Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Act

I yield to my colleague from Delaware. I know he has a comment he wants to make.

I propound a unanimous consent request regarding time. My colleague from Arkansas wishes to speak for 10 minutes on a subject unrelated to the matter before the Senate. I would like to follow her, if I might accommodate my Senator from Arkansas, on a subject matter unrelated to the matter before the Senate. I clearly know the priority is to get amendments up here. If I may, I make such a request, that the Senator from Arkansas be recognized for 10 minutes, and following her remarks I be recognized for 15 minutes to speak on a matter unrelated to the subject matter before the Senate.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, may I also make a unanimous consent request that at the conclusion of my remarks, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized for 20 minutes.

My remarks will be off the subject matter of the bill.

At the conclusion of my remarks, which are about 15 minutes off the subject matter of the bill, Senator Byrd of West Virginia be recognized for 20 minutes.

I do not know. I have not asked the Senator.

No, it is not. It is a tribute to a constituent.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Arkansas for her very eloquent remarks. While she addressed them to four specific individuals from her State, she could have been speaking for any one of our States in talking about any one of the several hundred young men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq over the last year. I thank her for the eloquence of her remarks, the sense of passion and commitment she brought to them. I know she is joined by all of us-- certainly this Senator--in expressing deep sorrow for the loss of these Arkansans. We will certainly keep them in our thoughts and prayers.

My remarks follow on a little bit with the remarks of my colleague from Arkansas. Later today or tomorrow, this body will be asked to vote on the confirmation of the first Ambassador to be sent to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, John Negroponte. Presently, he is our Ambassador to the United Nations. Ambassador Negroponte has a very distinguished diplomatic career and is well suited to undertake what is surely going to be an extremely difficult and complex assignment, likely the most difficult one of his career, and certainly one of the most difficult in the history of the diplomatic corps, going back over the more than 200- year history of our Nation.

While we have had our differences from time to time, I happen to believe John Negroponte is eminently qualified to take on this post. I thank him for his willingness to assume this responsibility, if he is confirmed, and I believe he will be. I also thank his family for their willingness and understanding that our country needs John Negroponte's service at this critical hour.

During his nomination hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee, I stressed to Ambassador Negroponte

that it would be terribly important for him to be candid with this Congress and the American people about what is happening in Iraq and what is not occurring. As we send our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters in harm's way, as we have just heard our colleague from Arkansas so eloquently describe, the American people have every right to expect and demand that U.S. officials are telling them the truth about what is happening in Iraq because if they lose faith in what our government is telling them, the United States will not be able to sustain the long and difficult task we have undertaken in this faraway country. Ambassador Negroponte acknowledged his obligation to keep us informed. I am very confident he will do so.

While I intend to support Ambassador Negroponte's nomination when the Senate votes on this matter, I would not want that vote of support for him to be interpreted as an endorsement of the U.S. policy in Iraq, as it is presently being conducted. I am deeply troubled about the pace and direction of our policy in that country. The situation in Iraq could not be more volatile. Yet the Bush administration seems hell-bent to stick to the planned date of June 30 for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi Government. Given the recent upsurge in violence in places such as Falluja and Najaf, given the absence of an effective Iraqi security force to deal with such acts, and given the inadequate numbers of U.S. and foreign troops in that country to restore and maintain stability, I wonder--and I assume others do as well--whether we are setting ourselves up for a catastrophic failure by rigidly adhering to this deadline of June 30.

This coming Saturday, May 1, will be the 1-year anniversary of President Bush's declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. Recent events make it painfully obvious that nothing could be further from the truth; rather, our mission may be just beginning. Certainly the return of sovereignty to Iraq is a laudable goal which I support, as I assume most all of my colleagues do. It should and must be our end game. But a transfer of authority will not in and of itself be a panacea for all the problems Iraq faces. Moreover, if we do it prematurely, it could put our whole mission and the future of Iraq at risk.

This has been obvious to many of us for some time. But the Bush administration continues to plunge forward with the hope and prayer that everything somehow will work out after June 30. It does so without any clear sign that Iraq is ready for us to turn over authority or its institutions are at all capable at this juncture of successfully taking on this incredible responsibility. In fact, I would argue that all the evidence before us suggests that Iraq is not ready and will not be ready in the coming 62 days. Ironically, in light of recent events, with each step closer to June 30 we seem to be taking a step back in terms of our readiness to hand over control to the interim transitional Iraqi Government.

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held three consecutive hearings on the situation in Iraq. I commend Senator Lugar and Senator Biden for holding the hearings. On Tuesday, the committee considered the nomination of Ambassador John Negroponte to be the first Ambassador to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Many questions were explored in the course of those hearings. Frankly, with respect to many of those questions, there were no or very few clear answers. However, we did receive some very excellent testimony from expert witnesses with very different backgrounds--from the U.S. military, from academia, from policing experience, and counterterrorism.

Despite their different expertise, all of the witnesses were in agreement on one thing: that is, a major course correction with respect to U.S. efforts in Iraq is badly needed, and needed immediately. I have come to a very similar conclusion. Let me be clear. This need for a correction in our policy is not because our men and women in uniform have somehow failed to do their jobs. Quite the contrary, these men and women have performed every task that has been asked of them with the highest degree of professionalism, patriotism, and heroism. Let there be no doubt about that in the mind of any single American. But it is now more than 1 year after the end of major combat, and arguably the dangers to our troops have never been greater 1 year later.

Why then are our troops in so much danger? I believe the answer, unfortunately, is quite simple. We have failed to craft and implement an effective stabilization plan for the nation of Iraq. This is not the fault of those in uniform; rather, it is the responsibility of top civilian officials in the Department of Defense and the White House who from the very beginning ignored--in fact, scoffed at and thwarted-- recommendations from leading uniformed officers, including GEN Eric Shinseki, that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to complete our mission in Iraq. In retrospect, it certainly seems that General Shinseki's judgment was right on the mark. More recently, military experts have concluded that we are likely, at least in the short term, to need an additional 50,000 U.S. troops if we are going to be able to secure the peace in that country.

We are also going to need a similar number from our European allies in NATO, and we need these reinforcements soon before events spin even further out of control than they already have.

Indeed, I wonder if last March we had sent a larger number of troops to Iraq--and had broad international participation--whether we would now be facing the same unacceptable lack of security throughout that country. I also wonder what effect increased security in Iraq would have had with respect to Iraqis' tolerance of a U.S. military presence in their country.

Unfortunately, this lack of security has been evident from the earliest days of the conflict, when it first became apparent that the administration had not paid sufficient attention to the security needs of Iraq. Museums were looted. Ordinary civilians took up arms to guard their neighborhoods. Lawlessness prevailed throughout much of the country. Most importantly, in that short period of time, we lost the confidence of the Iraqi people.

This isn't simply my observation. I was told very directly by an Iraqi during my trip to the nation back in December, well before the recent flareup in violence over the last several weeks--this Iraqi citizen is a Shiite, a moderate, a forward-looking individual. He very frankly told me that the lawlessness which followed the war negatively impacted Iraqis' confidence as to the intentions, preparedness, and capabilities of coalition forces to create a safe and secure Iraq.

His contention was reinforced by Hasan Zirkani, who in November 2003 listed the lack of law and order, rampant unemployment, and the lack of basic services as sources of Shiite unrest. I would note that Mr. Zirkani is a Shiite cleric who supports Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical leader who commands the loyalty of the group responsible for much of the recent violence and unrest in Iraq.

I also point to a February 2004 nationwide poll in Iraq, which showed that 64 percent of the Iraqi people consider regaining public security as their ``first priority'' over the next 12 months.

Disturbingly, the Bush administration has attempted to make up for its lack of security preparation in the same reactive and hasty manner as much of the planning for post-war Iraq was carried out. One example of this has been the assembling of the various Iraqi security forces, a process which most experts agree was done far too quickly, with little or no training, and with inadequate vetting. We all witnessed the consequences of these rushed activities during the recent upsurge in violence, when Iraqi forces collapsed in the face of armed resistance.

Insecurity in Iraq has also affected the ability of U.S. and foreign NGOs to perform the necessary humanitarian and reconstruction duties that would help them turn around the mood in the Iraqi streets. Unfortunately, due to the lack of security, many are unwilling or unable to operate in that country. In many places, reconstruction activities have come to a screeching halt. Contractors sit in hotel lobbies in Kuwait and Jordan, waiting for order to be restored so they can return to their projects.

The administration says we are on course for June 30. I ask: What is that course? Where is all this leading?

One thing is clear: From the very beginning, the Bush administration has done an inadequate job of preparing for the peace in Iraq. It has attempted to fix problems in shortsighted, often haphazard ways. It has only begrudgingly moved to adapt to the resulting strategic realities on the ground.

That is why I believe it is fair and responsible to question the administration's plans as they relate to the upcoming June 30 deadline. How much more complex will this situation be if we try to stand up an Iraqi authority prematurely--if we stubbornly adhere to this date? What happens if that authority crumbles?

I don't underestimate the problem of delaying the turnover. Clearly, if U.N. Special Envoy Brahimi were to announce that the turnover on June 30 is impossible, that would make our choice much easier. But we must recognize that the situation in Iraq is incredibly fragile. If this effort to build a stable and democratic Iraq is to succeed, it is going to need enormous international support. That support will not be forthcoming if the interim government in Iraq is not perceived as legitimate--both by the Iraqi people and the international community.

I emphasize again that I understand there will be a cost by delaying the June 30 date. My point is that whatever that cost is, the cost of adhering to that date, sticking to it prematurely I think would be far more precarious than whatever damage may be associated with delaying the date beyond the June 30 date. Indeed, for all the difficulties in delaying the turnover of authority in Iraq, they pale in comparison, in my view, to going forward and seeing the situation irreversibly spiral downward.

Equally troubling is that the administration is now saying that our handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30 will be ``limited.'' Mr. President, I don't quite understand what that means. I suspect the Iraqi people don't either. The law of administration for the state of Iraq, the so-called transitional law, which was drafted and approved earlier this year, calls for the establishment of a ``fully sovereign Iraqi interim government.''

Now it would appear that a yet-to-be-negotiated annex to that transitional law is going to spell out the limits of Iraq's sovereignty after June 30. Of course, nobody yet knows what that annex is going to look like--what concessions the administration will have to make to get the various Iraqi factions to sign off on the individuals who will make up the interim government, or whether those concessions, made in haste, in the long run will undermine our goal of a fully independent and democratic Iraq.

I don't pretend to have all the answers with respect to what needs to be done before sovereignty is handed back to the Iraqi people. But I will say that the rapidly deteriorating security situation, combined with the lack of legitimacy for the U.S. presence in Iraq, has created conflicting pressures on the administration with respect to the June 30 deadline.

Administration officials assert if we hand over authority to the Iraqis on schedule, the U.S. presence in that country will become less controversial. I disagree. The way to enhance U.S. legitimacy is to get the security situation turned around. That isn't going to happen by simply declaring Iraq a sovereign nation on July 1; it is only going to happen with a carefully planned and implemented stabilization program.

That stabilization program will require more troops on the ground-- our troops and troops from other nations sanctioned by a clear U.N. mandate. Whether that can be accomplished by June 30 remains to be seen. I think it is very unlikely.

As I mentioned earlier, we are only 62 days away from the turnover date. Yet, we still don't know who we are turning that authority over to. We don't know whether the individuals to be chosen by a U.N. special envoy will be acceptable to the Iraqi people.

What we do know is that virtually every day more Americans and more Iraqis are dying. Recent events have forced the Bush administration to acknowledge some of these realities. I do not think we should dismiss out of hand that a course correction may be called for that makes the primary focus of our efforts security; or that we put off, for a time, the standing up of an unelected interim government.

That would also give us additional time to make sure that when authority is transferred, it is transferred to a body that has legitimacy in the eyes of the international community and the Iraqi people. To help do this, we need to go to the U.N. and NATO before turning over authority, not after. The U.N. and NATO would be invaluable partners in tackling a task never before attempted from the outside: converting dictatorship into democracy. It would infuse our efforts with much-needed legitimacy.

There are roughly 9 weeks left before June 30. In the interim, a lot could be accomplished in Iraq that might make the turnover of sovereignty possible on the timetable the administration has laid out. We could have achieved, before that date, a clear and concrete U.N. mandate for nation building in Iraq. We could have a secured commitment for a significant NATO troop deployment in that nation. We could have deployed additional troops to address the security challenges of a growing insurgency movement--including troops from governments in the region. But we have not achieved any of those things yet. We need to be honest about that.

Mr. President, now is the time for a careful, informed debate in America about U.S. policy in Iraq, especially about the wisdom of our set deadlines--the pros and cons of moving forward as planned. After that debate, as June 30 draws nearer, we may in fact determine that sufficient progress has been made to go ahead as planned with the turnover of sovereignty. That may in fact be the right thing to do. But if on balance we conclude it is not, we in Congress need to say so publicly and on a bipartisan basis. The Bush administration needs to do so as well. Then we need to act accordingly.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, recently sent an e-mail to some of his friends concerning the situation in Iraq. It was printed in the Washington Post about 2 weeks ago. He concluded with these comments:

Military triumph does not necessarily equate to a political

victory. Wars end only when the defeated accept defeat, not

when the victor declares victory. A victory that does not

produce peace can be much more costly than protracted

confrontation that accomplishes deterrence. Arrogant

daydreams that inspire military actions can become

humiliating nightmares that produce political debacles.

Before our daydreams for a free and democratic Iraq become our nightmares of a bottomless quagmire, let us do the sensible thing and at least honestly take a hard look at our decision to turn back authority to the Iraqi people on June 30--before we are sure that ``victory is going to produce peace.'' Once we have allowed the Iraqi people to govern themselves, it is going to be virtually impossible to take that sovereignty back without enormous loss of the blood and treasure of both of our peoples.

That is something no one wants to see happen. I urge the administration to think about the wisdom of moving forward on the June 30 date.

He is gone. He retired. He was not fired.

Clearly, the message was quite clear that he had stepped out of line by saying what he thought from a military standpoint--he had a distinguished career of many years in military service--that in order to be successful, that number of troops was necessary. He was, in a sense, penalized, at the very

least rhetorically for suggesting as such.

I recall that.

That is exactly what happened. He was also highly condemned for suggesting a number that now looks small in comparison to what the real pricetag is going to be.

That number I think is roughly correct. Most of those, by the way, have died since May 1 of last year.

I think by anyone's estimation to declare that the mission was accomplished was a mistake.

I do recall that statement he made.

Mr. President, if I may take 1 additional minute, my point is, I voted in favor of the authority. I believe it was the right thing to do. My concern is the June 30 date. I am concerned, and I realize there is a cost in changing it. We need to evaluate whether turning sovereignty over at that date is going to serve our interests. That was the sum and substance of my remarks.

I appreciate the questions my colleague from Nevada raised. I made comments regarding holding rigidly to a date that could turn out to be a mistake.

Mr. President, before the leader yields, I thank the leader. This was a very gracious thing to do. We don't do it often enough. I commend the Democratic leader for taking out a few minutes to recognize people who make such a difference here every single day. The leader does this repeatedly, and I commend him for it.

I associate myself with his remarks, and I wish to express our deep gratitude to Tom and his family for remarkable service to this country. I hope the people out there realize with all that happens within the view of a television camera, there are literally hundreds of people who make this government of ours, in spite of all of its inefficiencies, function remarkably well, and Tom certainly falls within that category. I thank the leader for taking a few minutes out to recognize him.

I yield the time of the minority.

cloture motion

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I know the order is that the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia gets the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to ask, under my time postcloture, some questions of the Senator from Connecticut.

Is that OK with the Senator from West Virginia?

Mr. President, I have been fascinated with the statement of the Senator from Connecticut. What triggered my mind was the statements he made about General Shinseki who said we would need a couple hundred thousand troops over there. I ask the Senator from Connecticut, what happened to him? He is gone.

I ask the Senator, does he remember a man named Larry Lindsey? I suggest he was on the Board of Governors working with Alan Greenspan. He also was the chief economic adviser to President Bush. Does the Senator from Connecticut remember a time just a short time ago after the war started that he said he thought the war could cost as much as $200 billion?

He was even more lenient than that. The news article I have says it would be between $100 billion to $200 billion. The Senator recognizes that he was also given his walking papers; is that true?

Before asking my final question, I ask the Senator from Connecticut, I am confident he is aware of the last press conference that the President held; is that true? Does the Senator remember the question that was asked in that press conference where the President said, when asked the question about having made mistakes, he couldn't remember any? I ask the Senator from Connecticut if he thinks this is a mistake made by the President: No. 1, going on the aircraft carrier and having a banner above it saying ``Mission Accomplished''? The Senator is aware that since that time, about 700 American soldiers have been killed; is that true?

So it is fair, is it not, that could have been a mistake?

Does the Senator from Connecticut also think it was a mistake for the President to say--when asked about whether there would be any people who would cause trouble there, does the Senator from Connecticut remember him saying, ``Bring 'em on''?

I suggest to the President's people that they should advise him the next time he is asked that question, he could at least relate to those two things--No. 1, ``Mission Accomplished,'' and No. 2, ``Bring 'em on.'' Since the time of ``Bring 'em on,'' hundreds of soldiers have been killed and thousands maimed for life and injured in other ways.

I appreciate very much that statement of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

I say to my friend, I also voted for the resolution. I think it is extremely important that we who support the effort in Iraq, protecting the men and women who are representing our country over there, have the ability to speak out freely on this issue and not be criticized as having been unpatriotic for having done so.

The Senator from West Virginia was originally almost a lone voice speaking out against this event. Time has shown perhaps his vision was more meaningful than people realized at the time. I appreciate the Senator responding to my questions.

If I can, as a matter of trying to lay out what is ahead of us, Senator Wyden spoke with me and one other Senator indicating they worked to get cloture on this amendment that the Senator from Arizona filed. There has been an agreement--I have not been part of those agreements--that Senator Wyden, Senator Carper, and others would have an opportunity to offer amendments. The Senator from Arizona has indicated that he will do everything within his power to make sure those amendments are offered and debated in an orderly time.

My only statement to the Senator from Arizona is, I think it may be difficult to finish this bill today because he talked about extraneous matters. The Senator from West Virginia has a right to speak for 1 hour on this matter, as do I and others. No one is attempting to stall this legislation. The Senator from Arizona had a very important vote, but I hope this matter is not, in effect, going to be jammed through. This is an important piece of legislation. We will work with the majority as much as we can, but based on my experience in the Senate--the Senator from Arizona and I came on the very same day, so one does not have more experience than the other--I think it will be difficult to finish tonight. If we can, we will work with you. I think it is extremely difficult to finish tonight.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this morning we came to the floor and were confronted with a situation where we tried to get an extension of a highway bill. That was objected to by the senior Senator from the State of Missouri. We talked a little bit at that time, and what we talked about is, basically, if there is no extension given--which has been cleared on our side, by the way--there will be some 5,000 Federal employees of the U.S. Department of Transportation laid off. They may be able to wait until Monday, but certainly they will be able to wait no longer.

What does this mean? It means new highway and bridge projects will be shelved. It will stop reimbursement payments to the States for projects already incurred. It will halt safety grants to the States. It will stop work on transit construction in the Nation's cities and towns. It will interrupt enforcement of motor carrier safety regulations. It will disrupt inspection efforts at our Nation's borders. All we are asking is a temporary extension.

I said this morning, and I say tonight, Senator Inhofe has been a real soldier. He has been with us every step of the way to get a highway bill that is meaningful. No one can question the conservative credentials of Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma. The Senator from Oklahoma is noted for being a person who watches where the money is spent. But he recognizes the bill we reported and passed in the Senate, a bill that was some $318 billion, is legislation that is important for the country. It is important for the State of Oklahoma. It is important for the State of Nevada. It is important for the State of Rhode Island. It is important for the State of Virginia, and every other State I see represented on this Senate floor--which is no other State at this time.

This is something we have to do. I think it would be a terrible shame, and I can't imagine the reason that my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri, has used for wanting to object to this extension.

He says: I want a conference appointed.

Mr. President, we have said there are other ways of arriving at this. There are other ways of having legislation approved by the body, by the House, and sent to the President.

I have in my hand bills enacted into law without using conferencing. This is an effort to negotiate differences in language between the House and the Senate. We have, just in the 108th Congress, 21 different measures, important measures: TANF, military family relief, Tax Relief Act, veterans' benefits, and many other pieces of legislation--18 others, to be specific.

I think it is a tightrope I would not want to go to Nevada on, saying that I objected to the highway bill and I am closing the Department of Transportation because the minority won't agree to a conference. I don't think that is very good reasoning. I think the people of the country would also think it is not good reasoning.

We have worked, in a bipartisan manner, to produce a highway bill in the Senate. That legislation achieved 76 votes. We received a letter from 20 Republican Senators, dated today, supporting the Senate funding levels. These are Republican Senators, 20 Senators. These are Senators, any one of which----

I am happy to.

Three hours. Pastore works 3 hours after we take up a measure. So that wouldn't apply here.

I appreciate my friend's interest.

Certainly, I understand that totally. Mr. President, the reason I understand that is the legislation that is before this body, this Internet legislation, has so many ramifications that are important to what is going on in the country today. One of the things going on in the country today is how we have improved the way we work on transportation generally. But for the high-tech industry we couldn't do many of the things that are done today. There are many different things we do today that we didn't do 5 years ago, or even 10 years ago as a result of computerization.

The vehicles on the roads now, with some exceptions in the State of Nevada, Department of Transportation vehicles, have computers in them. So I have no qualms, using my hour's time on this legislation, talking about the importance of the highway bill and, of course, the fact is, with the highway bill there are many high-tech propositions that would be affected by this underlying legislation.

Mr. President, I have a letter. I would read all the names, but, frankly, I can't read them because I can't read some of the signatures. But I do see one signature that jumps out at me: Elizabeth Dole. She has been Cabinet Secretary two or three times, but one of those times she was a Secretary. In one of our President's Cabinets she was Secretary of Transportation.

Elizabeth Dole is one of those supporting the $318 billion bill. Virtually every Senator on the Democratic side supports it. That is 69 votes right there.

I hope what we are doing today is only for a short time. We need in the worst way to find out a way of getting Senator Bond to agree to this extension. This Nation expects nothing less.

The Republican leadership is going to meet today or tomorrow and talk about what they think should be the size of this bill. The vast majority--far more than 67 Senators, the veto-proof number of Senators--believe we should have a higher number.

It is very clear. If a bill came to the Senate or the House with $318 billion for highway transit, we would override any veto of the President. Why? Because this bill does not raise the debt. It is paid for out of trust fund money, and revenue streams are already in place.

Not only do we have a lot of people supporting this legislation, as I indicated earlier today--and it is now in the Record--but we have hundreds of organizations that support this legislation: U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Laborers International Union of North America; Associated General Contractors--they are not together very often on anything-- American Road & Transportation Builders Association; International Union of Operating Engineers; American Public Transportation Association; National Asphalt Pavement Association; National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; American Waterways Operators; Air Transport Association; and Waterways Work.

These are only a few of the hundreds of organizations that want us to proceed.

I hope we can do this. It would be a shame to lay off 5,000 people. The impact it would have on their immediate families is important. But the impact it would have on this country--we are just beginning to come out of a recession, so I am told. We are really fighting for jobs. One way to work to have more jobs is to keep the highway program going.

This legislation that is before the Senate is about as high tech as you can get. We know for every $1 billion spent in infrastructure development, 47,500 jobs are generated. That is important. That is only for direct jobs, and thousands of other jobs are spun off from that.

I hope we can move forward. I understand the importance of consumer- friendly legislation. Let us please not have an objection to this legislation.

I am not going to ask unanimous consent until Senator Bond has some knowledge that I will do that. But I will do that later in the day.

I appreciate everyone's courtesy. I know they stretched the rule a little bit for me. I am very grateful. Even though the highway bill is high tech, I am not sure it is that high tech.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have a bill that is about to be completed, and I do not want to interfere. I have a statement that will take a few minutes. But I want the Record spread with the fact that after I do object, sometime before the day is out I will renew my request for the 2-month extension together with a statement.

So at this time, I say to the two managers of the bill, do you want to do something on this bill that is now before the Senate? I ask, through the Chair, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, are you ready to do something right now on the bill? Otherwise, I will give my statement.

As I said to the Chair, I do not want to take away from moving this bill forward if people are ready to do something. But we are waiting for Senator Feinstein, I understand.

Mr. President, I will speak very briefly. When she shows up, I will finish within a couple minutes.

I object.

Mr. President, this will be the third extension of this very important legislation. The first extension was the 5-month extension. We did that because we could not get our act together: Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and this Senator. As a result of that, we got a commitment from the majority leader and the minority leader we could take up this bill at a specified time in February. Everyone lived up to that agreement, and we did that. Within almost a record period of time, we passed this very important legislation. So that was the reason for the first extension.

The second extension was necessary because the House had not yet done their legislating. We asked for a 2-month extension on this matter on February 27.

At that time Senators McCain and Lieberman objected to that extension because they had some problems with the 9/11 Commission. As a result of that, a number of us came to the floor and said: How could Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman do such a thing? And in the process, statements were made, some of which were by the distinguished Senator from Missouri.

I quote from the Congressional Record of that date. I will not read the whole statement. I will read that which is pertinent. This is a quote from the distinguished Senator from Missouri:

What the Senators from Arizona and Connecticut are doing is

seeking to hold hostage the whole highway program in the

United States.

I agree. That is what is happening now.

The Senator further went on to say:

This extension expires on Sunday.

Just as it does now.

If we fail to extend this, there will be a shutdown of any

further contract authority for Federal aid highway projects

and a shutdown of payments for work already contracted for by

the States and performed by contractors. This means no

further projects can be approved or awarded. It also means

that not only the Federal Highway Administration but also the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal

Motor Carrier Administration, as well as the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics, will cease operation.

Skipping:

Not only are we talking about people's livelihoods, we are

shutting down the Federal agencies, which will have an

adverse consequence for our Nation's highways, motor carrier

safety, and consequentially for the condition and operation

of our Nation's surface transportation system.

Skipping down two more paragraphs:

Jobs will be lost in the private sector. An extension is

bad enough, but a complete disruption of the program when

there are crucial job needs across the country will have an

economic impact on the families directly, and on the economy.

Next paragraph:

We need the extension to stop playing politics with

people's jobs in this most important legislation.

I will shortly.

I could not have said it better myself. That is what we are facing right now. We are facing a shutdown of jobs. We will furlough 5,000 people in the agencies that were referred to on February 27 by my friend.

The people of this country should understand there are different ways of getting a bill to the President's desk. It is not necessarily with a conference. I have told Senator Inhofe and Senator Frist that does not mean we are not going to go to conference.

I say to my friends, anyone within the sound of my voice, if conferees were appointed right now, immediately, the first thing we would do is say: OK, staff, majority staff, minority staff, majority and minority staff from the House, get together and work on this. See what you can come up with. Bring it back to us. That would take a couple of weeks to do that.

Then we would work through whatever they couldn't work through themselves. Finally, the Members would agree on certain things. Then if there were things we could not agree on, we would take it to the full conference.

We are weeks and weeks away from that if we appoint a conference right now. The point is, we are not appointing conferences right now because, as I said before, we have on many occasions, more than 20 times already in this year's Congress, passed legislation by what we call preconferencing it. It does not matter what you call it.

I have the same goal as the Senator from Missouri. We want a highway bill. I appreciate and admire and respect his energy in helping arrive at this bill where we now have a bill that is good

for the American people, a 6-year bill, $318 billion that is good for roads and transit.

I hope the Senator has made his point, but I do believe we need to get this short 2-month extension done and then if there is something that comes up in 2 months that the Senator thinks we are not making progress on the legislation, then he may want to try something such as this again.

I yield to my friend who said he had a question.

Mr. President, in answer to the Senator from Missouri's question, I certainly understand the point he is making. I simply do not agree.

I, therefore, at a subsequent time before we adjourn this evening, will ask unanimous consent that the Senate pass a 2-month extension, something the House has already done.

At this time Senator Feinstein has arrived and I would only end by saying that I personally would not want to return to Nevada, recognizing that I would not agree to a 2-month extension. In Nevada, it would wreak havoc with the growth of the State there.

The fact is, even where there is not rapid growth, as in Nevada, there are repairs that must be done. The construction season is upon us. Some of these projects will never go forward.

Amendment No. 3105 to Amendment No. 3048

Reserving the right to object, I direct this question to the manager of the bill, Senator Dorgan. Is that correct, that all amendments have been offered?

I would say also to the two managers of the bill, then we should be advised there will be at least two more votes, perhaps on Feinstein and final passage.

I would say also to my two friends, I always like to have the trains run on time. This is excellent work. I appreciate this. I thought it couldn't be done today. I have no objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Hatch in introducing the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003, a bill to give law enforcement additional tools to fight the scourge of gang violence and to fund prevention programs to stop the cycle of gang violence.

I thank and commend my good friend and colleague, Chairman Hatch, for his hard work in helping to develop this legislation. Since 1996, he and I have worked together to address the problem of gang violence in this country.

We have now introduced legislation in each of the last four Congresses--the 104th, 105th, 106th, and 107th. None of that legislation became law. But we have not given up.

The legislation we are introducing today addresses the many aspects of gang violence by focusing on new criminal offenses and increased penalties for individuals who engage in gang violence. Specifically, this legislation targets gang members who participate in criminal street gang by committing gang crimes like murder, sexual assault, robbery, and drug offenses to name a few, or by employing others to do so; recruit and use minors in gang crimes; commit violent crimes in furtherance of gang or drug trafficking activity; or travel in interstate commerce to intimidate and retaliate against witnesses.

This legislation also makes it easier to prosecute certain 16 and 17- year-olds as adults if they are engaging in violent gang activity.

We have also worked to provide for more cooperation between Federal and local law enforcement officials, and to make it easier for prosecutors to go after gang members who commit serious or violent crimes on behalf of their gangs.

We offer this comprehensive legislation because the problem of gang violence continues to get worse. I concur in the sentiments expressed by Los Angeles Police Department Chief William Bratton when he stated, ``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.''

In 2002, there were over 650 homicides in Los Angeles, half of which were gang related. This year the Los Angeles Police Department reports approximately 400 murders and almost one-half of those murders are the result of gang violence.

The United States Attorney in Los Angeles testified before the Judiciary Committee last month about the gang problem in her city. She stated that in Los Angeles County alone, conservative estimates put street gangs at about 1,000 in number. The number of individual gang members in those street gangs is 150,000.

In addition, there are approximately another 20,000 gang members in Orange County, Ventura and San Bernardino Counties.

I am often struck by how vicious gang crimes can be, and how damaging they are to the victims and to the surrounding community.

Let me give a couple of examples from my own home city of San Francisco.

In 2000, two rival gangs had a shoot out in San Francisco's Mission District. An innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire and shot through both legs.

A brave eyewitness gave law enforcement the name of the shooting suspect, who was then arrested. The gang then tracked down the witness, put a 9 millimeter automatic to his head, and threatened to kill him for cooperating with the police.

And just recently, on September 28, 2003, 7-week-old Glenn Timmy Maurice Molex was killed in his home during a drive-by shooting in a Bayview district neighborhood in San Francisco. Law enforcement believe that gang members may have been involved in the shooting.

But this problem is not limited to any one city, of course.

In 1980, there were gangs in 286 jurisdictions. Today, they are in over 1,500 jurisdictions.

In 1980, there were about 2,000 gangs. Today, there are over 26,000 gangs.

In 1980, there were about 100,000 gang members. Today, there are more than 750,000 gang members.

I would like to explain how this legislation will help deter and punish gang-related crimes, and why Congress should act quickly to pass it.

First, the bill includes tough 10-year sentences for gang recruitment. This will serve to punish anyone who recruits a member to join--or forces a member to stay in--a criminal street gang with the intent to have that person commit a serious violent crime or a drug crime.

Second, if the person who was recruited was a minor, the offender will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years.

The purpose of this provision is to deter criminal gang recruitment. It is also to punish those who use minors to commit their crimes. And gangs specifically do go after juveniles because they know that, if the child is caught, he or she will probably receive lighter punishment than an adult.

I believe that we need to punish gang recruitment of children very severely. This bill would do that.

This legislation would also make it a crime for three or more people who work together to commit predicate gang crimes which are listed in the bill. Gang members who commit two or more predicate gang crimes or employ another individual to commit a gang crime would be punished under this new statute by up to 30 years in prison. If the predicate gang crime carries a greater penalty, the maximum would increase. If the gang member has previously been convicted of a predicate gang crime, that gang member's sentence would also increase.

And because juveniles are being used to commit these gang crimes, if the gang member employs a minor to commit the gang crime, the gang member would face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.

The predicate gang crimes are felony crimes and include murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, gambling, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, arson, obstruction of justice, tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim or informant, burglary, sexual assault, carjacking, or selling or possessing a controlled substance, firearm offenses, and illegal transportation of an alien.

The offenses that are listed as predicate gang crimes are those commonly pursued by gangs.

One study of gangs in various countries found that law enforcement reported that 55 percent of gang members were involved in aggravated assaults; 33 percent in robberies;

Fifty-eight percent in burglary and breaking and entering;

Fifty-two percent in motor vehicle theft; and

Seventy-two percent in drug sales.

Numerous gangs illegally launder their illicit drug profits. These include Russian and West African criminal gangs as well as street gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and Latin Kings.

This bill also allows property derived from gang crimes to be forfeited.

Third, the bill creates a new, RICO-like, anti-gang law to help prosecutors target the more serious gangs and gang members. In response to the problems of mafia-violence, the racketeering statute was created to punish violent crimes that are in furtherance of a racketeering enterprise. This legislation will do the same for violent crimes that are in furtherance of gang activity or drug activity.

The gang and drug crimes are those which I have described earlier-- murder, carjacking, drug distribution, robbery, firearms violations, and sexual assault. These crimes represent the heart of gang activity and those who commit them must be met with tough penalties.

The penalties range from a maximum of 10 years to the death penalty if death results from the crime.

This legislation also expands the Travel Act.

The Travel Act allows Federal prosecutors to charge certain interstate crimes such as extortion, bribery, and arson, and for business enterprises involving gambling, liquor, drugs, or prostitution.

This statute was passed in 1961 also with mafia-related criminal activity in mind.

Now criminal street gangs travel interstate for another purpose which strikes at the heart of our system of justice--intimidating and retaliating against witnesses, jurors, informants, and victims.

This bill would make it a crime to travel across state lines for that purpose and would allow for a sentence up to life imprisonment for someone who commits that crime.

Defendants who violate the Travel Act and kill someone will also face a possible death sentence for such actions.

This bill should ensure that prosecutors can use the Travel Act to act against crimes caused by the new Mafia: criminal street gangs.

The bill also amends several criminal statutes to address violent crimes frequently or typically committed by gangs.

These crimes include carjacking, assault, manslaughter, racketeering, illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent criminals, the use of firearms in drug trafficking and violent crimes, and murder-for- hire.

These amendments make it easier for prosecutors to prove these crimes by eliminating or modifying the intent requirement for the crimes or by increasing the penalties for violations.

This legislation also changes the venue statute for capital cases so that capital cases can be brought where the murder occurs or where the racketeering conspiracy, drug conspiracy, or criminal street gang operates. So, if the gang, commits the bulk of its crimes in one State but commits a capital crime in another State, all of the crimes can be tried in the same State where the gang focused its criminal activity and the government can seek the appropriate punishment for that crime. The jury will then get the whole picture of how the gang operated and what they did.

Where a 16-year-old or 17-year-old has committed a Federal serious violent felony, this legislation facilitates Federal prosecution of such offenders. Surveys in 1996 and 1999 showed that 37-50 percent of gang members were under the age of 18. This legislation also calls upon the United States Sentencing Commission to create new sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders who are charged as adults to address concerns specific to offenders of that age.

The bill permits the Attorney General to designate high intensity interstate gang activity areas, HIIGAs, and authorizes $100,000,000 for each of 5 years for these task forces.

These provisions are modeled after similar provisions creating high intensity drug trafficking areas, HIDTAs.

HIDTAs are joint efforts of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies whose leaders work together to assess regional drug threats, design strategies to combat those threats, and develop initiatives to implement the strategies.

HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies.

HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies.

HIDTAs integrate and synchronize efforts to reduce drug trafficking.

They eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize resources.

And they improve intelligence and information sharing both within and between regions.

HIDTAs are necessary because drug trafficking tends to be ``head quartered'' in certain areas of the country, from which it spreads to other areas.

Moreover, drug traffickers have been highly organized and developed sophisticated interstate and international operations.

These points are also true for many criminal gangs. So we have erected a new program of cooperation between law enforcement agencies to attack the gang problem like we attack the drug problem.

This bill authorizes $75 million over the next 5 years for the hiring of Federal prosecutors to identify and prosecute significant gangs within their districts under the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. Across the Nation, 94 Project Safe Neighborhoods Task Forces are working to implement the coordinated strategy to reduce gun violence, led by the U.S. Attorney in each of the Federal judicial districts. U.S. Attorneys have been working side by side with all law enforcement participants in their communities to identify the most pressing crime problems and attack those problems both through prevention and aggressive prosecution.

Finally, this legislation would authorize $100 million dollars over the next 5 years for States to update their technology, create and fund gang prevention and community prosecution programs, and create and expand witness protection programs.

Witness protection is a critical part of reducing gang violence. The president of the National District Attorneys Association, Robert McCulloch, who is also the district attorney in St. Louis, testified last month before the Judiciary Committee. He said that while his office is able to put witnesses in motels for a couple of days or a week or is able to send them on a bus ride to a relative's house, the solutions are not long-term. And as a result, the witnesses come back and are at risk. That is not acceptable. If witnesses are not confident that they will remain safe, they will not talk to law enforcement. It is as simple as that. We must give local and State law enforcement the tools to keep witnesses alive.

While criminal street gangs flourish in certain urban areas such as Los Angeles and Chicago, they typically use these cities as bases to invade more rural locales.

And the characteristics of a criminal street gang are extremely diverse. While some criminal street gangs are looser-affiliations of violent individuals who work together in furtherance of their gang, there are also some very highly disciplined, hierarchical ``corporations,'' often encompassing numerous jurisdictions.

MS-13, an international gang with roots in El Salvador's civil war has spread to at least 28 States and includes more than 8,000 members. In this gang there is no real command structure or national charter.

And in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, criminal street gangs are largely neighborhood-based associations of lifelong friends. They use no flashy names or symbols, but they bank together to commit crimes and sell drugs.

In the past three years, members of just three neighborhood-based gangs in Washington, D.C., called the 1-5 Mob, the K Street Crew and Murder Inc. by prosecutors, have been convicted of 57 murders and dozens of assaults and weapons offenses for gang crimes committed over the past ten years.

On the other hand, there are some very organized and structured ruthless gangs in this country.

The Gangster Disciples Nation, for example, has a chairman of the board, two boards of directors, one for prisons and one for streets), Governors, regents, area coordinators, enforcers, and ``shorties,'' youth who staff drug-selling sites and help with drug deals.

From 1987 to 1994, this gang was responsible for killing more than 200 people. Moreover, one-half of their arrests were for drug offenses and only one-third for nonlethal violence.

And just like MS-13, these gangs pop up all across the country.

In 1996, the Gangster Disciples Nation and other Chicago-based gangs were in 110 jurisdictions in 35 states.

Members of the Los-Angeles based 18th Street Gang have migrated outside of California into the southwest border up into the Pacific Northwest, out to New Jersey, Mexico, and El Salvador. Los Angeles gang members have been tracked to Indianapolis, Oklahoma, Omaha, Raleigh and St. Louis.

This bill is a necessary measure to target increasingly violent, increasingly sophisticated, and increasingly national gangs. This is not just a California problem, or a Chicago problem, or a District of Columbia problem--this problem is a nationwide in its scope, and we must craft a nationwide solution. This legislation will tackle that problem head-on. We simply cannot wait any longer.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I hope we can get cloture in a few minutes.

Five minutes will be plenty, if that is acceptable to the leader.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. We have had 3 full days of debate on the Internet tax question. I am hopeful we will be able to get cloture on the McCain substitute.

If the Alexander proposal, the alternative, is accepted, all across this country folks who now get a message that says ``You've got mail,'' will get a message that says ``You have special taxes.''

What Senator Allen and I have done over the last 3 days on the floor of the Senate is outline, under the Alexander proposal, the scores and scores of local jurisdictions that would be able to impose these special taxes on electronic commerce.

Over the last 7 years, we have heard these State and local projections by governmental bodies about how revenue would be lost. In each instance, colleagues, they have not come to pass. In 1997, for example, the National Governors Association said that our Internet tax freedom bill would cause the virtual collapse of the State and local revenue system. That next year revenue went up $7 billion.

All we are trying to do in the McCain compromise, and it is, in fact, a compromise--Senator Allen and I have sought a permanent ban on multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. We are compromising now so that it is a 4-year proposal. We have made it clear to the other side regarding telephone calls made over the Internet, the way in which those are handled and taxed would not be changed. So this is a compromise proposal.

We have had 3 days of debate. It doesn't involve sales taxes or property taxes or utility taxes or any other kinds of taxes. This is a question of whether there ought to be double taxation on something folks have already paid for, and that is Internet access. I hope we will be able to invoke cloture on the McCain substitute and be able to go on with the amendment process. We have had 3 full days of debate. I compared it to prolonged root canal work because I know this is not inherently the most fascinating subject. I hope today we can invoke cloture on the McCain substitute and get about the task of amending and passing the bill, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak very briefly after the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, having been involved in this issue now for 8 years, I can say it has never been easy. Certainly what we have seen today demonstrates that once more.

But I think the Senate has made an important statement today; that is, as we try to lay out the policies that will say a lot about the future of the Internet, it is critically important this exciting opportunity for Americans not be subject to more discriminatory taxes.

We have said once again in the Senate, we want to try to find common ground around the principle of technological neutrality, for example. If we do not do that, we will be discriminating against the future, because if we do not work it out now in the amendment process, broadband services delivered through DSL would be taxed and Internet access through cable would not be taxed. That is not technological neutrality.

What is going to give Americans the best array of technologies at the cheapest prices is true competition where there is a level playing field for the various technologies. I have said repeatedly I don't want to see the people who now get the message ``You've got mail'' to get a message that says ``You've got special taxes.'' My colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with that as well. We have a difference of opinion with respect to how we are going to get that done. Now we will be able to go to the amendment process.

I have compared this exercise repeatedly to something resembling root canal work. I make it clear to my friend from Tennessee, the Senator from Delaware that we are going to do everything possible to make sure there is an adequate opportunity for colleagues to offer their amendments and discuss them. These are very technical, complicated issues. I have spent about as much time on the Senate floor discussing these issues over the last 3 days as any Member. I intend to stay at this post so we give everybody who wants a chance to discuss these issues that kind of opportunity.

Over the last 7 years, we have seen a lot of reports about dire consequences that come about if we pass this legislation. That has not come to pass. I see the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

We were told in 1997, if we pass that, we will bring the collapse of the revenue system in States and localities, and revenue went up $7 billion the next year. We have to deal with those issues. In the last two iterations of this legislation, I have said repeatedly that no one has brought forward an example of a local jurisdiction hurt by their inability to discriminate against electronic commerce. That is what this bill does; it makes sure you cannot single Internet out for special taxes.

We will use this amendment process now to address the concerns of various Senators. A lot of Members did not think we would get to this point today, but we have a chance, working with colleagues, to produce a bipartisan bill that will be passed overwhelmingly by the Senate. I intend to stay and work with the Senator from Tennessee and others to make sure they get the discussion on the topics they feel strongly about and that it is fair and thorough. That is my pledge.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I share the view of the chairman of the Commerce Committee and Senator Dorgan. I think the end is now in sight. I see the distinguished Senator from Virginia on the floor right now, and I commend him for all the effort and the relentless pursuit of a cause that he and I have shared for many years, going back to when he was Governor and when I was the original Senate sponsor.

We have held steadfast to the proposition that the Internet, this extraordinary national and global treasure, should not be subject to multiple and discriminatory taxes. I think the earlier Senate vote indicates that a majority of the Senate is prepared to support policies which will ensure that the Internet is healthy and vibrant for the future.

I see the chairman of the Commerce Committee on the floor. People felt strongly about the question of telephone calls over the Internet. The chairman of the Commerce Committee came, had a very constructive definition which made clear or clearer what Senator Allen and I have felt all along, and that is that there should not be a change in the status quo. That is very constructive.

My guess is that the big challenge over the course of the afternoon will be on the issue of definitions. Certainly there are definitions with respect to how what is called the backbone of the system, the architecture, is handled. Depending on how it is written, that definition could provide for taxes on BlackBerrys and e-mails and the kind of thing that the Senator from Virginia and I have opposed strongly. We will have to oppose that once again, but I want to make it clear, as I did earlier in the afternoon, that we are anxious to deal with the remaining issues in a collegial fashion with the Senator from Tennessee. The Senator from Tennessee has made it clear he wants to move this bill along.

I join my colleagues in saying that after 8 years of being at this, literally since the time I came to the Senate early in 1996, I suspect in a few hours the Senate will have acted once more in a bipartisan fashion.

I want to wrap up by commending the Senator from Virginia. He has been willing to compromise with respect to issues but he has never compromised on principle, and I appreciate that.

I yield the floor.

Before the Senator leaves the floor, I don't want to turn this into a bouquet-tossing contest, but I came to the Senate in the winter of 1996 as a new member of the Commerce Committee. The chairman of the committee was exceptionally helpful in terms of working on the legislation then. We have gone through two iterations already.

Senator Dorgan and I have spent untold numbers of hours talking about this vastly important bill, more than either of us would have wanted. The Senator from Virginia is here as well, and the fact that he has been involved so extensively has been an enormous help. The Senator from Virginia has consistently talked about standing up for freedom. He is absolutely right.

There is a reason the Gray Panthers, for example, are for this legislation. They and millions of other consumers understand how important it is that we not hammer Internet access.

We will have other debates with respect to the future of the Internet. Certainly the Senator from North Dakota has talked passionately, for example, about a project the Governors were talking about, the streamlined sales tax concept. So we will have these other debates.

But the chairman of the Commerce Committee, who was so gracious to me and the Senator from Virginia, helped us consistently through this 8- year-long battle. I want the chairman of the Commerce Committee to know I am very appreciative of all of the help and support he has given us in this cause.

We are going to be wrapping up the work of the Senate in just a few minutes, and a lot of people who have said it just was not in the cards, it just was not to be, the Senate was gridlocked--suffice it to say there will be further debates as we discuss this with the other body.

This is a very significant step forward. Every Member of the Senate, in my view--and I have talked to almost every Member about this on a personal basis--every Member understands the value to the opportunity of a healthy and vibrant Internet. What we had over the last few days is a debate about the best set of policies to attain that objective. This will not be the last debate. For example, even in an area where we have come to an agreement with respect to the taxation of telephone calls made over the Internet, this is not the last word. As the Senator from Tennessee and I have discussed, we still have the Federal Communications Commission in a position to take a more comprehensive look, for example, on how phone calls made over the Internet are going to be regulated and dealt with by the various jurisdictions.

This debate is sure to continue for many days ahead, but this is a banner day. This is a day when the Senate has made some judgments that will help keep the Internet healthy and vibrant in the days ahead. That is a great success. I commend my colleagues for being patient enough to deal with the subject.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe we have an agreement to share the time. I am allocated 10 minutes to speak on this amendment. I am not going to take 10 minutes, but it will come from the allocation under the agreement worked out by the chairman of the committee and the manager of the bill, Senator Dorgan.

Yes, that will be fine. I will not take 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senator from California knows how much respect I have for her, but I must profoundly disagree with this amendment. This amendment would essentially reward bad behavior. What we have is a number of jurisdictions doing what clearly is in violation of the law. We do not even think they are in California, but in jurisdictions around the country people are taxing DSL. We are convinced that is clearly against the law. It certainly promotes technological inequality because we have a situation where cable gets a free ride, and then they end up taxing DSL.

The Feinstein amendment would make the 2-year DSL grandfather 4 years. Some of these grandfathers in this bill are going to live longer than Methuselah. It certainly does not make sensible public policy, and it does not make sensible public policy when we would be discriminating against the future. The future is broadband, high-speed Internet access through DSL. This would allow folks to keep taxing DSL, which has certainly been contrary to the spirit of everything we have done over the last 7 years. It, in effect, would be rewarding bad behavior. It would certainly discriminate against DSL relative to cable.

I think this would be a significant mistake. Certainly, there are different technology platforms for Internet access, but for 8 years, the central proposition I tried to advance on this legislation is that there ought to be technological equality; that we ought not to treat all technologies differently. We had a number of jurisdictions violate that. They have gone out and stuck it to DSL. So DSL gets taxed, and cable does not get taxed. We don't think it happens in California, but it certainly has happened around the country.

I do not think we ought to let these grandfathers outlive us all. That is essentially where we are going on this issue. We just keep extending the life of these grandfathers. It is going to do great damage to the country's future by particularly discouraging broadband development through DSL.

I hope the Senate will oppose the amendment. I cannot say there is anybody I would rather not oppose than the Senator from California. I agree with her on virtually everything under the Sun with respect to public policy.

But, Mr. President, I say to the Senate, if they vote for the Feinstein amendment, they are rewarding bad behavior. They are encouraging technological inequality. We have already taken steps to let some of these grandfathers live longer than I certainly would. We are now saying that some of them are going to make Methuselah look young. I think it is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield the floor.

We agree.

Will the Senator yield briefly? Because I have been following this, along with the Senator from Arizona, and we may be able to have a colloquy to work this out.

California does not tax DSL now.

That is good. California does not tax the backbone of the communications system now. California does, based on these analyses that have been given you, tax various telecommunications services. I think it would be fair to all of us to say it is our desire to keep the status quo in California.

In other words, various services are paying telecommunications taxes now. The reading of our proposal indicates there is nothing which would prevent California from being able to continue to impose those taxes.

Would it be acceptable to the Senator from California to have a colloquy which would allow us to include some report language stipulating in those areas where communications services are being taxed now that there is nothing in the McCain proposal which would change that? If that would be acceptable to the Senator from California, we might be able to work out with the chairman of the committee and the Senator from Virginia report language and withdraw her amendment. That would protect the status quo in California. It would, however, make sure we are not rewarding bad behavior in other States around the country that tax DSL.

If the Feinstein amendment is offered in its current form, I will oppose it very strongly. The Feinstein amendment, if it is offered, and if we can't agree on a colloquy, would promote technological inequality. It would nail DSL and give cable a free ride.

I will urge the Senate to oppose the Feinstein amendment, but I would be open to report language with my colleague from California to make sure it is the intent of the Senate to keep the status quo in California where DSL isn't taxed and the backbone isn't taxed where the Senator has been concerned.

Mr. President, I intend to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee and then yield the remainder of my time. I understand the Senator from North Dakota is going to yield the remainder of his time also; is that correct?

Mr. President, I yield myself 20 seconds before then.

I commend to my colleagues this morning the Washington Post editorial entitled ``Energy Follies.'' I quote:

It would make far more sense for Senators who are

interested in some aspect of this legislation--whether

ethanol or electricity regulation or renewable fuels--to

design bills around those issues and vote on them separately,

judging each by its own merits. But that would be too

rational for this Senate, which almost seems to prefer doing

things sideways.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record, and I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I intend to yield back the remainder of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the second and third votes and that the votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the Domenici amendment. It has really no business on an Internet tax bill. We all know that. I read again from the Washington Post of this morning:

It would make far more sense for Senators who are

interested in some aspect of this legislation, whether

ethanol or electricity regulation or renewable fuels, to

design bills around those issues and vote on them separately,

judging each by its own merits. But that would be too

rational for this Senate which seems almost to prefer doing

things sideways.

There is no need for this legislation on the bill. It has no place on it. I can assure my colleagues it would be dropped in conference if it were adopted.

I yield my 1 minute to the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee be allowed 1 minute.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the Daschle amendment is not germane and ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for the comity that has existed in addressing this bill.

I thank, of course, Senator Allen, Senator Lott and Senator Sununu, and many others who have helped to get this bill to the point where it is.

We are ready to consider amendments. I assured the opponents of this bill who have fought tenaciously--Senator Voinovich, Senator Alexander, and Senator Carper in particular--that if there is an amendment which they have filed which is not technically germane but is associated with the Internet tax, I would ask consent that it be considered because there was a feeling that they did not have their amendments properly considered. I hope we can give them that consideration.

I hope we can move forward soon with the amendments. As I last checked, there are about 30 which were filed. I hope we can move forward, debate, and dispose of those amendments. I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from West Virginia yield to me 30 seconds for a comment?

I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

It is the intention of all to finish this legislation tonight. I hope those with amendments will come over during the period that Senator Byrd makes his remarks so we can proceed with amending this legislation. I regret it, but I will object to further extraneous conversation or dialog until we finish consideration of this bill because I do not want to inconvenience Members by keeping them in late tonight. We have some 31 relevant amendments. We need to get about addressing them.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to comment.

If the Senator will yield for one additional comment, I appreciate what the Senator from Nevada said. He is very experienced at floor procedures. I point out we have been on this bill all week. I would hope we could finish it tonight. I see no reason why we cannot.

I understand his skepticism. In no way did I mean to criticise the very important statements being made on the vital issue of national security.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her courtesy.

I would like to report that after a very productive meeting amongst the principals who have been involved in this legislation, I might add, I was reminded, for about 8 years now, and thanks to the good offices of Senators Dorgan, Voinovich, Allen, Lott, Alexander, and Carper, I think we have the outline of an agreement that I hope can lead to a successful conclusion within the next hour or so.

We have refined the issues basically down to two. One of them is the issue of a moratorium. We expect Senator Lautenberg to come to the floor with an amendment on the issue of moratorium, the numbers of years of a moratorium for different protocols, and also one on the definition of the backbone. It is not clear whether the second issue will require a recorded vote.

We also reached an agreement on an amendment I will propose on behalf of all of us in a few minutes that has to do with the voice over Internet protocol issue, a definition to which we have agreed.

I inform my colleagues, I think it is very possible that we could have one or two more votes and then vote on final passage. At least I am hopeful of that outcome. I again thank my colleagues for their progress.

I will also mention that there are a couple of Senators who are being checked in who had amendments to make sure their concerns are being addressed in the amendments that may be proposed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we await the arrival of Senator Lautenberg so we can move forward with his amendment. Then I am informed that at least Senators Alexander, Carper, and Voinovich do not intend to offer their amendment on definition, but there are other Senators who also have an interest in this issue. So it is not for sure that we are not going to have an amendment on that issue.

As I mentioned, moratorium and the grandfather issues need to be addressed, and Senator Lautenberg's amendment addresses the issue of grandfathering. So we await his arrival in hopes that we can get that disposed of, and then the Lott amendment and then we would be ready to move to final passage.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry.

At what time does the Pastore rule apply?

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I would never, ever believe that my friend from Nevada would stretch any of the Senate rules. Of course, I appreciate his real knowledge of the rules of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his very adroit, as always, capable work on this issue and moving this legislation along.

I thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, who feels very strongly about this issue. I know we will be revisiting this issue again.

I thank my colleagues. I strongly recommend that we agree to the amendment by voice vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is no further debate on the amendment.

I have submitted an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Lautenberg, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Senator Lautenberg's amendment calls for a GAO study on broadband for the effects of tax moratorium on State and local economies and other impacts of this Internet tax moratorium. I find it a very valuable amendment. It would be very helpful because this is a moratorium, not a permanent ban. It would be very helpful as we debate this issue, which I imagine will start again in a year or so.

The Lautenberg amendment is a good amendment. Senator Lautenberg is a conferee, and I know Senator Dorgan will agree we will fight to make sure this GAO study is included.

I yield the floor.

As far as I know--and Senator Dorgan is more aware than I am--we have one more amendment we agreed to which I hope to propose within a couple of minutes. Senator Feinstein may or may not be proposing an amendment. We will find out shortly. Then we would be prepared to go to final passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, while we are awaiting the amendment and the presence or decision on Senator Feinstein's amendment, I wish to make a couple of comments about individuals. I specifically speak of Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Carper, who fought very hard and valiantly on this issue. We have honest differences of opinion on this issue.

It is very likely we will pass this legislation, but Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich, Senator Carper, and Senator Dorgan have had an enormous impact. We have gone from a permanent ban to a 4-year moratorium. We are changing the definition of voice over Internet protocol. We have made significant changes to this legislation thanks to their efforts.

Throughout, our debate has been characterized by mutual respect and understanding that we just have fundamental differences of opinion. I congratulate them on a battle well fought. Although they may have lost in passage of the legislation, they improved it dramatically, and I say that from a position on both sides of the issue. They brought into play their backgrounds as Governors of their respective States and bring a much needed perspective to this body. I congratulate them for their very outstanding work, particularly over the long period of time we have been involved in this issue.

If we pass this bill shortly--and we may not--there are two individuals who deserve the credit: Senators Allen and Wyden, who took up this legislation years ago, and followed it. They have been relentless, dedicated advocates, and have brought their debate and discussion all over America. They have done an outstanding job. They are the ones who, I believe, deserve the credit on all of it for the magnificent work they have done on an issue that is of great importance and profound importance to small and large businesses all over America. I thank them for their valued efforts.

I yield the floor.

That is correct. Please proceed.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I submit the amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Allen, Senator Voinovich, Senator Alexander, Senator Dorgan, Senator Carper, and Senator Wyden. It refines the language concerning the voice over Internet protocol. It is a product of an agreement of language between all of us. I ask for its consideration.

Before I do that, I believe Senator Feinstein has an amendment she wants to propose. I hope we can get an agreement, say, 40 minutes equally divided, if that would be agreeable.

Forty minutes equally divided, followed by a recorded vote, which would then be followed by final passage. I ask unanimous consent that after disposal of the pending amendment, no more amendments be in order, that there be 40 minutes equally divided between myself and Senator Feinstein, a vote on the amendment, followed immediately by a final passage recorded vote.

The Senator from Delaware would like to make a comment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I yield to the Senator from Virginia such time as he may consume.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Maybe the Senator could do that in the next few minutes while I make a couple of comments, if that is agreeable.

Mr. President, I would like to be clear that a tax on DSL services is a tax on Internet access. Seventeen States have cleverly found a way to get around the Internet tax moratorium. Right now, 17 States have gotten around at least the spirit if not the letter of the Internet tax moratorium by taxing DSL service.

The heart of this compromise to the original legislation had no grandfathering whatsoever--none, zero. So we put in a compromise that would have called for 3 years of non-DSL taxation, 2 years grandfathering in for non-DSL taxes. This would have given the DSL taxing States 2 years to adjust their budgets. Then we went from 3 years to 4 years' moratorium, lifting the moratorium for those who are taxing non-DSL taxes.

If we do this, we are gutting the compromise. It is unfair to DSL consumers. Why should consumers in one-third of all States be treated differently from the rest of the country?

I strongly oppose the amendment. I would like to work out the compromise as discussed between Senator Feinstein, Senator Wyden, and Senator Allen. I hope we can agree to it.

In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent to send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Hutchison which would then allow the State of Texas to have their ``access line fee'' included in the voice over IP compromise language.