priority. We rank 15th out of 30 members of the OECD in broadband adoption per capita. So we have a lot of catching up to do. Only about half of American households have access to broadband, most to relatively slow service, especially compared to what is widely adopted in other countries like South Korea and Japan. President Obama has recognized the imperative of building broadband capacity. The FCC is developing a comprehensive plan for national broadband as mandated by the stimulus legislation Congress passed a few months ago. Broadband Internet is a critical infrastructure. Just like highways or ports through the power grid, it is essential to daily life and to future economic growth. We have come quite a long way with wireless, but this is still an emerging technology, and we have a long way to go. In the first quarter of 2008, 37 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers paid for access to the Internet, and 15 percent used it at least one a month. Now use of the new spectrum from the 700 megahertz auction and the deployment of 4G networks are just beginning. These technologies have tremendous promise, not just faster Internet access, but also lots of new innovative applications. Anyone who spent even a few minutes looking at applications on the iPhone, my favorite toy, has caught a glimpse of what the future might hold. And we can't let discriminatory tax policies deter innovation. Now wireless is increasingly important to Internet access for working class and lower income Americans, and that makes a lot of sense. Cell phones have become an essential tool in life for nearly everyone. If you are well off, you can afford multiple Internet connections, such as cable and DSL at home. But if you don't have as much money, you might rely on what you can get on your phone. Wireless users earning $20,000 to $40,000 a year access mobile data applications more than users earning $100,000 a year. And 39 million wireless subscribers have incomes of less than $25,000 a year. Wireless is also crucial to extending broadband to underserved rural areas. According to the FCC, at the end of 2007 wireless broadband was the most widely distributed of all Internet connection technologies. Ninety- four percent of all ZIP codes have it. Despite the importance of wireless services, they face a disproportionate and growing tax burden. The average wireless customer pays 15.2 percent in Federal, State and local taxes and fees as opposed to 7.1 percent for other goods and services. Taxes on cell phone service have gone up four times faster than taxes on other goods and services between 2003 and 2007. These discriminatory tax rates will discourage both consumer spending and industry investment in more advanced wireless services like faster mobile data. The 5-year moratorium in this bill will spur investment in the near term. It will also encourage State and local governments to harmonize and modernize their taxes in the longer term. We have a similar moratorium on Internet taxes that has spurred investment and innovation on the Internet. These taxes are also regressive. This is not only because lower income Americans rely more on their cell phones, the taxes themselves are often highly regressive such as per line flat fees. I do recognize the concerns of State and local governments and until this year I had actually spent more time on the Board of Supervisors in Santa Clara County than I had in the House of Representatives. I know that times are tough, and I am very sensitive to the concerns of State and local officials. However, this bill would not affect existing taxes. It only has to do with new discriminatory taxes, taxes put in place after enactment. And it would also not prevent States and municipalities from raising taxes on wireless services unless the taxes were discriminatory. So if you have a tax that you are adopting on everything, wireless would not be exempted. Now, I respect the autonomy of States and localities. But when you have a nationwide need to deploy broadband as we do, we can't allow local tax deployment plans to really interfere with that national goal. So I am grateful for this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, a lion from the State of Texas, Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for having this hearing today on such an important piece of legislation, and I would also like to thank our colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Lofgren, for introducing H.R. 1521, the Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009, of which I am an original cosponsor. There are now 112 cosponsors of this bill, Republicans and Democrats alike, including many Members of this Committee. That is a strong indication of the popular support that this legislation enjoys. It has become clear to me that telecommunications firms and consumers, and in particular wireless services, are taxed higher at the State level than many other businesses. In our increasingly mobile economy, we should encourage the deployment of cell phone and wireless devices, not inhibit their use through higher taxes. The fact that these devices facilitate interstate commerce certainly gives the Congress the authority to constrain the States' taxing authority. However, just because Congress has the authority to do something does not necessarily mean that it should exercise that authority in every case. The taxing power has traditionally been within the jurisdiction of the States. And given the state of our economy, I sympathize with States' concerns about losing revenue because of congressional intervention. However, I also know that promoting mobile telecommunications is one way to increase American commerce and generate American jobs. This bill is specifically written to prevent discriminatory taxes after the date of enactment. Any taxes already in effect will remain untouched. So States will not lose any revenue as a result of this proposal. I do look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses to see how we can balance the problem of disproportionate taxation of telecommunications firms and consumers against the needs of States' treasuries. Unfortunately, since I won't be able to stay much longer at this hearing because of a previous commitment, I do have some questions that I will submit for the record, but I want to mention those questions now in hopes that the panelists might address them. One, are wireless taxes regressive, and do they disproportionately impact lower and middle income consumers? Two, does the bill limit States rights? And three, if Congress passes this legislation, what impact would it have on State and local revenues, on consumers, and on wireless service providers? Mr. Chairman, thank you and I will yield back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Smith. If there are no other statements from the Members, I am pleased to introduce our first witness, and we introduce the witnesses before their testimony. I want to thank each witness on the front end for participating. Without objection, your written statement will be placed in the record and we would ask you to limit your remarks to 5 minutes. We have a lighting system that shows green when you are starting and you are somewhere in between the first 4 minutes, and yellow means you have got a minute to go and red means you need to close. After each witness has presented his or her testimony to the Subcommittee, Members will be permitted to ask questions. They also have a 5-minute limit. Our first witness is Mr. Robert D. Atkinson. He is the Founder and President of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based technology policy think tank. He is also the author of State New Economy Index series and the book, The Past and Future of America's Economy: Long Waves That Power Cycles of Growth. He has an extensive background in technology policy, has conducted groundbreaking research projects on technology and innovation, is a valued adviser to State and national policy members, and a popular speaker on innovation policy nationally and internationally. Before coming to ITIF, Dr. Atkinson was Vice President of the Progressive Policy Institute and Director of that institute's Technology and New Economic Project. Previously Dr. Atkinson served as the first Executive Director of the Rhode Island Economic Policy Council, a public- private partnership, including as members the governor, legislative leaders, corporate, and labor leaders. And prior to that he was Project Director of the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He has testified several times before Members of Committees of Congress, so he knows what to expect. He has appeared at various news outlets, including CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, NPR, and NBC Nightly news. Thank you, Dr. Atkinson. I am looking forward to your testimony. I am always amazed at people who have think tanks. It is better than the other tanks, and 'tank' you for being here as you begin your testimony. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. ATKINSON, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOUNDATION Mr. Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are certainly a think tank, not a do tank. So we think about things. And thank you also, Mr. Franks, for the opportunity to be here today to talk about the impact of discriminatory taxes on wireless telecommunication services and on economic growth. It is clear from looking at the evidence from a wide array of economists that the U.S. economy has been transformed in the last 15 years by information and communications technologies, including wireless communications. One of the reasons why U.S. productivity growth has been so strong compared to the prior period there is a clear consensus among economists that it is due to the IT revolution. What is also important is that innovation in IT continues to emerge. We see that in Congresswoman Lofgren's example of the iPhone. But that is the tip of the iceberg. We are going to see a whole wide array of new wireless uses. This is not a bill about cell phones alone. This is about a revolution that is occurring in the U.S. economy where wireless devices and wireless services are going to be ubiquitous. And one of them, but certainly not the only one, is going to be wireless broadband. We are poised to see the deployment of new technologies in the next, really the next 12 months of what is called 4G, where you will get services of up to maybe 60, 70 megabits per second on a wireless device. This now provides the opportunity for what we call a third pipe going into the home and importantly a new opportunity for people who might not have been able to access broadband, particularly rural residents or lower income residents. When you look at taxation, there are basically three principles of optimal taxation. One, it should induce little change on consumer behavior. Secondly, it is not borne disproportionately by low-income individuals, and, third, it is not placed disproportionately on activities with positive externalities. Unfortunately, discriminatory taxes on cellular telecommunications violate all three principles. There is an argument that opponents of the bill make that this doesn't affect wireless adoption. It may not affect consumers getting a cell phone. It is clear that most consumers value that and have to have it. But what it does affect is consumers getting ancillary services, buying more minutes, getting broadband on wireless, getting a whole array of other things. And there have been several academic studies that show this quite clearly. Rappoport, Alleman and Taylor found that for every new dollar of discriminatory tax on wireless services, expenditures by consumers go down by $1.60. Ingraham and Sidak found slightly lower numbers, $1.23 to $1.29 negative elasticity. In other words, consumers spend less. In thinking about broadband and wireless broadband, Austan Goolsbee when he was at the University of Chicago, Dr. Goolsbee is now at the CEA, he found that actually it is much bigger for broadband, with a $2.75 negative elasticity. So a $1 tax on wireless broadband reduces the consumption of that service by $2.75. Not only that, but Goolsbee's work has shown that taxes on wireless don't just affect the consumer side. They affect the producer side and will reduce deployment, particularly in slightly high cost areas. Secondly, these have discriminatory effects on individuals based on income. In one study, Rappoport, Alleman and Taylor found that low-income individuals were as likely to adopt cellular Internet service and wireless Internet services as high-income individuals. So essentially this is not something that just high-income people are getting and we can justify a tax that way which may be legitimate, but that is not what is happening here. Low-income people are big users of this. And importantly, as GAO noted in a recent report, price is a barrier to adopting broadband services. A recent study by the Pew Internet and Society found that 35 percent of dial-up users say the major reasons for not switching to broadband is price. Thirdly, again really I think the key point here, is that this is a service, a wireless service as well as IT in general, has what economists call large positive externalities; in other words, what a consumer does with this device doesn't just benefit the consumer, it benefits all consumers. It benefits businesses. It benefits government. And there are several reasons for that. One is a traditional notion of what are called network externalities. In other words, as each individual user is able to use one of these, other people are--it makes it easier and beneficial for other people to use this. Again a study by Austan Goolsbee and Klenow found that there are these positive externalities, and in neighborhoods where they are controlling for income and all these other factors in neighborhoods where more people are using broadband, it makes it easier for other people to use broadband. And the reason is when some people in a neighborhood use it, other people know about it. They talk about it and so there is this, as I said, positive externality. How much is that positive externality? Igraham and Sidak found that every dollar of tax on wireless services, national economic welfare falls by $1.23 to $1.95. So in other words, adding $1 reduces overall economic welfare by $1.23 to $1.95. Hausman at MIT found slightly smaller numbers, between 72 cents and $1.14 loss. So again either number you use those are quite significant. Finally, the numbers on broadband are even higher. Goolsbee finds that it is anywhere around $3.55 national welfare loss. I will just close by saying having worked for a governor before in my past, I understand the issue of States and their rights here. But this is an issue where essentially what States do impacts the country as a whole. State taxes benefit the State. They hurt the entire country, which to me is a reason for Congress to act on this. Thank you, very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Atkinson follows:] Prepared Statement of Robert D. Atkinson Mr. Chairman, Mr. Franks, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the impact of discriminatory taxes on wireless telecommunications services on economic growth and opportunity. I am president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. ITIF is a nonpartisan research and educational institute whose mission is to formulate and promote public policies to advance technological innovation and productivity. Recognizing the vital role of technology in ensuring American prosperity, ITIF focuses on innovation, productivity, and digital economy issues. I have studied and written extensively about the issues of information technology and broadband and their effects on economic growth and societal improvement. importance of wireless communications In the last 15 years, the U.S. economy has been transformed by information and communications technology (IT), including wireless communications. One result has been a significant increase in U.S. economic productivity, with most economists agreeing that the increase was due to the IT revolution.\1\ And as a key component of the IT revolution, wireless technologies have contributed to that growth. Moreover, innovation in the IT industry is continuing, with changes in the wireless industry being among the most rapid. The development of the Apple iPhone, and the introduction of similar offerings by competing cell phone manufacturers, is but the most recent and visible manifestation of this flourishing of innovation. Increasingly businesses are using wireless technology to become more productive and innovative, with everything from tracking inventory, to monitoring the performance of their business on a real-time basis, to enabling mobile workers to be connected. Consumers are using wireless for an increasingly diverse and novel range of purposes, from health applications like remote monitoring of diabetes to financial applications like mobile banking and peer-to-peer payments. In addition, more and more parts of the United States have access to advanced 3G wireless services, and the rollout of advanced next generation 4G services, such as Wi-Max and LTE, is proceeding. These next generation services are important not just because they will continue to serve as a platform for robust innovation in mobile services and applications, but also because they offer the promise of enabling the entry of a third broadband ``pipe'' to the home (to compete with cable modem and DSL/fiber service). This new pipe offers to not only bring additional competition and consumer benefits to all Americans, but also to provide broadband services in some rural areas that now cannot access wired broadband services. In addition, because wireless broadband may provide lower priced broadband in all areas, it has the potential to help lower-income Americans who to date have not previously subscribed to broadband. In short, wireless services promise to be a growing and more important part of the IT ecosystem in the United States. It is in this environment of innovation and digital transformation that your Committee considers legislation to ban new discriminatory taxes on wireless services. Imposing discriminatory taxes on wireless services is in essence taxing one of the major engines of U.S. innovation and economic growth, and as discussed below has significant impacts on economic growth and economic fairness. Principles of Optimal Taxation: Many tax economists suggest that there are three principles of optimal taxation of commodities. An efficient commodity tax: 1) induces little change in consumer behavior; 2) is not borne disproportionally by low income individuals and households; and 3) is not placed disproportionally on activities with strong positive externalities. Discriminatory taxes on cellular telecommunications violate all three principles. I will examine each principle. discriminatory taxes on wireless services reduce consumer use Opponents of federal legislation to ban the introduction of new discriminatory taxes on wireless services argue that the rapid growth in cellular telephone subscriptions suggests that the higher taxes on cellular service have no negative impact. And they point to the rapid growth of cellular telephone service. But the major impact of discriminatory taxes is not on the decision to buy or not buy a cell phone (although for some individuals this may be the case). Rather, it is on the consumption of wireless services, with individuals facing higher taxes purchasing plans with fewer minutes and fewer services. And for a whole host of other services which are not as necessary, as of yet, to daily life, discriminatory taxes reduce not only use but adoption of these services. These include wireless data services and wireless Internet. Scholarly studies find that the impact of price (of which taxes are a component) on wireless expenditures is quite high. Rappoport, Alleman, and Taylor found that for the average monthly U.S. consumer expenditure on cell phone service ($52 per month),\2\ every dollar of additional tax reduces expenditures by more than $1.60.\3\ Ingraham and Sidak find slightly lower, but still high, elasticities of demand of between $1.23 and $1.29 (in other words, increasing taxes on wireless services by $1 reduces consumption of the services by between $1.23 to $1.29).\4\ Because wireless data services, including broadband Internet access, are an even more discretionary purchase for most consumers, the impact of taxes on wireless data and broadband are likely even higher. Indeed, Austin Goolsbee finds the elasticities for broadband to be between 2.15 and 3.50, with an average of 2.75. In other words, increasing taxes on wireless data and Internet services by $1.00 reduces consumption of these services by an average of $2.75.\5\ This very high impact of taxes on consumer demand also affects producer decisions on where to deploy services. As the GAO reported, one of the most important factors for companies considering deploying broadband to an area was the expected demand for broadband service.\6\ Since adoption rates drive demand, not only do wireless taxes affect the ability of citizens to afford wireless Internet access, but they could also discourage some companies from deploying 3G and 4G systems. This conclusion is supported by research by Goolsbee who found that ``in several medium sized markets, applying a tax on broadband would have reduced the potential producer surplus enough that suppliers would not be able to cover their fixed costs and would choose to delay the diffusion of broadband in those markets.'' \7\ distributional impacts of wireless taxes It might be one thing if discriminatory wireless taxes affected mostly demand from higher income consumers. But of all advanced information technology and communications services, wireless is one of the most widely adopted services, with wireless services much more evenly distributed among income groups than fixed broadband. Rappoport, Alleman, and Taylor find that while the highest income Americans ($100,000 or more in annual income) adopted fixed broadband at 125 percent the rate that the average income American adopted a set of telecommunications and computing products (PCs, Internet, Broadband, Mobile, Internet ready PCS and PCS Internet Subscriber (in 2003), mobile phone adoption was only 40 percent higher while mobile Internet use was just 44 percent higher. In other words, low income households were almost as likely to adopt wireless services as higher income households. Moreover, when examining just adoption of Internet-enabled cellular services (as opposed to all the listed services and products), low-income households (less than $15,000 per year) adopted the service at about the same rates as high income households. Because low income households are almost as likely to subscribe to wireless services as higher income households, discriminatory taxes on wireless services are more regressive than many other kinds of taxes. And because of the structure of many of these taxes, the distributional impacts are even worse. When some jurisdictions (like Baltimore, MD for example) impose surcharges on service, the tax is not proportional to use, but is the same on all users, regardless of income or use. These discriminatory taxes play a role in limiting wireless data and broadband adoption, particularly among low income households. As GAO reported, the ``price of broadband service remains a barrier to adoption of broadband service for some consumers'' and noted that ``households with high incomes were 39 percentage points more likely to adopt broadband than lower-income households.''8 Likewise, the Pew Internet and Society project found that just 25 percent of low income Americans with less than $20,000 annual income subscribe to broadband services, compared to 85 percent of households with over $100,000 in income.9 Moreover, over one-third (35 percent) of dial-up users say that price is the major reason for not switching to broadband.10 Raising the price of wireless broadband service through discriminatory taxes will slow adoption of broadband, particularly as it's likely that for many low income households in the future, wireless will be an important means of accessing the benefits of the Internet. impact of discriminatory wireless taxes on economic growth Telecommunications taxes have been high historically because states and localities could tax these with little fear of losing revenue to consumers shifting their expenditures. For example, high retail sales taxes could induce residents to shop in nearby jurisdictions with lower rates. In contrast, taxing services that people consumed in their homes was seen by states as a more reliable way to raise revenue. This is one major reason why telecommunications services is in most jurisdictions taxed more heavily than other goods or services. This may once have made sense at a time when the principal telecommunications service consumed by people was ``plain old telephone service.'' But it certainly makes no sense now when telecommunications services, including wireless, are key drivers of the digital economy. In fact, many jurisdictions, especially the states and the federal government, recognize that it is a driver, and are investing public funds to promote it. One of the reasons why governments are investing in digital communications technologies, including wireless, is because they exhibit what economists call positive externalities (an externality occurs when the impacts of decisions by producer or consumers spill over to the broader economy.) One of the most important externalities from wireless services is network externalities. Network externalities are the effects on a user of a product or service of others using the same or compatible products or services. Positive network externalities exist if the benefits are an increasing function of the number of other users. In this case a good becomes more valuable to individual consumers as others also purchase that good. The classic example is telephone service, which becomes more valuable to a user if more people are connected. Indeed, telephone network externalities have long been recognized and have been a major rationale behind universal service policies. The same kind of externality exists with wireless telephone service. But externalities from wireless broadband are likely to be even more significant, in part because broadband enables new services to emerge that will benefit broadband users. There are two kinds of network externalities from broadband, direct and indirect. Direct externalities relate to subscribership. Just as the fax system became more valuable when more people had faxes, broadband becomes more valuable when more people have broadband; the more likely others are to subscribe. This is in part because the decision to purchase broadband is dependent in part on having sufficient knowledge about it. Unlike a service like haircuts or a product like TVs that most people are familiar with and can accurately value, fewer people are familiar with wireless data and Internet services and cannot always value their benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that this is a factor that affects subscribership. Goolsbee and Klenow found that people are more likely to buy their first computer if they live in areas where a high proportion of households own computers or if a high fraction of their friends and family own computers--even controlling for other factors affecting computer ownership. If ownership rates are 10 percent higher in one city than another in a given year, the gap will be 11 percent the following year, assuming all else stays constant.\11\ They explain this effect on the basis that the number of experienced and intensive computer users creates a ``spillover'' effect for non-users. They conclude that the effect is most probably related to the use of e-mail and the Internet--consistent with the view of computers being the hub of an information and communications network. But it is also likely to be related to the fact that people who have friends and neighbors with broadband are more likely to be able to better understand its value. While dial-up connections also enable network externalities for applications like email, only wireless broadband would generate them for mobile applications. Moreover, these externalities are likely to be higher in lower-income neighborhoods where individuals may have less familiarity with these technologies. Indirect network externalities from broadband relate to its effect on applications and content that requires broadband transport to work effectively. One reason why broadband take-up is not higher is because data-rich applications that could be accessed over broadband have not developed faster. Why develop mobile applications, especially ones that need moderate- to high- speeds, when very few people would be able to access them? This ``chicken-or-egg'' issue slows deployment of wireless broadband. More data-intensive applications would make mobile broadband more valuable, while more mobile broadband subscribers would make data- intensive applications more commercially viable. Indeed, more mobile broadband would spur the development of a whole host of new applications that are not viable now. The second major kind of broadband externality relates to the fact that broadband enables consumers to become more efficient, thus in turn driving higher rates of productivity and economic growth. In the old economy producers produced and consumers consumed. Producers invested in new capital equipment to produce goods and services more efficiently and consumers in turn bought these cheaper goods and services. This dichotomy between producers and consumers is blurring in the new digital economy where a whole host of digital tools are enabling consumers to become, in the words of futurist Alvin Toffler, ``prosumers'' who act at the same time as both consumer and producer. Whether it's conducting mobile banking, getting real time information on traffic conditions, or engaging in e-government services, mobile Internet is enabling self-service and becoming an important share of the economy, helping to boost productivity and to increase consumer convenience. Indeed, with the service sector now accounting for over 80 percent of employment, prosumerism will simply have to play a much larger role if we are to continue to boost incomes and economic growth. Wireless broadband promises to be a key technology for boosting prosumer productivity. Wireless Internet is also improving Americans' quality of life. For example, using a wireless data reader that connects to standard telephones, patients can securely transmit the medical data recorded by these medical devices to their health care provider. Their physicians can then review the patients' health information remotely, thereby reducing the number of office visits, a major benefit for patients with chronic diseases or who need frequent care. Similarly, obstetricians can remotely monitor the blood pressure and fetal heart beat of their patients at home, rather than requiring the patients to be admitted to the hospital.\12\ Wireless is also helping older Americans minimize the risks associated with solitude. Currently, for example, older adults and individuals with disabilities can use a personal emergency response system so that with the push of a button they can call for medical assistance. Personal emergency response devices typically consist of two components: a wearable wireless transmitter and a telephone unit that connects to an emergency response center. Such devices can particularly help adults who are at risk of a stroke or falling live independently. They can also save money by reducing the length of time for inpatient hospital care or nursing home care. Economic studies of the impact of taxes on wireless service support this argument that reduced wireless activity will have negative economic impacts. Ingraham and Sidak find that for every $1 of tax, national economic welfare falls by between $1.23 and $1.95, depending on the level of the tax existing in a jurisdiction (if a state with already high taxes on wireless service increases taxes even more, the overall economic welfare loss would be 1.95).\13\ Hausman also finds significant, albeit somewhat smaller, impacts of societal economic welfare. He finds that for every additional dollar raised in taxes on wireless services, the marginal efficiency cost to the economy is between $0.72 and $1.14.\14\ In other words, when a jurisdiction adds a tax on wireless service, for every dollar it receives, society loses between $0.72 and $1.14. The impact of taxes on wireless broadband is likely to be even higher, given the even-broader network and prosumer externalities. In fact, Goolsbee finds this to be the case, with the overall economic welfare loss from $1 of taxes on broadband (wireless or wired) being between $3.46 and $5.15.\15\ In other words, for every dollar raised in taxes, society as a whole loses at least $3.46. the rationale for federal action Even with these significant negative impacts from discriminatory wireless taxation, some argue that jurisdictions should be free to impose these taxes. If these negative effects were confined to the jurisdiction imposing the taxes, the opponents of legislation would have a stronger, but in my view, still inadequate case. But the costs of discriminatory wireless taxation are not only borne by residents of the jurisdiction, but by all Americans. In particular, while sub- national jurisdictions also benefit from higher levels of wireless adoption, there is an asymmetrical distribution between the costs and benefits of taxes on wireless services. When jurisdictions tax wireless services, they receive all of the financial benefit of the tax, but the net social cost of lower rates of wireless service access extends beyond the jurisdictions' borders to affect residents and businesses across the entire nation. Second, opponents of this legislation argue that it will hurt state and local fiscal health. But this legislation only prohibits new discriminatory taxes. Moreover, states and localities will benefit as higher levels of productivity generate lower prices for their citizens. In addition, the economic benefits of a healthy national economy will provide state tax administrators opportunities to increase their state tax revenue. Third, opponents will argue that this simply shifts taxes from one service or product to others. Of course it does. But that's not the point. The point is that the negative effects of taxes on wireless services are higher than on most other services or products. For example, Hausman finds that the effect on welfare of general taxation and income taxation is between 54 to 71 percent less costly to economic efficiency and net economic welfare than taxes on wireless.\16\ And taxes on items with negative externalities, such as products like petroleum which emit greenhouse gas emissions, would have positive effects on economic welfare. Opponents also argue that many types of industries are subject to their own special taxes. But again, the major reason why discriminatory wireless taxes are a bad idea is not because discriminatory taxes themselves are a bad idea. Taxes on tobacco products are rightly justified by the adverse health effects from smoking. Rather, it is discriminatory taxes on products or services with large positive externalities that are problematic. conclusion Wireless innovation is likely to continue to bring new consumer functionalities, business and government benefits and overall economic growth. However, the evidence clearly shows that taxes on wireless services, particularly discriminatory taxes, have a clear negative effect on adoption of these services and because of that, negative effects on both U.S. economic growth and economic opportunity for all Americans, and lower income Americans especially. Notes: 1. Robert D. Atkinson and Andrew S. McKay, ``Digital Prosperity: Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution,'' (Washington, DC: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 2007)
. 2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Spending on Cell Phone Services Has Exceeded Spending on Residential Phone Services,'' 2007, . 3. Paul Rappoport, James Alleman, and Lester Taylor, ``Household Demand for Wireless Telephony: An Empirical Analysis,'' Presentation to the 31st Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Sept. 19, 2003, George Mason University, Arlington, Va. 4. Allan T. Ingraham and J. Gregory Sidak, ``Do States Tax Wireless Services Inefficiently? Evidence on the Price Elasticity of Demand,'' Virginia Tax Review, Vol. 24: 249-261, 2004. 5. Austan Goolsbee, ``The Value of Broadband and the Deadweight Loss of Taxing New Technology,'' Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1, Article 8. (2006) . 6. Ibid. 7. Austan Goolsbee, ``The Value of Broadband and the Deadweight Loss of Taxing New Technology,'' NBER Working Paper 11994 (National Bureau of Economic Research, Feb. 2006): . 8. Ibid. 9. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Home Broadband Adoption 2008. 10. Ibid. 11. Austan Goolsbee and Peter Klenow, ``Evidence on Learning and Network Externalities in the Diffusion of Home Computers,'' Journal of Law and Economics, October 2002, Vol XLV (2, part 1): 317-344. 12. E. Kyriacou, et al., ``Multi-Purpose Healthcare Telemedicine Systems with Mobile Communication Link Support,'' BioMedical Engineering Online 2 (2003), (accessed July 24, 2008). 13. Ingraham and Sidak, op. cit. 14. Jerry Hausman, ``Efficiency Effects on the U.S. Economy from Wireless Taxation,'' National Tax Journal, vol. LIII, No. 3., Part 2, 733-742. 15. Austan Goolsbee, ``The Value of Broadband and the Deadweight Loss of Taxing New Technology,'' op. cit. 16. Jerry Hausman, op. cit. __________ Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Dr. Atkinson. Our next witness is State Representative Mara Candelaria, from the State of Indiana. She has experience in Congress, having worked for U.S. Congressman Peter Visclosky and has worked with the Democratic Party. As a former NCSL executive committee member, I welcome you here and appreciate your work in the Indiana State House of Representatives. Would you begin your testimony? TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARA CANDELARIA REARDON, INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Thank you, Chairman Cohen and Ranking Member Franks, Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Mara Candelaria Reardon, and I have the honor of representing the 12th House District in Indiana. I serve on the Environmental Affairs, Government and Regulatory Reform and Ways and Means Committee in Indiana's House. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to offer my support for H.R. 1521, the Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009. The Cell Tax Fairness Act takes a thoughtful, pro-consumer, pro-broadband approach that will help to ensure affordable wireless services for my constituents and Indiana's nearly 4.7 million wireless subscribers. Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Franks are to be commended for the broad bipartisan support they have garnered with this legislation. As a State legislator and particularly as a member of the Government and Regulatory Reform and Ways and Means Committee, any Federal legislation that places parameters on a State's ability to tax is something that I believe should be done sparingly, judiciously and, most importantly, does absolutely no harm. I believe that H.R. 1521 meets these criteria. Our system of Federalism grants State and local policymakers with the ability to determine how States should levy taxes on individuals and businesses that reside within their respective jurisdictions. As a member of Indiana's Ways and Means Committee, I am sensitive to preserving the State's taxing authority to fund government services. But as a legislator tasked with writing Indiana's tax laws, I also believe that another important precept of our Nation's tax structure is that taxes should be levied equitably on our citizens, particularly when multiple jursidictions have the ability to tax. In Indiana my constituents pay a 9.55 percent rate in State and local taxes and a relatively modest combined rate of 13.74 percent in State, local, and Federal taxes, fees, and surcharges for their wireless services, as compared to the national average of 15.2 percent. Nevertheless, Indiana's wireless consumers are now effectively taxed twice. They not only pay the State sales tax like consumers of other goods, but also included is the utilities receipts tax. In several States, consumers pay taxes, fees, and surcharges in excess of 18 percent on top of their monthly bills for their service. When tax rates reach those levels, as they do with alcohol and tobacco, the purpose is usually to inhibit use. Wireless services are no longer a luxury in our society. They have become a necessity. Preserving affordability should be an important public policy goal. H.R. 1521 provides a measured approach by only precluding new discriminatory taxes and fees from being added on an already excessive level of taxation imposed upon wireless consumers. Importantly, the legislation recognizes the revenue needs of States and localities and does not take away any existing revenue from State or local governments. In fact, H.R. 1521 allows States and localities to raise wireless taxes if done in conjunction with an increase in taxes on other general goods and services. My focus here this morning will be to provide some historical context as to how we got here and where we are today and why I believe taking a time out from imposing new additional discriminatory taxes on wireless services is important to American consumers and consistent with principles espoused by the National Conference of State Legislators. The tax structure imposed on the communications industry today is a holdover from the days when the industry was operated by Ma Bell as a regulated utility. This tax structure was first instituted long before I entered public office and well before the first wireless call was ever made. As some may recall, as regulated utilities telecommunications providers were subject to taxes under statutes applicable to public utilities. The taxes imposed upon included gross receipts, franchise, and other industry-specific taxes that were passed on to consumers in the rates as part of the regulatory rate setting process. The phone company never had to worry about consumers looking for a cheaper alternative because there was no competition in the marketplace. State and local governments could tax telecommunications services at a much higher rate than other goods and services without worrying about constituent backlash because the natural reaction was, it is just the phone company raising my rates again. Fast forward to today, and the communications marketplace is drastically different than it was 20 years ago. Consumers have a myriad of options to choose from to be their communications provider as well as voice and data plans to meet their individual needs. However, the legacy tax structure remains in place. Our Federal and State income tax is structured such that if you earn more you pay more in taxes. That is not the case with respect to the payment of wireless taxes. As I mentioned previously, Indiana has approximately 4.7 million subscribers. Of that 4.7, nearly 14 percent of Indiana's households have cut the cord and are wireless only. As of October, 2008, 4.5 percent of Indiana's wireless subscribers had income levels of less than $50,000 and 61.7 percent had income levels of less than $75,000. Regardless of whether someone is making $25,000 annually or $125,000 annually, they will pay the same tax rate on their purchases of wireless services. With the national average of 15.2 percent, consumers who are of lower or moderate incomes pay disproportionately more for the same services than those with higher incomes. Why is this important to bear in mind? Access to wireless services is no longer a luxury for a select few but rather a vital necessity, particularly for those facing economic challenges. In preparing for this hearing, I took the opportunity to read an April 27 Dear Colleague circulated by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Franks. The Dear Colleague highlighted an March 23 Washington Post article chronicling how low-cost cell phones provide an essential lifeline to the homeless. When you consider how important wireless services have become to consumers today, taxing those services at an excessive level is counterproductive. As I mentioned earlier, I am sensitive to the importance of preserving State and local governments' ability to fund government services. Current tax revenues in Indiana are down 8 percent from last year. But as policy makers it is important that we also finance public services not to target one good or service for disparate tax treatment. I can go on. Mr. Cohen. I know you can but you also can't. Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Thank you for the opportunity. [The prepared statement of Ms. Candelaria Reardon follows:] Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mara Candelaria Reardon Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Franks and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Mara Candelaria Reardon, and I have the honor of representing House District 12 in Northwest Indiana. I serve on the Environmental Affairs, Government and Regulatory Reform and Ways and Means Committees in Indiana's House of Representatives. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to offer my support for H.R. 1521, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009.'' The Cell Tax Fairness Act takes a thoughtful, pro-consumer, pro- broadband approach that will help to ensure affordable wireless services for my constituents and Indiana's nearly 4.7 million wireless subscribers.\1\ Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Franks are to be commended for the broad bi-partisan support they have garnered with this legislation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- /1/ FCC's Local Competition Report, September 18, 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a state legislator and particularly as a member of the Government and Regulatory Reform and Ways and Means Committees, any federal legislation that places parameters on a state's ability to tax is something that I believe should be done sparingly, judiciously and most importantly, does no harm. I believe that H.R. 1521 meets these criteria. Our system of Federalism grants state and local policymakers with the ability to determine how states should levy taxes on individuals and businesses that reside within their respective jurisdictions. As a member of Indiana's Ways and Means Committee, I am sensitive to preserving a state's taxing authority to fund government services. But as a legislator tasked with writing Indiana's tax laws, I also believe that another important precept of our nation's tax structure is that taxes should be levied equitably on our citizens, particularly when multiple jurisdictions have the ability to tax. In Indiana, my constituents pay a 9.55% rate in state and local taxes, and a relatively modest combined rate of 13.74% in state, local and federal taxes, fees and surcharges for their wireless services as compared to the national average of 15.2%. Nevertheless, Indiana's wireless consumers are now effectively taxed twice. They not only pay the state sales tax like consumers of other goods, but also included is the Utility Receipts Tax. In several states, consumers pay taxes, fees and surcharges in excess of 18% on top of their monthly bills for their service. When tax rates reach those levels, as they do with alcohol and tobacco, the purpose is usually to inhibit use. Wireless services are no longer a luxury in our society; they have become a necessity. Preserving affordability should be an important public policy goal. H.R. 1521 provides a measured approach by only precluding new discriminatory taxes and fees from being added on an already excessive level of taxation imposed upon wireless consumers. Importantly, the legislation recognizes the revenue needs of states and localities and does not take away any existing revenue from state or local governments. In fact, H.R. 1521 allows states and localities to raise wireless taxes if done in conjunction with an increase of taxes on other general goods and services. My focus here this morning will be to provide some historical context as to how we got to where we are today and why I believe that taking a ``time-out'' from imposing new, additional discriminatory taxes on wireless services is important to American consumers and consistent with principles espoused by the National Conference of State Legislatures. historical context regarding communications taxes The tax structure imposed upon the communications industry today is a holdover from the days when the industry was operated by Ma Bell as a rate regulated utility. This tax structure was first instituted long before I entered public office and well before the first wireless call was ever made. As some may recall, as regulated utilities, telecommunication providers were subject to taxes under statutes applicable to ``public utilities.'' The taxes imposed included gross receipts, franchise and other industry-specific taxes that were passed on to consumers in the rates as part of the regulatory rate setting process. The phone company never had to worry about the consumer looking for a cheaper alternative because there was no competition in the marketplace. State and local governments could tax telecommunication services at much higher rates than other goods and services without worrying about constituent backlash because the natural reaction was, ``it's just the phone company raising my rates again.'' Fast forward to today and the communications marketplace is drastically different than it was 20 years ago. Consumers have a myriad of options to choose from to be their communications provider, as well as voice and data plans to meet their individual needs. However, the legacy tax structure remains in place. regressive nature of wireless taxes Our Federal and State income tax system is structured such that if you earn more, you pay more in taxes. That is not the case with respect to the payment of wireless taxes. As I mentioned previously, Indiana has approximately 4.7 million subscribers. Of that 4.7 million, nearly 14 percent of Indiana's households have ``cut the cord'' and are wireless only.\2\ As of October of 2008, 45.7% of Indiana's wireless subscribers had income levels of less than $50,000 and 67.1% had income levels less than $75,000.\3\ Regardless of whether someone is making $25,000 annually or $125,000 annually, they will pay the same tax rate on their purchases of wireless services. With a national average wireless tax rate of 15.2%, consumers who are of lower or moderate income levels pay disproportionately more for the same service than those with higher incomes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Centers for Disease Control NCHS March 11, 2009 \3\ ComScore October 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is this important to bear in mind? Access to wireless services is no longer a luxury for a select few, but rather a vital necessity, particularly for those facing economic challenges. In preparing for this hearing, I took the opportunity to read an April 27th ``Dear Colleague'' circulated by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Franks. The ``Dear Colleague'' highlighted a March 23rd Washington Post article chronicling how low-cost cell phones provide an essential lifeline to the homeless and those who are experiencing economic difficulty. The article clearly brings into focus what many of us take for granted, but for others provides some modicum of much needed normalcy. ``Having a phone isn't a privilege anymore--it's a necessity,'' said Rommel McBride, who spent about six years on the streets before recently being placed in a city housing program. . . . A cell phone is the only way you can call to keep up your food stamps, your housing application, your job. When you're living in a shelter or on the streets, it's your last line of communications with the world.'' When you consider how important wireless services have become to consumers today, taxing these services at such an excessive level is counterproductive. Mr. McBride happens to live here in Washington, D.C., but there are thousands, if not millions of people throughout this country who rely on their cell phones to assist in finding a job; locating a place to live; keeping in touch with loved ones and friends; protecting their personal safety; accessing the Internet as well as a variety of other uses. For many, their wireless phone is their lifeline. federalism perspective As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, as a state legislator, I am very sensitive to the importance of preserving state and local government's ability to tax in order to fund government services. Current tax revenues in Indiana are down 8% from last year. But as policymakers, it's also important, as we finance public services, not to target one particular good or service for disparate tax treatment as compared to others. For example, state and local wireless taxes and fees increased from 10.2% to 11% between 2003 and 2007--this resulted in an increase in the rate of taxes on sales of wireless services that was four times the increase in the rate of taxes imposed on sales of other competitive goods and services. Opponents of H.R. 1521 claim that this legislation drastically departs from longstanding principles of federalism and that it provides favorable tax treatment to the wireless industry. Under our Federalist system, the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are expressly provided by the Constitution, with all other powers reserved to the states as set forth under the 10th Amendment. Thus, the federal government's powers are limited. However, under the Commerce Clause, Congress is expressly granted the power to regulate commerce among the states. Due to the mobile nature of wireless services and the ability to use such services across the country, the provision of wireless services is clearly interstate commerce and well within the power of Congress to ``regulate commerce among the states.'' Additionally, the 14th Amendment provides that ``. . . No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'' and further specifies under Section 5 that Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. In my opinion, H.R. 1521 does not dramatically depart from our federalist principles. In the mid 1970s, Congress passed the federal 4- R Act which precluded states from discriminatorily taxing the railroad industry. And more recently in 2007, this Subcommittee played a leading role in the extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. It's my understanding that the primary beneficiary of this legislation is the American wireless consumer, not the wireless industry. In 2007, Indiana subscribers paid over $326 million in wireless taxes and fees. The carriers remit these taxes to the state, but it is the consumers that pay the overwhelming majority of these taxes, not industry. I appreciate the temptation to try and obfuscate the issue, but if this legislation results in a five to ten dollar savings each month for my constituents, while at the same time, the state of Indiana continues to collect $326 million or more annually in wireless tax revenues--I consider it a win-win. Last year, wireless consumers across the country paid nearly $21 billion in state, local and federal taxes and fees imposed on their wireless services to fund government services. By anyone's measure, that is a lot of money for one subset of consumers to pay for an essential service. H.R. 1521 does nothing to jeopardize that revenue stream. In all likelihood, state and local revenues from wireless services will continue to grow if this legislation is enacted. H.R. 1521 provides a common sense solution to a growing problem. Clearly, it is a bill that that has broad, bipartisan appeal, as evidenced by over 100 cosponsors, which is why I strongly support the passage and enactment of H.R. 1521, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009.'' Thank you again for this opportunity to offer my thoughts. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. __________ Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Representative Reardon. We do need to try to keep to the red light. Our third witness is Joanne Hovis. Ms. Hovis is President of Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, which is a communications engineering and consulting firm. She is an attorney. She has practiced both in Chicago and in Washington, is an authority on municipal and community broadband topics and on governments' role vis-a-vis. She has represented several impressive clients and knows when 5 minutes are 5 minutes. You are recognized. TESTIMONY OF JOANNE HOVIS, COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, AND THE NATIIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Ms. Hovis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cohen, distinguished Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you here today. I serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, and I am very pleased to be here on behalf of NATOA as well as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and the Government Finance Officers Association. I do focus on community broadband issues, working for State and local government and nonprofits across the country, and I am a long- time advocate for the need for greater broadband, bigger broadband, more broadband, and more affordable broadband in the United States. And so I commend all of you and agree with much of what Ms. Lofgren said just a few minutes ago that the need for attention to this issue is enormous. What I would like to talk about here today, though, is whether this particular piece of legislation will really result in deployment of a lot more broadband or affordable broadband. The issue of tax policy, tax is not my area. That is for elected officials to address because they are answerable to their constituency. I would like to, rather, correct what I believe are some of the misunderstandings surrounding the economics of the wireless industry and the actual barriers to deployment of wireless broadband services to all areas of our country. First and foremost, the current tax treatment of wireless services by Federal, State, and local authorities has not hindered product innovation, service growth, or industry profitability. This industry, the wireless communications industry, is strong and successful. Growth has been explosive in high-density areas of the country where the carriers have chosen to invest and to deploy networks. In 1995, there were just under 34 million cell phone subscribers in the United States. By 2008, that number 270 million, 87 percent of the Nation's population. That is for wireless voice service. On the wireless broadband, or data side, we are seeing similar growth. Indeed, it is wireless that represents the greatest growth and opportunity for the communications industry in a variety of ways, and by its own account the wireless industry is very strong. Verizon, the country's largest mobile service provider, posted profits of $1.65 billion in the first quarter of 2009 on wireless revenue growth of almost 30 percent. Most of the major carriers, as Dr. Atkinson mentioned, are moving very fast to deploy in the areas where they see a return on investment. 4G services, there is explosive movement toward and development toward deployment of next generation broadband wireless services. AT&T is upgrading existing networks like the other carriers and is expanding from 350 to 370 metropolitan areas in this next generation. Given the strength and profitability of this industry, one wonders why the industry is seeking preferential tax treatment, and I would like to address the issue of whether or not they actually are seeking it in order to deploy more wireless broadband networks. Given that the wireless voice and data industries are both profitable and growing at extraordinary rates in metropolitan areas of the United States, I think we should look at what is happening in the rural areas. Obviously we are not seeing that kind of growth in rural areas, and I should say that America's local governments are as concerned and troubled by this lack as is the Subcommittee. While I commend those who believe our Nation should find new models for expanding deployment in less densely populated areas, it is important to understand that it is the economics of wireless communications that is the reason for the slow or nonexistent deployment. Deployment of communications networks is extremely costly. Communications carriers are private for-profit companies, and they quite rationally allocate their investment resources to areas of the country where they are likely to achieve the highest return on investment, those areas that have relatively dense populations and higher, and thereby greater, potential penetration and higher revenues per mile of construction. The basic reality of these economics will not be changed by preemption of a particular tax or by removal of any single cost of doing business. Carriers will still invest their money where they are likely to get the greatest return on investment, and this is the central broadband issue that we face as a Nation in our rural areas, that that return on investment simply does not exist in the same way in rural areas. That is a national problem, but this is not the solution. Finally, let me very briefly point out that this legislation is not timely and should await the result of the proceeding currently underway at the Federal Communications Commission that Congresswoman Lofgren mentioned a littler bit earlier. As directed by the Recovery Act, the FCC is currently engaged in an extensive proceeding to develop a national broadband plan, and as part of that plan the FCC released a notice of inquiry that included questions abouta wide range of various things that could be hindering broadband deployment in the United States. And the Federal Communications Commission is undertaking a year of extensive analysis, and this Subcommittee should consider waiting to see the expert agency's conclusions before proceeding with this legislation, which is really a piecemeal attempt to deal with this issue. I know I am out of time. I want to thank you for your attention. [The prepared statement of Ms. Hovis follows:] Prepared Statement of Joanne Hovis __________ Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Hovis. Our fourth witness is a State representative from the Sunshine State, Mr. Joseph Gibbons. He was elected in 2006. He has both parts of Broward and Miami Dade Counties. The football stadium may be in there, the baseball stadium. What do they call it now? Pro Player? Mr. Gibbons. Yes. Mr. Cohen. Prior to his election to the House he was on the Broward County Planning Council and has been a city commissioner from the City of Hallandale Beach. We appreciate your coming before the Committee, and please begin your testimony. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH A. GIBBONS, FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Franks, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Joe Gibbons, and I am a member of the Florida House of Representatives representing the 105th District. One of the committees that I serve on is the Energy and Utilities Policy Committee. It is my commitment to my work on the issues of that committee that brings me here today. As wireless services continues to evolve and becomes more about services other than voice, it is critical to recognize that consumers in this emerging environment are not the same individuals that could afford the expensive Internet experience. We should not create the same digital divide on broadband as we initially created on access to the Internet. While Federal legislatures recognize the need to prevent excessive and discriminatory tactics on the Internet by passing the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments of 2007 and Federal and State policymakers embrace the desire to accelerate the deployment of broadband services, the fact remains that the current level of State and local taxation on telecommunications services is misguided and directly counter to economic prosperity. Unless the tax policies of the past are reformed to reflect the highly dynamic nature of the communications industry today, many of my constituents will be priced out of the ability to have affordable access to the most advanced wireless broadband services. The impact of the current level of taxation on wireless consumers is significant for the high level of seniors, African American, and Hispanic consumers, who as a group have shown a high adoption rate and significant use of both wireless and voice data services. My poorest constituents are more likely to have only a cell phone as opposed to having both a landline phone and a cell phone. Taxation should not punish disproportionately those who can least afford it. And in Florida that is the system in place today. I reach out to Congress today to help steer the course to telecommunications tax reform for all of my constituents, especially those that use their cell phone as a lifeline. In 2000, to simplify the taxes and fees imposed upon communications services at the State level, legislation was passed that replaced 11 different impositions into one consolidated communications services tax. The base was expanded to specifically include wireless, even though several of the old impositions were for uses of the right-of-way or other public utility impositions. The current taxes imposed upon the entire communications industry, including wireless, appear to be excessive. One of the recent trends that the industry has highlighted has been to take the existing franchise and utility taxes that are already applicable to landline services and extend them to wireless. State and local officials are targeting wireless because the number of wireline customers are dwindling and they believe that wireless needs to fill that gap. It is incumbent upon legislators like myself to advance the needed reforms to the current tax structure at home so that this critical technology, a lifeline in the eyes of my constituents, is not taxed at rates in excess of 20 percent of their monthly bill. This bill does not preclude communication specific fees so long as the funds are solely used for that stated purpose such as funding for e-911 communications systems and universal service. This bill prevents taxes or fees from being imposed on wireless service that is not also imposed on general goods and services. I believe that those taxes should be as broadly and equitably applied as possible so that the cost of government is borne equitably by all constituents receiving the benefit of those services. As a former city commissioner and a part of the Broward League of Cities, I am intimately aware of the need for revenue to fund critical government programs. Like any State policymaker, I take any Federal intervention into State taxing authority very seriously. However, I believe that H.R. 1521 carefully walks that fine line of when Federal intervention makes sense. This bill does not preclude my ability to tax wireless consumers or the industry in a rational way. It only precludes my State from targeting these consumers for additional excess taxes. I believe that precluding new discriminatory taxes from being enacted strikes the right balance between the different sovereign powers. These services clearly operate within interstate commerce and as such are within Congress' purview to address when they believe there is a social good to do so, and again I repeat, a social good to do so. Working with the States to address the existing tax burden on communication services has proven to be very challenging. This bill is seeking simply a time-out so that the situation doesn't get worse during the time that the industry is continuing to work with elected officials to fix the existing problem. The bill would not prevent States or localities from increasing sales taxes, property taxes, or other broad-based taxes that apply to wireless consumers and providers in addition to other taxable goods and services. This bill would benefit wireless consumers by preventing them from being singled out for new taxes. I think the Federal, State, and local governments all have a role in working together to ensure that we don't burden this technology with an onerous tax structure. This legislation seems to strike the right balance in our system of Federalism. It is not creating an unfunded mandate by ordering States to eliminate existing tax revenues imposed upon such services. It is simply identifying that State and local governments should not target wireless consumers unfairly to raise additional revenues or their existing tax structure might come up short. I believe precluding new discriminatory taxes from being enacted strikes the right balance between the different sovereign powers. Thank you again for this opportunity here today, and I would be happy to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:] Prepared Statement of the Honorable Joseph A. Gibbons Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Franks and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Joe Gibbons and I am a member of the Florida House of Representatives representing the 105th District which incorporates parts of Broward County including all or parts of Hollywood, Hallandale Beach, Miramar, Pembroke Pines, Pembroke Park and Westpark. My current responsibilities in the state legislature include participation on the Transportation & Economic Development Appropriations Committee, the Energy & Utilities Policy Committee, the Full Appropriations Council on Education & Economic Development and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1521, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009.'' While federal legislators recognized the need to prevent excessive and discriminatory taxes on the Internet by passing the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 and federal and state policymakers embrace the desire to accelerate the deployment of broadband services the fact remains that the current level of state and local taxation of telecommunications services is misguided and directly counter to economic prosperity and continued deployment of advanced mobile services across the country. Ultimately, unless the tax policies of the past are reformed to reflect the highly dynamic nature of the communications industry today, many of my constituents will be priced out of the ability to have affordable access to the most advanced wireless broadband services. HR. 1521 is a necessary first step to prevent further expansion of new discriminatory taxes on wireless services while simultaneously it is incumbent on legislators like myself to advance the needed reforms to the current tax structure at home so that this critical technology, a lifeline in the eyes of my constituents, is not taxed at rates in excess of 20% of their monthly bill. my constituents would benefit from reform My district is a diverse, multi-ethnic urban area which is one of the fastest growing areas in the state of Florida. The impact of the current level of taxation on wireless consumers is significant for the high level of seniors, African American and Hispanic consumers who, as a group, have shown a high adoption rate and significant use of both wireless voice and data services:
For use of non-voice data applications on handhelds, Hispanics and African Americans lead the way relative to caucasian Americans. Half of African Americans and 56% of English-speaking Latinos with cell phones, on a typical day, do at least one of 10 non-voice data applications such as taking pictures, accessing the internet for news, playing music, or texting. By contrast, 38% of caucasians do these kinds of activities on a wireless handheld device on the average day.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Pew Internet & American Life Project, Seeding the Cloud: What Mobile Access Means fir Usage and Online Content, March 2008, Mobile access builds on the cell phone, a device that is easier to use and more affordable than a computer. Adoption patterns have therefore been very different for the device, which is a key platform for ``on the go'' information access. Cell phone users are more likely to be found in groups that have generally lagged in internet adoption, such as senior citizens, blacks, and Latinos.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Pew Internet & American Life Project, Seeding the Cloud: What Mobile Access Means fir Usage and Online Content, March 2008 All of the data points above are reflective of the broad demographics that make my district the center of diversity in the state and the impetus for the need of federal, state and local focus on the issue of taxation of wireless consumers. Florida undertook comprehensive measures in 2000, to ``simplify'' the taxes & fees imposed upon communication services. At the state level, legislation was passed that replaced 11 different impositions into one consolidated communications services tax. The base was expanded, to specifically include wireless, even though several of the old impositions were for uses of the Right of Way or other public utility impositions. Although simplification was accomplished, the excessive level of taxation remains. The state still has one of the highest rates on communication services in the country at over 20%. Recent efforts to reduce the rate imposed upon all communication services have failed but no time is better than the present to drive attention to this issue and create momentum for reform of the existing level of taxation of these services. What is clear though is that we shouldn't allow the situation to get worse at the same time we are trying to fix the current system and the situation in Florida provides a prime example of that rationale. Once the state and local jurisdictions become dependent upon receiving the revenues from these excess taxes it is very hard to work to take it away, even when policymakers might agree that it is the right policy to pursue. That is the genesis of what H.R. 1521 will help accomplish, stopping the current tax situation from getting worse for wireless consumers. Furthermore, as a small business owner, I am profoundly aware of the impact of mobile communications on the level of productivity, the increased speed at which to react to customers needs and the cost of tools that enhance and add to the bottom line. State and local tax policy that discourages use and adoption by small businesses also drives away investment in infrastructure. The most effective means to encourage investment in the state relative to investment is to eliminate the high level of discriminatory taxes that retard infrastructure investment and drive up prices. The current tax policy in Florida is counterproductive to the thousands of small entrepreneurs that make up my district, companies that add significantly to the local and state economy. regressive nature of telecom taxation The high wireless tax burden on Floridians is a major concern but the burden on those Americans, regardless of ethnic identification, that can least afford telecommunications services is a primary concern. The following statistics from the Center for Disease Control's annual survey illustrates the concern of high taxes on wireless service: Adults living in poverty (21.6%) were more likely than higher income adults to be living in households with only wireless telephones.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ CDC, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2007 The percentage without health insurance coverage at the time of the interview among wireless-only adults (28.8%) was twice as high as the percentage among adults living in landline households (14.1%).\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ CDC, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2007 As a former City Commissioner and Vice-Chair of the Broward League of Cities Diversity Committee, I am intimately aware of the need for revenue to fund critical government programs but there needs to be a fine balance in how revenues are obtained so that one service is not so heavily burdened with taxes that it effectively discourages the use of such services, pricing them out of reach for a segment of the population that arguably relies upon them the most. Clearly that is the case with cell phone taxation and as a result those that can least afford the onerous burden are impacted the most. Ironically and to my point, relative to taxation of their cell phone bill my wealthiest constituents contribute at the same level as my poorest. And according to statistics, my poorest constituents are more likely to have only a cell phone as opposed to having both a land line phone and a cell phone. Taxation should not punish disproportionally those who can least afford it and in Florida that is the system in place today. I reach out to Congress today to help steer the course to telecommunications tax reform for all my constituents especially those that use their cell phone as a lifeline. policy double-speak so to speak As wireless service continues to evolve and becomes more about services other than voice, it is critical to recognize that consumers in this emerging environment are not the same individuals that could afford the expensive Internet experience through the desktop computer. As pointed out by the Pew Internet & American Life Project ``groups that have in the past trailed in ``traditional'' internet access are in a better position to shape cyberspace as the internet becomes more accessible using wireless devices.'' For broadband to become available to the greatest number of American consumers, it's incumbent on policymakers to make wireless services affordable through reasonable tax policy, thus lowering a significant cost barrier. In 2005, the percentage of African Americans with broadband service in the home was 14%; the percentage of all African Americans was 30 percent. In 2007, the percentage of African Americans increased to 40%, nearly tripling in number; the percentage of all Americans was 47%.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Pew Internet & American Life Project, June 2007 Broadband is critical to my community and communities across the State of Florida and the nation. The federal government has taken bold steps in recent months to stimulate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. However on the flip side, policymakers are still seeking to tax wireless services to the point were the services are simply unaffordable. Taxation of products at rates close to the 20% level like those imposed upon alcohol and tobacco makes sense to most from a policy perspective because the intent is to discourage the use of such product(s) through the high level of taxes imposed. Conversely, taxation of wireless services, services that lawmakers want to ensure all constituents have affordable access to, at a 20% rate, makes absolutely no policy or economic sense. These high levels of taxation will stifle demand for such services, which in turn will also slow investment in critical broadband infrastructure so many policymakers continue to seek. We need to fix the existing problem as it is counterintuitive to many of our existing public policy goals of expanding the reach and affordability of broadband services. state sovereignty Like any state policymaker, I take any federal intervention into state taxing authority very seriously. However, I believe that H.R. 1521 carefully walks that fine line of when federal intervention makes sense. This bill does not preclude my ability to tax wireless consumers or the industry in a rational way. It only precludes my state from targeting these consumers for additional excess taxes. As we have already heard, Florida is already asking these consumers to bear more than their fair share of the state and local tax burden and we shouldn't allow that to get any worse. Certainly not for a service that is critical to the overall health and productivity of our Nation's economy. I strongly support H.R. 1521, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act'' and its pro-consumer, pro-broadband intent. I welcome any questions you may have. __________ Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Representative Gibbons. I appreciate it. Our final witness is Don Stapley. Mr. Stapley is the Chair of the Maricopa County Arizona Board of Supervisors, which is Phoenix, which is where the University of Tennessee won the national championship a few years ago. He has risen through the ranks of NACo to become President, became President in Jackson County, Kansas City, Missouri. I am a former NACo member and attended a national conference of NACo in Jackson County myself many years ago. Welcome to the Committee, and we appreciate your testimony. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DON STAPLEY, MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, AND THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Mr. Stapley. Chairman Cohen, thank you, and distinguished Members of the House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. I will skip my introduction to save time for the complete presentation, but I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of NACo as well as the Government Finance Officers Committee--Association, I am sorry, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities. If there is one thing all of our organizations have in common, it is our longstanding opposition to efforts by Congress to preempt State and local taxing authority. This is especially true when it comes to telecommunications taxes. How to levy taxes fairly, how to ensure there is no discrimination among companies that provide different forms of the same service, and how to protect local government revenues are all appropriate debates, but these debates belong at the State and local level, and this is why our associations are united in our opposition to this bill. Local governments exercise their taxing authority to the extent provided by State law. As a result, local taxing authority and practices differs from State to State and oftentimes taxing policy differs from county to county and city to city within States. But this is good, because this means that every local government taxing authority tailors its tax policy by taking into account the sources of revenue available and the needs and wants of its residents. I was first elected to the Board of Supervisors in Maricopa County, Arizona in 1994. More than two-thirds of the population of Arizona lives in my county, which is also home to the State capital of Phoenix. Three weeks ago, the board adopted a tentative fiscal budget for years 2009 and 2010 of $2.1 billion. This represents a 5.4 percent decrease from the current year's budget. The board adopted a strategic plan to exercise sound financial management and build the county's fiscal strength. To this end we cut jobs, programs, and some services and delayed capital projects which resulted in a savings of in excess of $122 million. Much of the county's revenue comes from property taxes, sales taxes, vehicle license taxes, and jail taxes. We choose to continue minimizing the property tax burden that we impose upon our citizens. Because of the rapid growth that has taken place within the county, the board has lowered or maintained the overall property tax rate for the past 15 years. In today's difficult economic times where State aid to local governments has decreased dramatically, local taxing autonomy is crucial in helping to ensure that the needs of local citizens, our mutual constituents, are met. The ability to make taxing and other fiscal policy decisions at the local level and without Federal intervention has enabled Maricopa County to provide the quality services that our constituents have come to expect. Some argue that the proposed 5-year ban set forth in this bill doesn't hurt State and local governments because they can still continue to collect the taxes they currently impose. But this misses the point. What this legislation does is preempt State and local taxing authority and represents a Federal intrusion into historically protected State and local tax classifications. Enactment of this bill would lead other industries to seek similar special Federal protection from State and local taxes. It is important to remember that State and local governments, unlike the Federal Government, must balance their budgets. In this tough financial climate, this isn't an easy task. Hard choices like those made in my county must be made. Essential services may be cut. Public employees may be laid off. Infrastructure repairs and construction may be put on hold. And yes, taxes may even have to be raised. But what is important to emphasize is that when balancing the budget, all options must be on the table. What this bill does is take away one of those important options, to tax the wireless industry at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. This bill fails to recognize the plain fact that not all jurisdictions depend on identical revenue sources. Some have income tax. Others don't. Some tax food. Others don't. As a result some jurisdictions may necessarily have to tax wireless services at a higher level than others. Enactment of this bill would force those jurisdictions to rely even more heavily on other types of taxes, thereby shifting the tax burden to those in the community less able to tolerate it. However, whether a particular State or local government has imposed too high a tax burden on the wireless industry is an issue that should be addressed at the appropriate State or local government level. The Federal Government should not step in and impose a uniform, nationwide taxing scheme that provides preferential tax treatment to a single industry, the wireless industry in this case, while preempting State and local taxing authority. Those who support this legislation must ask themselves whether the preemption of State and local authority is warranted. I urge that in this case, where legislation seeks to protect an industry that continues to experience explosive growth and profits at the expense of other taxpayers, it is most definitely not. I urge you to speak out against this measure. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman, and the opportunity to be before you today, and I am happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Stapley follows:] Prepared Statement of the Honorable Don Stapley __________ Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with questions. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. Representative Reardon, you mentioned in your remarks that the national average wireless tax rate is now 15.2 percent and that consumers who are at low and moderate income levels pay a disproportionately flat rate for the same services as those of higher incomes. I would like each of the representatives and the county commissioner to discuss the idea of regressive taxes such as this and its effect on people. Representative Reardon. Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Well, the regressive nature of the tax is based on the economic--if you look at the income of the average wireless customer by the Pew Hispanic study here, where 84 percent of Hispanics now have wireless service that wouldn't potentially be able to afford the services that we were talking about, the access to the wireless that Dr. Atkinson mentioned, the services that they could get if they are paying 10 or $15 in taxes. Those are services that they are unable to access for e-mail and other lifelines that they have to the community. And there was that article in--this is a lifeline for a lot of homeless people trying to access services for job opportunities and housing and food stamps. Mr. Cohen. Do you think wireless communications is kind of a necessity? Ms. Calendaria Reardon. I think it is becoming a necessity. These people that are living in homeless shelters, it is their only line of communication when checking on their housing situation and job opportunities. It is a way for them to stay connected to the world when they are living in a shelter, and they miss phone calls for job opportunities because they are using a pay phone or they don't get messages in a timely fashion. I think it is becoming more and more a necessity in today's society for everybody. Mr. Cohen. Representative Gibbons, do you have some thoughts to contribute on this subject? Mr. Gibbons. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that it hinders access, actually. You know, it is not just about voice any longer. It is about all these other services that are part of what I consider economic development and cost cutting. You can access all kinds of medical records and all kinds of medical services online now. If you don't have access to that, then you cannot take advantage of the fact that there are savings involved in having that kind of access. What we are trying to say is, as we deploy it--see, when Internet services were first provided, there was a digital divide created. There were people who could afford desktop computers and people who couldn't afford desktop computers. Those who could afford desktop computers had instant access, and it opened up a whole new world to them. Well, the same thing is going to happen with broadband now. All I am saying is let's not leave anybody behind. Let's make sure that everyone has equal access to the opening up of this whole new world, because, again, we don't want two societies. And when we don't have the opportunity to be exposed to things--because, you know, an opportunity is not an opportunity unless you have had the exposure to see it as such. So if I block your exposure, I block your opportunities. And so, through the regressive nature of this, it blocks opportunities and it blocks exposure, and it keeps people living in certain conditions. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Commissioner Stapley? Mr. Stapley. Yes. You know, I think your question was, has this tax become regressive in some jurisdictions. And the answer to that is, if it has, I don't know; it certainly hasn't in my State and in my county. We don't tax cell phones in my county. We don't have the authority to. They may be taxed at the State level. But I can assure you, if it becomes a regressive tax, it is a lot easier to get rid of those politicians at the local level, by their local constituents, than it is to turn Congress over because they placed a ban on these taxes through a moratorium, a 5-year moratorium. So, in my opinion, it is a preemption question, not a question of regression. Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you this. So you believe that the Congress should not take a position and leave it up to all the locals and the States to have maybe different taxes levels, even though--this is, you know, different than fixed communications, the wireless folks can be moving from State to State, making calls from everywhere, and it is kind of a national form of communications. Do you not see a distinction of that in the old, traditional, Alexander Graham Bell---- Mr. Stapley. No, I get your point, Mr. Chairman, and I understand it. But I do believe that government works best that is closest to the people. And, in my opinion, taxes on cell phones should be the same. You know, one of my colleagues next to me pulled out a new phone the other day, and he said, ``I threw away that extensive one, and I just got this one, and I am only paying $45 a month for unlimited service anywhere in the United States. It is a new program, it is great.'' It allows--I mean, it fosters competition. But when you take a whole industry and you treat it differently than other industries, I think you run the risk of---- Mr. Cohen. But isn't it different when I can hold this phone, and it has a Memphis area code, and dial from Washington to Phoenix and talk on Phoenix ESPN Radio with, you know, whoever? And maybe it is different than if I was picking up a phone that was attached to the wall and, you know, kind of pull it around and put it to my ear and not get too far and call Phoenix from Memphis. Isn't that a little different? Mr. Stapley. It is different. But let me give you an example of why this preemption issue is the issue we are talking about and is more important than any of the other issues. And that would be the example of the Federal Government placing a tax on telephones, the kind that you are talking about--Alexander Graham Bell, fixed-on-the-wall line--to fund World War I, I believe, if I am not mistaken. That tax is still there. It has never been taken off. The express purpose of that tax, I think it was 11 percent, was to fund World War I. And Congress has never gone back and removed it. Mr. Cohen. Does that maybe speak to why we shouldn't have a moratorium, because it is difficult to repeal a tax once you have passed one, and you should do it right the first time rather than have just a hodgepodge? Mr. Stapley. I agree with you, except I think it is much more difficult at the Federal level than at the State and local level. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I am up. Abiding by the 5-minute rule, I now recognize the new Ranking Member, the Ranking Member once-removed, Mr. Issa of California. Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, by the way, you have a missed call on your phone, I noticed. That is the problem with being here on the dais. Boy, there is so much and, as you say, Chairman, so little time. Mr. Cohen. It was Speaker Pelosi. She was really calling for you. Mr. Issa. Oh, okay. As soon as I am done here, I promise. Well, you know, Mr. Stapley said we must ask, we who cosponsor this bill, and so I guess I will. Dr. Atkinson, just a couple of quick questions. First of all, don't we inherently use less of what we tax? And can you think of any reason we would want to limit communication, either digital or voice? Is there any public interest in limiting that? Is it a bad thing in some way other than, well, driving down the road not on your earpiece? Mr. Atkinson. Economists talk about elasticities of demand, so, in other words, what is the relationship of demand to the price. And there are different elasticities for different things. The elasticity, for example, of milk is quite low, or food. But the elasticity for cellular or wireless communications services is quite high. Mr. Issa. Okay, so, going through that logic, again, Mr. Stapley was kind of, you know, sort of saying, ``Stay out of our business. We need to do what we need to do.'' Well, let's go through this for a second. Wireline received access to public, State, city, county access to roads. They got right-of-ways. Were there any substantial right-of-ways granted by local municipalities? Isn't it true that wireless, they pay for every single booth and every single building that they put their cells on? They paid very dearly for their bandwidth when they went to auction. What is it that a city or a State gave to a wireline carrier? What asset did it give, loan, or provide? Mr. Atkinson. To a wireline? Mr. Issa. To a wireless, I am sorry, to a wireless, a wireless. Mr. Atkinson. Wireless. I am not aware of any on wireless. Mr. Issa. So, unlike wireline, they gave nothing. Unlike wireline, instead of being given, they had to pay. So where is the interest by a city or a county or a State in some harm or some offset for which they have a special right to tax greater than the ordinary tax? Which, if I understand my Constitution, we specifically have a prohibition on targeting taxes. You know, it is designed to keep from targeting one rich landowner out of business, but, in fact, you target an industry, it is somewhat the same. Is there anything that is so evil in wireless communication as to receive a special burden? Mr. Atkinson. No. It is to the exact opposite. I mean, it would be one thing if States or localities want to impose taxes that hurt their own economy or that hurt their own poor or low- income citizens. The Federal Government doesn't have a job to protect them from bad decisions. The problem with this case, though, is that those decisions impact the rest of us. And they impact the rest of us by devaluing the value of the overall network. And that is what the---- Mr. Issa. And going to that, isn't the commerce clause probably the most cited reason for the Federal Government feeling that, in fact, the common good of all the citizens of the various States and the District are required to be protected by we in Washington? And if, in fact, you were to have a local municipality that made it burdensome to do business there, that it could degrade the ability of the rest of the country to do business with, let's say, Arizona? Mr. Atkinson. Absolutely correct. Mr. Issa. So we do have a public interest. We do, in fact, understand that what we tax more we consume less of. We do understand there is nothing inherently wrong in that. Additionally, are there any offsets in the existing tax? For example, E911, although it is a wonderful service, and it is paid for out of the taxes on the system, in fact it is not a problem created by the system, but, in fact, an excess benefit created. I just want to make sure we understood that. I guess, Mr. Stapley, I have been referencing you because you were so vehemently opposed to our preemption. I will ask you one question and then let you answer sort of all of them. If, in fact, the good people of Arizona heard you today, or of Phoenix, and said, ``Okay, fine, if that is the way he feels about it, we will all simply go get phones in another area code, and we are simply not going to pay your tax if we feel that it is one penny higher than the lowest tax in the Nation,'' do you believe you would have any authority to do anything over your constituents choosing to pick a lower tax area under national law? And, if so, what we are proposing here, isn't it, in fact, for your own good that we want to essentially say, since they have the ability to go shop elsewhere, we are simply keeping you from taking advantage of your constituents simply because they want an area code that is convenient? Mr. Stapley. I think the best answer I can give you is that those debates should be not here in Washington, D.C. Those debates need to take place in the States and in the counties and in the cities. Mr. Issa. Well, I appreciate that, but I am a San Diegan, so I am sort of a suburb of Arizona all summer. And the ``zoneys'' all appreciate that. Mr. Stapley. Yes, right, exactly. Mr. Issa. We take advantage of you in San Diego in a huge way. You can't vote. And what do we tax at a disproportionate rate? Hotel/motel, all the---- Mr. Stapley. You are telling me. Mr. Issa. Exactly. We have huge taxes. And do you know why we do that in San Diego? Because there is no constituency against it. Mr. Stapley. Correct. Mr. Issa. Isn't, in a sense, when you say, ``Hold us accountable, we are the ones closest, we are going to have the election,'' isn't it true that basically there is nobody that has ever been voted out of office for putting a tax on something that is pretty invisible to the consumer, such as a hotel or, in this case, even local ups and adds to a telephone bill? And, by the way, you have my personal apology that we haven't yet paid for World War I and that we are still taxing it. Because I do think it is inherently wrong to be continuing to have these artificial taxes. Mr. Stapley. Well, I understand your point and do not disagree, but I do believe that the debates need to take place locally. And if there is a national problem, we can work together to solve that problem. But I don't think, by preempting State and local governments from assessing these taxes--because, again, for the very reason that I said in my testimony, every county, every city has different revenues, has different needs, and constituencies have different---- Mr. Issa. Right. But just one question: Do you understand-- because you didn't seem to in your statement--that it is only discriminatory taxation that we are objecting to? If you want to tax, if you want to have a 17 percent sales tax on everything, this bill would not preempt you in any way, shape, or form from including wireless and wireline or anything else. Mr. Stapley. I do understand that, but I also understand that that is the basic premise upon which most politicians are unelected. So that is not the issue. Mr. Issa. So what you are saying is, if you had a 17 percent sales tax, your people would be unelected, but if you have a tax on this particular subset, it may not show so much? Mr. Stapley. No. I think the point is, I don't think that the tax on this subset should be done at the Federal level or should be prohibited at the Federal level. It needs to be dealt with at the local level. Mr. Issa. But you know we prohibit you from having a poll tax. Do you think that is reasonable? Mr. Stapley. I do. Mr. Issa. Okay. So you do look at some arbitrary or some punitive or some discriminatory taxes that we prohibited as reasonable; you just don't like this particular preemption? Mr. Stapley. That is correct. Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. I am going to, in the policy of Chairman Conyers, going to recognize Mr. Watt next and then Mr. Delahunt and then Mr. Sherman. Mr. Watt, you are recognized, having been here for the longest period of time today. All right then, I would yield and recognize the Vice Chairman, Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Delahunt. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am also the vice chair of the States' Rights Caucus. The gentleman to my right, Mr. Watt, has been chairing that particular caucus since I arrived here in Congress some 13 years ago. He is, I am sure, well-known throughout the country for his advocacy for States' rights. And it is good to see that there is a Member in this branch that still believes in the viability of the 10th amendment. But I have been asked to submit for the record a statement of the Federation of Tax Administrators on cell phone taxation. And I would like to submit it for the record, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cohen. Without objection, so done. [The information referred to follows:] Prepared Statement of the Federation of Tax Administrators, submitted by the Honorable William D. Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts
__________ Mr. Delahunt. You know, this is a debate that plays itself out in a variety of different ways, you know, preferential treatment, the interstate commerce clause. I have been very much involved in the issue of fairness as applied to the collection of the sales tax, you know, from out-of-State vendors. But let me just put a--if we continue here in Congress to limit the sources of revenue--and I am not even sure I am on this particular bill--but where are States and local governments and other subsets of States, where are you going to get your revenue? Mr. Stapley, do you have any ideas? Are you going to have a--are we are going to have to increase the property tax? Are we going to have to--which is clearly a regressive tax. It is a regressive tax. Or are we going to have to increase the sales tax rates and maybe increase it on such items as food? I mean, I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue. But let's presume that in Arizona, or in California, for that matter, local governments are doing a good job, they are making some real tough decisions, and that the budgets that they formulate we could all agree on. Where are they going to get their revenue? In Massachusetts, because of the difficulty in collecting State sales tax from out-of-State vendors, we have a shortfall of some $400 million to $500 million. That is a pretty good plug. In California, Mr. Issa, I understand it amounts to billions of dollars in terms of shortfall. Mr. Issa. $42 billion but rising. Mr. Delahunt. No, no, I am talking about just the shortfall because of the inability of the collection of sales tax. Mr. Issa. Oh, yes. Mr. Delahunt. You know, we can't continue to avoid discussion of this issue, which is: How do State and local governments, which deliver the real necessary services that people demand, how are we going to fund them? Any ideas? Be creative. Mr. Gibbons? Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. I can tell you what they are doing. They are increasing fees--water fees, fire fees, sewage fees. Because in Florida we limited the local government's ability to raise property taxes to a certain percentage of CPI. So what they did was, because we had falling property values, they started increasing fees. Mr. Delahunt. OK, we can increase fees. Mr. Gibbons. That is what is happening. Mr. Delahunt. Okay. Ms. Hovis? Ms. Hovis. Congressman, I am not a tax expert. I speak to the broadband issues. I don't know---- Mr. Delahunt. Well, tell me, where would you get the money to fund teachers? Ms. Hovis. I would say only that the--I can't imagine how localities could exist if they don't have control over taxing decisions at the local level. And while I respect the tax issues here, I deeply respect those concerns, I think that if this piece of legislation is about impacting broadband investment, it will have only effects at the far margins. It will not solve the problem it purports to solve, even if it does have some kind of a basis in tax policy. There is not a broadband policy here. Mr. Delahunt. Thank you. Ms. Reardon, how do we fund the cops? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Well, I think that this industry last year paid $21 billion in State, local, and Federal income taxes and fees. In Indiana alone, $326 million was paid by these taxes and fees. At some point we have to look at---- Mr. Delahunt. Well, what new revenue sources at the local level would you suggest? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Well, I think that, you know--first of all, I don't think that taxing the citizens any further, without looking at efficiencies in government---- Mr. Delahunt. No, I am not giving you the hypothesis that we have done all the efficiency, that the local people are doing a good job, we are at a barebones budget, and we don't have enough money. How do you fund it? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. I can't speak to that---- Mr. Delahunt. OK, thank you. Ms. Candelaria Reardon [continuing]. That land. I mean, we don't live there, in Indiana. We have lots of---- Mr. Delahunt. I understand---- Ms. Candelaria Reardon [continuing]. Reforms, and I think-- -- Mr. Delahunt [continuing]. But I am using a national argument here. Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Well, then you look at fees, you look at property taxes. I think those are the things that---- Mr. Delahunt. Property taxes, fees. Okay, thank you. Dr. Atkinson? Mr. Atkinson. I would not tax a critical engine of economic growth and innovation. For example, I wouldn't---- Mr. Delahunt. Okay. Where would you tax? Mr. Atkinson. What I would---- Mr. Delahunt. I am not asking where you wouldn't. Where would you tax? Mr. Atkinson. Right, I understand that, but I needed to say that first. What I would tax, I would tax things that basically have less distorted impact. And most of the studies show---- Mr. Delahunt. You know, ``distorted'' is a great word. Where would you tax? Mr. Atkinson. I am going to say it in just about 1 second. Mr. Delahunt. He is going to rule me out in another second. Mr. Atkinson. As I said, I would therefore tax property, income, and sales. Income first, property---- Mr. Delahunt. Thank you. Property, income, and sales. Mr. Stapley, you are my last shot. Mr. Stapley. Well, first of all, let me just say that, as representing the associations--the National Association of Counties, the League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors--we are not closed to telecom tax reform. We are interested in engaging and have engaged in that debate. We just are opposed to this what I consider to be a piecemeal approach. To answer your question specifically---- Mr. Delahunt. Answer my question. Where would you tax? Let's say this bill goes and we will never be able to tax wireless ever again. What are you going to do? Mr. Stapley. We are going to continue to tax at the same three-legged stool that we have in the past, that we just talked about. And we are going to have to learn to live within our means. That is the answer to your question. Mr. Delahunt. I am even giving you the premise you are going to live in your means. You have the barebones budget out in Maricopa County. I mean, you know, you are paying teachers $7,000 a year, okay, and you are really crunching them down. How are you going to pay for it? I yield back. I thank the indulgence of the Chair. Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Mr. Watt, distinguished Member, head of the States' Rights Caucus, and Mr. Congeniality. Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first applaud the testimony of Ms. Hovis, who didn't deal with the tax issue here but dealt with whether this is really going to have any impact on the provision of phone or broadband service. I definitely agree with you. And we need to figure out a way to extend broadband deployment into rural areas. Taxes is not driving that one way or another. In my urban community, I don't have any problem at all finding a network to do this. Whether they tax it or don't tax it is not driving that. But when I retreat on the weekends up the mountains of North Carolina, no service of any kind there. And whether this gets taxed or doesn't get taxed is not going to solve that problem one way or another. I am not an advocate of discriminatory taxes, even though I am cast as the States' rights advocate here. I have the same questions that Mr. Delahunt has asked about that. But I don't know that I think that is the issue either. My question is, how you define ``discriminatory'' here. And I just need a little more information, because I think the definition of ``discriminatory'' that is in this bill is way, way too broad. The taxation of mobile service property is one thing. I think we should not be discriminating between fixed people and mobile people. But the service, I am not sure how the taxation is being done. Maybe Ms. Candelaria Reardon and Mr. Stapley can help me with this. Is there a discrimination now between a fixed land line tax on service, phone service, broadband service, and mobile service? Because that is really the comparison that I think we ought to be trying to make here if we are trying to eliminate discriminatory taxation. It is not between all other people who are not in the business of providing telecommunications services. Is that going on now? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. I believe it varies from State to State. In Indiana, for example, we pay the local, State, and Federal taxes, fees, surcharges. However, on top of that, we also pay a utility receipts tax. Mr. Watt. On land lines and mobile lines? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Yes. Mr. Watt. Or on just mobile lines? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. On both. Mr. Watt. Okay. So how is that discriminatory? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Well, because there---- Mr. Watt. Yet it would be under this bill. If it gets charged to land line carriers and it gets charged to mobile carriers, how is that discriminatory? That is what I am trying to figure out. Yet it would be under this bill. Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Right. And we touched on that, I think Congressman Issa touched on that earlier, about the right-of-way fees that are charged for cellular use as opposed to land lines. Mr. Watt. I am not looking at the source of what the State or the local community has provided historically. All of that stuff has kind of gone out. The land lines are owned by private industry now. They are not owned by the State anymore. They are not run by the State anymore. So if we are going to make a comparison, it seems to me we ought to be making a comparison between how we treat land-line phone and broadband service versus how we treat mobile phone and broadband service. And if those two things are being taxed the same way, that is how--I mean, that is my definition of ``discriminatory.'' I am perhaps asking the wrong person this. Maybe I should be asking Ms. Lofgren this when we get to a markup; it is her bill. But it seems to me that the definition of ``discriminatory'' in this bill is way broader than I am comfortable with. Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Watt. Let me go to Mr. Stapley, and then maybe I can get Ms. Lofgren to explain this. Mr. Stapley. Yes, I would just offer a brief opinion. And that is, irrespective of the bill, it could be considered discriminatory either way, whether the bill is in place or not. I mean, there is a difference. A good example---- Mr. Watt. My question is, are local communities taxing land telecommunication in a different way than they are taxing mobile telecommunication? And that seems to me to be the underlying question that I am asking. Ms. Lofgren. If I may? Mr. Watt. Yes, I will yield to the gentlewoman. My time has long expired. Ms. Lofgren. The answer to that is ``yes'' because the Congress has passed an Internet tax moratorium. And we did so because we want to nurture the development of the Internet. Mr. Watt. I wasn't all that happy about that either. Ms. Lofgren. But the answer to the question is, if you have a DSL line, you can engage in discriminatory taxes on the DSL land because that is broadband that we want to nurture. You can do so on your 3G line, which is another reason why the bill was introduced. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Watt. Okay. Well, maybe I just don't have enough education and understanding about how taxes are being imposed. But it seems to me that the definition of discriminatory in this bill goes well beyond differences in treatment of telecommunications companies and says you can't discriminate between mobile telecommunication companies and any company. And that I am troubled by. But I will get, when we get closer to the markup--maybe we should have a hearing about that rather than whether it is a good idea to discriminate. It is never a good idea to discriminate, but it is always difficult to define ``discrimination'' and what is really discriminatory. So I am through, but Mr. Gibbons wants to respond to my question. Mr. Gibbons. Thank you for the question. To me, it is discriminatory when, in Florida, we tax all other goods and services at 6 percent but we tax these services at 20 percent. Mr. Watt. No, it is discriminatory if you tax land services, telecommunications services one way and mobile telecommunications services another way. It is discriminatory if you tax their property, the property of a non- telecommunications company one way and the property of a mobile company another way. That is discriminatory. But if you, the service that is being provided here, the telecommunications service, if you are treating land providers and mobile providers the same way, that doesn't seem to me to be discriminatory. And that is what I am asking the question about. And I don't know the answer to that. Maybe---- Mr. Atkinson. Could I respond to that quickly? Mr. Watt. If you know the answer to that question. Mr. Atkinson. I was going to answer that question. Mr. Watt. Okay. All right. Mr. Atkinson. I think there are two kinds of discrimination that we are talking about. There is inter-industry and intra- industry. And what you are talking about is a discrimination within voice. And, clearly, the ideal would be no discrimination, but we do have difference rates right now. For example, as Congresswoman Lofgren alluded to, if I get on a user voice service, VOIP, voice-over Internet, on broadband, the broadband tax moratorium makes that a little bit--makes it less taxed than wireless. So that is discrimination. The point, I think, that is more important, though, is that it is not so much intra-industry, it is inter-industry, the fact that this overall set of services---- Mr. Watt. See, I don't even want to go there. I mean, that is not the discrimination that I think we ought to be dealing with in this bill. That is just my own opinion. Maybe I am just out to lunch. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I have taken much more time. Mr. Cohen. Thank you for yielding back the remainder of your time. Mr. Watt. I did not yield back any time. I just yielded back. Mr. Cohen. I will yield to the gentlelady of California, Mr. Sherman having joined the competition for congeniality. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Sherman, for allowing me to ask my brief questions. At this time, I have to Chair a Committee hearing over in the Capitol in 7 minutes, so I will be brief. Dr. Atkinson, there has been some suggestion the taxation has no real impact, meaningful impact, on how this technology will be deployed. And I am wondering if you have a comment on that, number one. And, number two, you are a technology observer. And I am wondering if you have a view--you know, right now we have 3G. We are about to get a 4G rollout. In the next several years, unimpeded, what do you foresee will be developed in the wireless arena that is really at stake here, the related questions? Mr. Atkinson. Well, the first question is on impact. And I think it is important to understand that the impact here is what economists would call ``at the margin.'' So if you have a tax or don't have a tax, it is not going to affect wireless deployment in the middle of nowhere, doesn't matter what the tax is. And it won't affect wireless deployment in Silicon Valley. Where it will affect deployment, though, are places at the margin, where the costs are slightly higher than what you can make a return on. And that is clearly what Austin Goolsbee showed in his study. And the same thing happens on adoption. And I think it is important to recognize, on adoption, not everybody has a cell phone who uses wireless service as a traditional user. For example, we recently bought a cell phone for my father-in-law, who passed away recently, but before he passed away he had Alzheimer's. And he would walk around, and he didn't know where he was sometimes. And his wife, my mother- in-law, did not know how to get hold of him. And we got him a cell phone from Verizon and we had, you know, with everybody's permission, a tracking thing you can put on it so that she could go on the Internet and find out exactly where he was. And this was very, very useful to us and it allowed him to sort of have mobility and be out in the community longer than would have otherwise. Well, that was a discretionary purchase. Now, we were fine with making it, but there are lots of other people where having an 18 percent tax on that might keep them from doing it. So I do think that there is clearly economic evidence that this is discretionary. In terms of where we are going, I think we are really only at, if you will, Internet, sort of, wireless 1.0. Wireless 2.0 is going to be an amazing series of things where we will be able to do medical data transfer, we will have 4G wireless, be able to have broadband to the home, a fourth pipe, a third pipe. There will be a whole array of new innovative services that the iPhone is really just only touching on. So I think that is the context we have to think about that. Do we really want, as a Nation, to be taxing this whole array of new services? I would argue it makes sense to have a 5-year moratorium on doing that. Ms. Lofgren. Now, can you give us an international perspective on wireless development? Where is the United States relative to other countries? And where might we be relative to other countries in, say, 5 or 10 or 15 years from now? Mr. Atkinson. Well, in some areas we are ahead. We seem to be ahead, for example, on mobile services, wireless voice services. But in other areas we are behind. So, for example, the ability to use your cell phone--I was just reading today in the new iPhone announcement, you can use your cell phone to go get into your Zipcar. So if you get a Zipcar, you download the code, just wave your cell phone and it opens the door of the Zipcar--kind of a cool device. But we are so far behind on those. You take a country like Japan or Korea where you can use your cell phone to download movie tickets, walk into the movie theater, wave your cell phone, get into the theater. In Japan, the ability to have traffic information on your cell phone, you can look on your cell phone and know in real time what the road conditions are like. Those are the areas that we are farther behind on. And I think, unless we try to innovate more, we are going to continue to be behind there. Ms. Lofgren. I would just note, before I yield back--I won't take additional time. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. I do think, although not everyone agreed, that when we, the House and Senate, acted and the President signed the bill to do a moratorium on Internet access, it was really a mistake: This should have been included, and it was not. And I think, you know, that was a pretty broad consensus. Not every person agreed. But the country is now in a position where we are saying we are going to nurture Internet development. And, without including wireless, we are going to fall short. And, in fact, I think that wireless is going to leapfrog some of what we have already done, and that is just a personal opinion, not only in the United States but certainly in the developing world. If you take a look at parts of Africa, I mean, they are just going to leapfrog with the wireless technology that is being developed, provided that we take the right steps to nurture innovation both through our research efforts as well as our tax policy. So I thank you, all of the witnesses. And I apologize for running off to Chair my other Committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cohen. You are welcome, and thank you. And now Mr. Sherman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should explain my uncharacteristic politeness in letting Ms. Lofgren go first. It is actually a clever tactic so that she would be outside the room before she heard me in any way criticize her bill. I don't want anybody to think that congeniality is something they should expect from me except in extraordinary circumstances, no, not at all. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we in the Federal Government would make sure that our Federal tax laws were entirely devoid of unfairnesses and unreasonable distinctions before we then go tell the States how to make sure that their laws are fair. In my State, we tax scotch more than we tax beer. I have always thought that was unfair. And I don't know why we aren't dealing with that issue or hundreds of other issues where we could say that we have some unfairness at the State level. The argument is that this is somehow preventing the deployment of a national network. Well, since 2000, subscribership in wireless has grown by 158 percent; revenue has grown 124 percent. And if I have to ask people in my State, ``What are the big problems?'' insufficient access to wireless communication is not one of them. The fact that summer school has been cancelled in Los Angeles for insufficient revenue, that is likely to be on the list. Now, Mr. Atkinson urges that we tax property, income, or sales. But in my State we can't do that without a two-thirds vote, and we are not going to get one. Ms. Reardon, are you an advocate for taxing property, income, and sales to replace the missing revenue? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Well, this bill does not actually impact revenue. The revenue that is already there will remain there. It is a moratorium on increasing sales taxes. It wouldn't inhibit the revenue already collected. Mr. Sherman. Well, my State has a $42 billion deficit. We are looking for new sources of revenue. Clearly, we are going to need some more revenue. Would you say we should get it from property, income, or sales taxes? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. Yes. Mr. Sherman. Okay. Have you advocated increases in any of those taxes in your own State? Ms. Candelaria Reardon. We have a surplus in our State, currently. Mr. Sherman. Congratulations. Could you share some of that? Yes, exactly, in the spirit of foreign aid. California is sometimes regarded as foreign. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that since we are having hearings today that would undercut State revenue, that we would also have hearings on a bill, maybe Delahunt's bill, to reverse the Quill case and allow the proper collection of sales taxes that are already a matter of law. And, I mean, if we are able to pass such a bill, I think States could afford to see the passage of Ms. Lofgren's bill. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Delahunt. I thank the gentleman. And let me just say, because sales tax revenue, clearly, for most States is a significant part of their revenue source-- and I, in the past, have suggested that the stakeholders come together. I would advocate, to nurture various industries and moratoriums, et cetera, that potential support if, in fact, we can resolve exactly the problem as described by my colleague from California. But I can't support anything that will continue to erode the revenue base of State and local sources. I am finished doing that. Because until we address the major problem confronting States in terms of revenue sources, which is the sales tax, then everything else that comes in front of this Committee, I say, has to be deferred. And I thank the gentleman. Mr. Sherman. Just to explain the issue for those in the room that haven't followed it, a large number of States impose a sales tax. Every State that imposes a sales tax also imposes a use tax, so that if you are able to buy something through a catalog or a phone or Internet and escape the sales tax because it is shipped to you, then you are supposed to pay taxes on that as a use tax. The problem is that retailers outside your jurisdiction fail to collect the use tax or report the use tax liability. And so, as a practical matter, billions and billions of dollars of sales/use tax revenue is never collected. If we were able--and perhaps some of the people at this table could become advocates for a bill--to require retailers around the country to report when they ship something into Massachusetts or California or, better yet, to collect the sales and use tax and remit it to State tax authorities, if you want to put Zoe Lofgren's bill on that bill, I will vote for final passage, and you will have at least two votes that you might otherwise not get. With that, I yield back. Mr. Cohen. I thank the gentleman from California. And Mr. Jordan does not seek to ask any questions. And, with that, I believe we have concluded our questions. I want to thank each of the witnesses for their testimony and appearing before us. And I hope that if there are questions submitted to you, which there may be, by Members, that you will respond to them. You will have 5 legislative days to respond to those questions which might be submitted by Members of the Committee. Without objection, the record will remain open for those 5 days for the submission of any additional materials from Members. And I thank everyone for their time and patience. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Robert D. Atkinson, Ph.D., President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Mara Candelaria Reardon, Indiana House of Representatives
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Joanne Hovis, Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the Natiional League of Cities
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Joseph A. Gibbons, Florida House of Representatives
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from The Honorable Don Stapley, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
![]()