Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking Senator Alexander, as well as Senators Wyden and Allen, who have worked on the consensus legislation that was touched on in earlier remarks, a final piece of the legislation necessary to ensure that we do not tax Internet access.

The reason we do this, the reason we think this legislation is so important is, first and foremost, because these are national and global broadband networks. They are interstate and global in nature. I believe the responsibility for both determining the tax status and the regulatory status of these networks falls on the Federal Government. I do believe taxation is merely an extension of regulatory power, in that it has the ability to shape the playing field, to weight the competition among ideas or technology in one direction or another. As was said many years ago, when you tax something, you get less of it. If that is not a form of regulation, I don't know what is.

The issue of broadband voice, of Internet protocol voice services was also mentioned. I do want to be clear, at least in expressing an opinion if not declaring it absolute fact: The Internet tax legislation that we passed was silent on this issue. It doesn't allow or disallow, per se, the taxation on Internet protocol, IP voice service, or broadband voice service. But what it does is protect Internet access, access to that broadband pipe from taxation.

We will discuss and debate in greater detail in the coming year the nature of these broadband voice services--broadband access, spectrum regulations--as we develop telecom legislation in 2005, beginning with hearings and work in the Commerce Committee. I think in many ways the FCC has already set the direction for this process in a recent ruling that they made, which was to say that broadband voice services using the Internet protocol are interstate in nature and that they should be regulated on a national level for many of the reasons that Senator Alexander has outlined. We want clarity; we want consistency; we don't want it weighted toward one technology or another.

There are lots of ways to get access to these national and global broadband networks. You can get them through wireless systems, DSL, cable. You can get them even through satellite. And there are probably more technologies that will come to give customers and consumers access. We want to be careful that we do not distort the marketplace of ideas, either through subsidies for one form of technology relative to another--which was mentioned by Senator Alexander--or regulatory regimes on one form of broadband network relative to another.

It will be a challenging debate. I think Senator Alexander has been very helpful in this debate in bringing the perspective of a Governor. I think we do need to be very sensitive to the rights and the powers of the States. But where we have something that is interstate, national, or global in nature, then I think it does make sense to try to find a light regulatory touch, as Senator Alexander has described, but one that is clearly defined and that will keep the competitive playing field as open and vigorous as possible. If we have a strong economy, then I think the governments at the local level, the State level, and the Federal level will do fine so far as revenue collection is concerned.

I look forward to participating in this debate with other members on the Commerce Committee and all of the Members in the Senate in order to make sure that we have a regulatory system that is designed for, so to speak, the 21st century, these new technologies, and not just take a regulatory system that was designed for a copper circuit switch phone system, invented by Alexander Graham Bell--don't take that regulatory system and try to force it on emerging technologies for the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise at this time as we head toward a vote on final passage to voice my strong support for this legislation. But equally important, I wish to pay tribute to the work of Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins in fashioning this legislation in a bipartisan way. I am pleased to serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee with both of them.

This has been put together in a way that reflects the core recommendations of the September 11 Commission. It takes our intelligence-gathering system and creates a strong intelligence director but gives that director the kind of budget and personnel responsibility that will enable him to be effective as we continue to fight a long war on terrorism--a global fight the length of which we can't determine right now but whose priority and importance is undisputed. It takes all of the assets of our intelligence-gathering network--the assets that serve our national intelligence operation but puts them

under the national intelligence director--and gives that director the authority and the flexibility that is going to be necessary to be effective.

It deals with important issues such as border security and transportation today under the responsibility of the Commerce Committee. It creates a counterterrorism center--something that has already been done. But it is important that we authorize the counterterrorism center which is going to be responsible for putting together all of our efforts in dealing with terrorist threats, collecting and distributing that to law enforcement officials, and making sure that our objective of identifying threats to this country, whether it is through financing or the movement of personnel and materials, is done effectively.

While this legislation responds to the September 11 Commission recommendations, I think it is also important to recognize that the September 11 Commission report dealt with the weaknesses that led to the attacks in New York City and Washington and the downing of the plane in Pennsylvania. In order for this legislation to be effective, we need to continue to make sure all of our intelligence assets are focused on the future. There are going to be new threats and new challenges in what will be an evolving fight. The counterterrorism center is going to have to evolve over time to deal with new threats from different parts of the world.

We are going to have to improve our techniques for information sharing. We are going to have to develop new technologies for information gathering around the world. We will have to continue to improve our human intelligence system--something that was, unfortunately, lacking in the years which led up to September 11. This is going to be a continuing process of change.

I think it is most important that this legislation creates the infrastructure and a culture and a leadership structure that can respond to these changes which can evolve with the times and that can deal with the unexpected.

If there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that the fighting of terrorism around the world will include many unexpected, unpredictable events. But if we are to succeed, we want to make sure our intelligence-gathering operation has all the tools and the support that is necessary.

This is a very strong piece of legislation. It was put together in a bipartisan way, but it is not strong because it is bipartisan. I think it is receiving the bipartisan support because it is a strong, thoughtful piece of legislation.

We have a lot of work left to do. We are going to go to a conference with the House, and that in and of itself will be a long process to overcome any differences in the legislation. But I hope in the end and I believe in the end this will be a bill that makes our intelligence- gathering capability and our ability to fight terrorism around the world stronger and which will meet with the core and the thrust of the September 11 Commission report.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, to introduce the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2004. This legislation, which is modeled after the successful 50-State quarter program, would add the image of U.S. Presidents to the circulating dollar coin. I believe this bill, when enacted, will prompt more widespread usage of the dollar coin, earn significant funds for the U.S. government and spark new interest in the history of the leaders of our Nation.

The United States Government currently issues a dollar coin. Unfortunately, many Americans don't know about the coin and most don't use them. In fact, the dollar coin has never lived up to its promise to become a primary component of the American economy. I believe as policy makers, it is our job to ask what this costs our economy and our government, why the dollar coin is not widely used, and what can be done to remedy it.

With a one-dollar coin in general circulation, our economy will be more efficient, and our government will reap the significant benefits that a fully circulating coin will generate. To illustrate, millions of low-dollar transactions occur in our country every day. Bringing even the smallest efficiency to each would result in significant savings to the economy. For example, the vending machine industry estimates that the effect of a widely circulated dollar coin in its sector alone could be as much as $1 billion in savings: $300 million in increased sales and $700 million in reduced maintenance costs. Add to that the savings that businesses would realize by experiencing lower handling costs-- it's simply much more expensive to sort and count bills than coins--and one begins to get a sense of the economies that could be achieved if our dollar coin program were more of a success.

In the public sector, the savings are hardly less dramatic. Informed estimates put the effect of a fully circulating dollar coin at as much as a $500 million annual infusion to the Treasury general fund. These funds are created by the difference between what it costs to make a coin or bill and what it's worth. For a dollar coin, the difference, which is called seigniorage, is about 80 cents. While there is no direct comparison for a dollar bill, as the accounting methods are different, the gain to the general fund is much less. Another savings comes from the fact that a coin can do its work for 30 years, while a dollar bill has a lifespan of only about 18 months before it wears out and needs to be replaced.

With such clear advantages on the side of the dollar coin why doesn't the American public use the coin? The answers are fairly well known and were documented by the GAO in a 2002 report to Congress. Let me address some of the problems outlined by the GAO.

First, there is the so-called ``network effect.'' This interdependency of demand is described by the GAO this way-- ``Increasing the use of the coin is especially difficult because retailers will not stock the dollar coin until they see the public using it, the public is unlikely to use the coin until they see retailers stocking it, and banks and armored carriers are reluctant to invest in new equipment to handle the coin until there is wide demand for it.'' Second, there is a lack of public information about the savings to the government from using the dollar coin. Third, business users found difficulty in getting the newer ``golden'' dollar coins in a useable form--they are not rolled like other coins and because they are generally commingled with the older Susan B. Anthony dollars. Fourth, design mistakes made with the Susan B. Anthony dollar led many to confuse the coin with the quarter and spend it at a 75-cent loss. Finally, the most difficult problem of all, Americans prefer the dollar bill to the dollar coin because they can get an adequate supply of them, and they are readily accepted everywhere.

The GAO summed it up with this conclusion in its 2002 report, ``. . . until individuals can see that the coin is widely used by others and that the government intends to replace the dollar bill with the dollar coin, they will be unlikely to use the coin in everyday transactions.''

The bill I am introducing today will address many of these problems. It will do so by getting the dollar coin in people's hands and pockets. It will provide the information that Americans need to make rational decisions and it takes steps to eliminate other barriers to circulation of the coin. Although this legislation does not take the dollar bill out of circulation, it is well known that continued circulation of the dollar bill is expensive to businesses and consumers alike. Therefore, I am today writing the GAO asking that it carefully examine this issue and update its findings from its last comprehensive review made in 1990.

Now, I turn to the specifics of my legislative proposal. Beginning in 2006, the bill would cause the images of four U.S. Presidents to appear on the dollar coin a year, each in the order of their service, until all are so honored. The reverse of the coin would feature the Statue of Liberty. The edge of the coin would hold important information, such as the date and the so-called mintmark. It is important to note that coins bearing the image of Sacagawea, who currently appears on the face of the dollar coin, will continue to be issued during the period of the Presidential Coin Program established by this bill. I draw my colleague's attention to the fact that her image will be joined by the images of U.S. Presidents, not displaced by them. This is only appropriate, especially as we celebrate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of which she was such an important part.

To complement the Presidential Coin Program, my bill would also create a new puregold bullion coin to honor presidential spouses. At the same time each president's image appears on the circulating dollar coin, the spouse's image would appear on a one-half ounce pure gold coin. It is my hope that together the Presidential coin and the Spouse coin will spark excitement and interest in the dollar coin and get it into circulation. These coins will appeal both to collectors and to investors.

As I mentioned earlier, the Presidential Coin Program is modeled after the wildly successful 50-state quarter program. As all my colleagues know, that program has aroused new interest in coins, coin collecting and the history of our nation's states. Before it began, the U.S. Mint was producing about $400 million in quarters a year. Demand in the first year of the quarter program shot up to $1.2 billion in quarters that year. Seigniorage from the quarter halfway through the 50-state program has surpassed all expectations, amounting to more than $4 billion, close to the $5 billion that was predicted for the whole 10-year program. I believe that the Presidential Coin Program will have a similar effect on the dollar coin, creating interest and familiarity with the dollar coin and revenues for the U.S. government.

The bill I am introducing with Senator Reid would also take other important steps toward getting Americans used to the dollar coin and removing barriers to its circulation. For example, it would cause the Federal Government to use the dollar coin in all its retail operations. Incredibly, this is not the case now. Except for the U.S. Postal Service, few other Federal agencies make use of the coin. Also, the bill would take the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin out of circulation, ending the problem--identified by many business owners--of commingling of the new and

old dollar coins. There would be, however, no problem for the Sacagawea and Presidential dollars to circulate at the same time, as they both would be of the attractive ``golden'' color. The bill also would cause the dollar coins to be available in convenient forms, including rolls and small bags, so that businesses can use them easily. Now, it's hard to get dollar coins except in pillow-sized bags, from which they must be counted before they can go into cash registers.

Finally, this legislation will create a new, pure-gold bullion, one- ounce coin with the image of the so-called ``Indian Head'' or ``Buffalo'' nickel. Here, I must note that the design is so popular that when our colleague Senator Campbell, authored legislation to re- create that design as a limited-edition silver dollar to benefit the National Museum of the American Indian now under construction on the Mall, all half-million copies allowed sold out within two weeks. This will be an opportunity for collectors to get a pure-gold copy of the coin, but it will also be an opportunity for investors to buy an investment-grade coin. Other countries, including the People's Republic of China, make this kind of pure-gold investment vehicle available to their citizens, but to date the U.S. Mint gold investment-grade coins have only been about 90 percent pure. I'm certain that with the quality work of the Mint and the imprimatur of the United States Government, this coin will be well-accepted into the market.

Let me conclude, by saying that I believe the bill I am introducing today will put the dollar coin on the map and in the pockets of Americans. That's good for commerce and it's good government.

Mr. President, I rise today with the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, to introduce the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2004. This legislation, which is modeled after the successful 50-State quarter program, would add the image of U.S. Presidents to the circulating dollar coin. I believe this bill, when enacted, will prompt more widespread usage of the dollar coin, earn significant funds for the U.S. government and spark new interest in the history of the leaders of our Nation.

The United States Government currently issues a dollar coin. Unfortunately, many Americans don't know about the coin and most don't use them. In fact, the dollar coin has never lived up to its promise to become a primary component of the American economy. I believe as policy makers, it is our job to ask what this costs our economy and our government, why the dollar coin is not widely used, and what can be done to remedy it.

With a one-dollar coin in general circulation, our economy will be more efficient, and our government will reap the significant benefits that a fully circulating coin will generate. To illustrate, millions of low-dollar transactions occur in our country every day. Bringing even the smallest efficiency to each would result in significant savings to the economy. For example, the vending machine industry estimates that the effect of a widely circulated dollar coin in its sector alone could be as much as $1 billion in savings: $300 million in increased sales and $700 million in reduced maintenance costs. Add to that the savings that businesses would realize by experiencing lower handling costs-- it's simply much more expensive to sort and count bills than coins--and one begins to get a sense of the economies that could be achieved if our dollar coin program were more of a success.

In the public sector, the savings are hardly less dramatic. Informed estimates put the effect of a fully circulating dollar coin at as much as a $500 million annual infusion to the Treasury general fund. These funds are created by the difference between what it costs to make a coin or bill and what it's worth. For a dollar coin, the difference, which is called seigniorage, is about 80 cents. While there is no direct comparison for a dollar bill, as the accounting methods are different, the gain to the general fund is much less. Another savings comes from the fact that a coin can do its work for 30 years, while a dollar bill has a lifespan of only about 18 months before it wears out and needs to be replaced.

With such clear advantages on the side of the dollar coin why doesn't the American public use the coin? The answers are fairly well known and were documented by the GAO in a 2002 report to Congress. Let me address some of the problems outlined by the GAO.

First, there is the so-called ``network effect.'' This interdependency of demand is described by the GAO this way-- ``Increasing the use of the coin is especially difficult because retailers will not stock the dollar coin until they see the public using it, the public is unlikely to use the coin until they see retailers stocking it, and banks and armored carriers are reluctant to invest in new equipment to handle the coin until there is wide demand for it.'' Second, there is a lack of public information about the savings to the government from using the dollar coin. Third, business users found difficulty in getting the newer ``golden'' dollar coins in a useable form--they are not rolled like other coins and because they are generally commingled with the older Susan B. Anthony dollars. Fourth, design mistakes made with the Susan B. Anthony dollar led many to confuse the coin with the quarter and spend it at a 75-cent loss. Finally, the most difficult problem of all, Americans prefer the dollar bill to the dollar coin because they can get an adequate supply of them, and they are readily accepted everywhere.

The GAO summed it up with this conclusion in its 2002 report, ``. . . until individuals can see that the coin is widely used by others and that the government intends to replace the dollar bill with the dollar coin, they will be unlikely to use the coin in everyday transactions.''

The bill I am introducing today will address many of these problems. It will do so by getting the dollar coin in people's hands and pockets. It will provide the information that Americans need to make rational decisions and it takes steps to eliminate other barriers to circulation of the coin. Although this legislation does not take the dollar bill out of circulation, it is well known that continued circulation of the dollar bill is expensive to businesses and consumers alike. Therefore, I am today writing the GAO asking that it carefully examine this issue and update its findings from its last comprehensive review made in 1990.

Now, I turn to the specifics of my legislative proposal. Beginning in 2006, the bill would cause the images of four U.S. Presidents to appear on the dollar coin a year, each in the order of their service, until all are so honored. The reverse of the coin would feature the Statue of Liberty. The edge of the coin would hold important information, such as the date and the so-called mintmark. It is important to note that coins bearing the image of Sacagawea, who currently appears on the face of the dollar coin, will continue to be issued during the period of the Presidential Coin Program established by this bill. I draw my colleague's attention to the fact that her image will be joined by the images of U.S. Presidents, not displaced by them. This is only appropriate, especially as we celebrate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of which she was such an important part.

To complement the Presidential Coin Program, my bill would also create a new puregold bullion coin to honor presidential spouses. At the same time each president's image appears on the circulating dollar coin, the spouse's image would appear on a one-half ounce pure gold coin. It is my hope that together the Presidential coin and the Spouse coin will spark excitement and interest in the dollar coin and get it into circulation. These coins will appeal both to collectors and to investors.

As I mentioned earlier, the Presidential Coin Program is modeled after the wildly successful 50-state quarter program. As all my colleagues know, that program has aroused new interest in coins, coin collecting and the history of our nation's states. Before it began, the U.S. Mint was producing about $400 million in quarters a year. Demand in the first year of the quarter program shot up to $1.2 billion in quarters that year. Seigniorage from the quarter halfway through the 50-state program has surpassed all expectations, amounting to more than $4 billion, close to the $5 billion that was predicted for the whole 10-year program. I believe that the Presidential Coin Program will have a similar effect on the dollar coin, creating interest and familiarity with the dollar coin and revenues for the U.S. government.

The bill I am introducing with Senator Reid would also take other important steps toward getting Americans used to the dollar coin and removing barriers to its circulation. For example, it would cause the Federal Government to use the dollar coin in all its retail operations. Incredibly, this is not the case now. Except for the U.S. Postal Service, few other Federal agencies make use of the coin. Also, the bill would take the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin out of circulation, ending the problem--identified by many business owners--of commingling of the new and

old dollar coins. There would be, however, no problem for the Sacagawea and Presidential dollars to circulate at the same time, as they both would be of the attractive ``golden'' color. The bill also would cause the dollar coins to be available in convenient forms, including rolls and small bags, so that businesses can use them easily. Now, it's hard to get dollar coins except in pillow-sized bags, from which they must be counted before they can go into cash registers.

Finally, this legislation will create a new, pure-gold bullion, one- ounce coin with the image of the so-called ``Indian Head'' or ``Buffalo'' nickel. Here, I must note that the design is so popular that when our colleague Senator Campbell, authored legislation to re- create that design as a limited-edition silver dollar to benefit the National Museum of the American Indian now under construction on the Mall, all half-million copies allowed sold out within two weeks. This will be an opportunity for collectors to get a pure-gold copy of the coin, but it will also be an opportunity for investors to buy an investment-grade coin. Other countries, including the People's Republic of China, make this kind of pure-gold investment vehicle available to their citizens, but to date the U.S. Mint gold investment-grade coins have only been about 90 percent pure. I'm certain that with the quality work of the Mint and the imprimatur of the United States Government, this coin will be well-accepted into the market.

Let me conclude, by saying that I believe the bill I am introducing today will put the dollar coin on the map and in the pockets of Americans. That's good for commerce and it's good government.

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

Madam President, as Americans gather in our Capitol and across the country to remember and pay tribute to President Ronald Reagan, we have been provided a very special opportunity to reflect on his great achievements as our Commander in Chief, as well as the tremendous personal strength which he brought to the Oval Office.

But as we salute President Reagan for his leadership, his integrity, and his vision, I am struck by the very personal nature of so many of these memories and stories. Whether here in Washington or out across the country, whether it is a U.S. Senator or a teacher in a small school, it seems that so many of these recollections begin with phrases such as, ``I remember seeing him during his first visit to our State,'' or ``I shook his hand when he visited our factory,'' or ``I recall a story that President Reagan loved to tell,'' or even ``because of Ronald Reagan, I chose to run for office.''

These recollections are enormously personal, but I think they are a testament to the way he touched people in a very deep and unique way. He affected the lives of millions of people in America and around the world in countless encounters. Many of these encounters may have been for only a moment or two in a life that spanned decades, but his gift was in his ability to make a strong connection that had real power, the power to bridge generations, the power to last a lifetime, and the power to change a life as well.

We remember his touch, his smile, and his encouragement, not simply because when he walked into a room Ronald Reagan conveyed a great personal warmth. That was certainly special in and of itself, and something that anyone who had the chance to meet him or see him in person would always remember, but it was because this personal connection conveyed a sense of purpose, a sense of kindness, and an enormous love for public service. That was the power of the Great Communicator, the power of the personal connection that he made.

I consider this the greatest tribute of all. Despite the myriad and extraordinary legislative and foreign policy victories of President Reagan such as cutting taxes and reforming the code, rebuilding our Nation's defenses, turning back the Soviets in Afghanistan, or leading the West to a lasting victory in the cold war--despite the enormous substance of these achievements, Ronald Reagan, in the end, is not remembered first and foremost as a clever politician with great machinations of political strategy or hardball political tactics. Instead, the descriptive words that we heard here and across the country over and over again are integrity, character, courage, and leadership. These are qualities that transcend politics and qualities that transcend time. They are qualities that inspire the young and comfort the aged. They are the qualities of heroes.

Ronald Reagan was fond of describing the heroes he saw in audiences at every speech he made or heroes he would see as he traveled across the country in every corner of America and coming from every walk of life. He saw in these men and women the very strength of character, courage, integrity, and leadership that he knew made our country unique and which kept our country prosperous and free. But by bringing these very same qualities to the Oval Office and drawing on them time and time again to guide our Nation through demanding and even dark times, he left a legacy that shined like the city on a hill which he knew America could be and would again become. It is a heroic legacy, and it is the legacy of a great American.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate this year's winners of the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards. The ``ED''ies are awarded to those individuals, schools and educational programs that have made significant contributions to public education and have met the highest standards of excellence. Educators and schools who are selected have demonstrated a high standard in areas such as curriculum and instruction, teaching and learning process, student achievement, leadership and decisionmaking, community and parental involvement, and school climate. On June 5, 2004, the leadership and achievement of these 33 individuals and 12 schools in New Hampshire will receive acknowledgment. I add my voice on behalf of the citizens I represent in similarly recognizing our appreciation and respect for these professionals who make countless sacrifices and contributions in our schools.

The ``ED''ies are presented in various categories of excellence, such as math and science teaching, curriculum development, and environmental education. The specific criteria for the ``ED''ies, which is developed by the board of directors for the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards, has been applied to elementary, middle, and secondary schools, along with teachers, administrators and other education professionals performing at each of these levels, as well as higher education. The selection committees consist of some of New Hampshire's finest educators and community leaders who have the responsibility of applying these standards and evaluating the nominees. The committees make their selections after careful review of the nominees, school applications and assessments based on on-site visitations.

The teachers recognized here have clearly had a profound impact on their students just as many of my own teachers had on me. The teachers for whom I have the fondest memories created a positive learning environment and necessary direction that were key elements to my growth as a person and as a public servant. They impressed

upon me the importance of one's contribution at the community level and the important role a sound public education plays in our society. Now, as a parent, I can more fully appreciate how delicate the task of educating can be, and understand more now than ever the vital resource our schools and teachers provide to the parents in the towns and cities of New Hampshire.

The educators and community leaders chosen this year to receive ``ED''ies have demonstrated superior dedication to their students, schools and communities. They deserve this prestigious honor for the important roles they play in helping our children reach their goals and succeed in school. The individuals and schools being commended this year have provided students with the tools they need to become productive and engaged citizens, and are our State's most treasured role models--setting positive examples for the children that surround them, teaching personal responsibility and hard work, and shaping the character of young minds. For these achievements, our State and our country owe them a great deal of gratitude.

Since first elected to Congress in 1996, I have made improving education a legislative priority of mine. I am cognizant of the fact that the men and women on the front lines of our classrooms tackle the toughest of challenges and enable students to reach their full potential. We, in New Hampshire, enjoy an outstanding education system that is a true model for the country. This success is due in large measure to the contributions and leadership of the many educators and schools recognized here today.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of the 2004 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award winners be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to claim leadership time on behalf of the leadership for the following announcement.

Today we will be in session for a period for morning business. We do not expect a lengthy session today. As the majority leader announced last night, no rollcall votes will occur today. This morning we are working on a couple of agreements, including a consent for the consideration of the bioshield bill. We hope to consider that bill on Monday, with a vote on passage of the bill occurring on Tuesday. Also, as a reminder to my colleagues, the next rollcall vote will occur on Monday afternoon.

Under the order from last night, we will begin the Department of Defense authorization bill on Monday at 2:30. Chairman Warner is working with Senator Levin to consider amendments during Monday's session, and we expect to have an amendment scheduled for a vote Monday afternoon at approximately 5:30.

Next week, all Senators can anticipate a busy week as we continue consideration of defense authorization, the bioshield bill, the medals legislation, a number of nominations, and other items that can be cleared. Senators should adjust their schedules accordingly to prepare for full sessions throughout the week.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield myself time from the majority side.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gregg amendment and in opposition to the Hagel-Harkin amendment.

I begin by commending the leadership of my State's senior Senator, Mr. Judd Gregg, on this issue. IDEA and special education funding is an issue that has been a hallmark of the leadership provided by Senator Gregg in New Hampshire and across the country.

In New Hampshire we still fund education locally. That is one of the reasons we have had historically such a strong school system. That means people really understand the shortfalls, the problems associated with education funding.

In New Hampshire people have recognized we have not done our job as a Congress and as a nation in funding the original commitment made well over 20 years ago to support IDEA and special education.

Since 1996, we have made enormous steps forward, again, under the leadership of Senator Gregg, Senator Jeffords, and others in this body, Congressman Charles Bass in the House, working on the Budget Committee, where I was privileged to serve as well. We have increased funding $8.7 billion for IDEA since 1996, increased funding $4.7 billion since 2001. That is the kind of leadership on meeting a funding obligation that had not been seen in this Congress in 20 years under Democratic support. I think that, to use a phrase, is putting our collective money where our mouth is, recognizing that IDEA funding needs to be a priority for American education.

The President's leadership on this issue has been outstanding. Those on the other side of the aisle might not like to admit this, but it is hard to argue with the budgets that President Bush has sent up where IDEA funding is concerned. There have been historic increases year after year since President Bush took office, increases in commitments in funding for special education that put the prior administration's budget requests to shame. That needs to be recognized as well as part of the debate.

We have a lot more work to do. Senator Gregg has outlined the need to continue these funding increases and, in the 2005 budget, that commitment is there, continuing the fight to meet our funding obligations. But putting the spending on autopilot, creating a new area of mandatory funding is not the solution.

Even more to the point, to the Harkin amendment, this new idea where only the increases are mandatory is effectively a shell game, where current funding is left as discretionary, only the increases are mandatory. Under our current budget resolution and the 2005 budget resolution, these mandatory funding increases would require a dollar- for-dollar cut in other discretionary programs, of course, that are not specified in this legislation. That is simply wrong.

Placing funding on autopilot rarely, if ever, is the answer to the problems that we wrestle with in Congress. Even more problematic, this amendment falls short on oversight. Throwing the funding on autopilot removes Congress from its oversight responsibility. Most everyone who has followed the debate on this program recognizes that more needs to be done to make sure the program works better for those parents and children who are truly in need of the program's benefits.

Second, the Harkin amendment enables Congress to avoid setting priorities. That is simply wrong. It enables Congress to put the funding on autopilot, this mandatory spending idea, and then not have to make sometimes very tough but important choices around funding priorities. I ask my colleagues on the other side whether they have ever voted for amendments that actually reallocate appropriations from other programs in the Department of Education or anywhere else in the Labor-Education bill and put it into additional discretionary special education funding, much less offered such an amendment? It is not always an easy vote to take, but it is a vote that I have taken in the House to actually stand up and say: Given a current level of spending, whatever our budget is, I am willing to vote to take funding from one program and put it into special education because we recognize that it is the most important funding priority we could have at the Federal level where education is concerned. I am willing to stand up and take that vote.

I am anxious to see whether the authors of this amendment bring other amendments to the Senate floor in the appropriations process that reallocate those funds. It is always easy to come to the Senate floor with an amendment that adds $2 billion or $3 billion or $4 billion or $5 billion, increasing the deficit without regard. It is a lot tougher to come to the floor with an amendment that moves funding from one area to another and show that we are willing to set priorities and make sometimes difficult choices we are elected to make when we come to serve in the Senate.

I believe putting this spending on autopilot takes us away from that commitment to make tough choices and set priorities. That is why I will not support the Hagel-Harkin amendment and will stand with Senator Gregg and the important work he is trying to do as chairman of our Education and Health Committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Virginia 6 minutes.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor one of the Nation's great military visionaries, the late William ``Billy'' Mitchell. My legislation would correct an injustice that has existed for almost eight decades by calling on the President to posthumously award Billy Mitchell a commission as major general in the United States Army.

I would like to first recognize the support this measure has received from the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, who is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And I would also like to commend my colleague in the House, Mr. Bass, who, with the support of House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, steered identical legislation to unanimous passage in that chamber in the fall of last year. I am pleased to join my colleagues as we recognize the accomplishments of this important figure in our country's military history.

Billy Mitchell joined the Army at age 18 in 1898. As he quickly rose in rank, he began to realize the incredible potential for air power in establishing military superiority. After World War I, Billy Mitchell became a brigadier general and deputy commander of the Air Service, and in this position he began pressing senior military officials and the White House for increased funding for the development of a formidable air force. In fact, he conducted a test for senior Army and Navy officials in the Chesapeake Bay in 1921 that bolstered his contention that air power represented the future of combat, while embarrassing many naysayers.

Although Billy Mitchell was long on vision and foresight, he was short on tact. After the 1921 test, his relationship with his superiors deteriorated as his very public battle for Air Service funding had taken an increasingly bitter tone, and after an accident that took the lives of Navy sailors, Mitchell accused senior military leaders of ``almost treasonable administration of the national defense.'' He was court-martialed for insubordination, found guilty, sentenced to 5 years loss of pay, and demoted to the rank of colonel. Yet to the surprise of no one, Billy Mitchell continued to be a strong and effective voice in support of air power after resigning his commission in 1926 until his untimely death 10 years later.

Billy Mitchell sacrificed his career to help change the way our country defends itself and projects military force across the globe to protect and preserve freedom. We have seen over time--most recently during the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq--how important air power is in achieving our military objectives. Mitchell's prognostications many years ago about the future of air power has been proven correct many times over, and it is now time for our nation to recognize the enormous contribution Billy Mitchell has made to the citizens and soldiers of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to finally give the late Billy Mitchell the rank of major general, United States Army.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor one of the Nation's great military visionaries, the late William ``Billy'' Mitchell. My legislation would correct an injustice that has existed for almost eight decades by calling on the President to posthumously award Billy Mitchell a commission as major general in the United States Army.

I would like to first recognize the support this measure has received from the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, who is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And I would also like to commend my colleague in the House, Mr. Bass, who, with the support of House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, steered identical legislation to unanimous passage in that chamber in the fall of last year. I am pleased to join my colleagues as we recognize the accomplishments of this important figure in our country's military history.

Billy Mitchell joined the Army at age 18 in 1898. As he quickly rose in rank, he began to realize the incredible potential for air power in establishing military superiority. After World War I, Billy Mitchell became a brigadier general and deputy commander of the Air Service, and in this position he began pressing senior military officials and the White House for increased funding for the development of a formidable air force. In fact, he conducted a test for senior Army and Navy officials in the Chesapeake Bay in 1921 that bolstered his contention that air power represented the future of combat, while embarrassing many naysayers.

Although Billy Mitchell was long on vision and foresight, he was short on tact. After the 1921 test, his relationship with his superiors deteriorated as his very public battle for Air Service funding had taken an increasingly bitter tone, and after an accident that took the lives of Navy sailors, Mitchell accused senior military leaders of ``almost treasonable administration of the national defense.'' He was court-martialed for insubordination, found guilty, sentenced to 5 years loss of pay, and demoted to the rank of colonel. Yet to the surprise of no one, Billy Mitchell continued to be a strong and effective voice in support of air power after resigning his commission in 1926 until his untimely death 10 years later.

Billy Mitchell sacrificed his career to help change the way our country defends itself and projects military force across the globe to protect and preserve freedom. We have seen over time--most recently during the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq--how important air power is in achieving our military objectives. Mitchell's prognostications many years ago about the future of air power has been proven correct many times over, and it is now time for our nation to recognize the enormous contribution Billy Mitchell has made to the citizens and soldiers of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to finally give the late Billy Mitchell the rank of major general, United States Army.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes and that it not be charged to anyone's time.

Mr. President, I wanted to speak on this topic to address a couple points that have been made. I appreciate the sincerity and the interests of those who oppose this bill. They have opposed it vigorously and aggressively. But I believe very strongly, having seen this debate unfold, that this is not a question of their support for an alternative as much as it is their opposition to any legislation that protects the Internet from taxation.

I draw that conclusion because we are debating a motion to proceed. If there was a genuine interest in bringing different alternatives to the floor and having a vote on those alternatives or amendments, we would not be in what is effectively a stonewalling scenario, delaying tactic, if you will, to

have to force a cloture vote on simply proceeding to the bill. There are a handful of people who vehemently oppose any legislation that protects the Internet from taxation. I think that is why this has taken so long to move forward.

Some people do not support the underlying legislation, and it is certainly true that it would protect the Internet from taxation. But what it would not do is create special considerations for the Internet or broadband access. The legislation specifically says we will preempt, or prohibit, any discriminatory taxes, taxes that are specifically addressed to Internet service providers or broadband providers, but those businesses are still subject to State property taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, and all of the other taxes that are levied broadly and uniformly within a State.

Second, the suggestion was made that we are writing State law here, and that is simply wrong. This is an item and an interest and issue of interstate commerce. Just as the Federal Government exercises its prerogative to clarify legislation with regard to other interstate commerce activities, such as shipping, trucking, railroads, or aviation, the national and global Internet broadband communication system that has been established by entrepreneurs over the past 15 years ought to, at some level, be protected from multiple and discriminatory regulations and taxation because of its importance to interstate commerce.

We are writing Federal law here, not State law. I think it is a little bit disingenuous to suggest we are writing State law and to raise concerns about us writing State law, when in fact, when this bill is dispensed with--and I hope passed and signed into law--the very opponents of this bill who said they are worried about us writing State law will come right back to the floor of this Senate and support legislation to authorize States to collect taxes from businesses that do not reside or have facilities or domiciles in those States.

Many opponents of this bill also want the Federal Government to authorize the collection of taxation from businesses outside of their States, which is not only an intervention in States' rights or State laws, but it is effectively an authorization of taxation without representation because the residents of those States will then have to remit taxes to other States in which they do not have a voice.

We will have that debate and discussion. Some will support that process; some will oppose that process. But the very opponents of this bill who raise the concern about writing State law will come back and ask for that very power to be authorized and approved by the Congress because only Congress can give States that power.

I think there is a little bit of a mixed message here looking for an argument that might seem to be useful in stopping or thwarting this bill, but it is an unfair argument and an improper argument.

Some people think that cities, counties, and States should have the right and the ability to tax the Internet. They want those cities and States to tax the Internet. I do not think that is right for consumers, it is not right for America, it is not right for investment, and it is not right for broadband access or deployment. If they want to take the floor and say, We don't support Internet taxes, we are looking out for the interest of these cities and States, I say think again because the whole reason they are raising the issue of the unfunded mandate and supporting a point of order against this bill because of the so-called unfunded mandate is precisely because of those States that are collecting the tax today.

If you support striking this bill on the unfunded mandate, then you are effectively standing up for those States, cities, towns, and counties that are taxing the Internet today. That should not be allowed to continue. It is not good for our economy, and it is certainly not the right incentive to create if we want to ensure broadband reaches throughout the country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes debate on the motion to proceed at 2:15 p.m., the debate time be allocated as follows: 20 minutes to Senator Alexander, 20 minutes to Senator Dorgan, 20 minutes to Senator McCain. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now recess until 2:15 p.m., subject to the previous order.

Mr. President, I have no objection to that request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 27, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Tina Westby Jonas to be Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Dionel M. Aviles to Under Secretary of the Navy; and Jerald S. Paul to be Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on Telecommunications Policy Review: Lessons learned from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in SR- 253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27 at 10:00 a.m.

The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony regarding sustainable, low emission, electricity generation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``International Trade and Pharmaceuticals.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the sessio of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a Nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. on ``Judicial Nominations'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Brett M. Kavanaugh, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, April 27, 2004 from 10:00 a.m-12:00 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1064, to establish a Commission to Commemorate The Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War, and for other purposes; S. 1092, to authorize the establishment of a National Database for purposes of identifying, locating, and cataloging the many memorials and permanent tributes to America's veterans; S. 1748, to establish a program to award grants to improve and maintain sites honoring Presidents of the United States; S. 2046, to authorize the exchange of certain land in Everglades National Park; S. 2052, to amend the National Trails, System Act to designate El Camino Real De Los Tejas as a National Historic Trail; and S. 2319, to authorize and facilitate hydroelectric power licensing of the Tapoco Project.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 3:30 p.m., on the International Space Exploration Program, in SR-253.

Madam President, will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?

The Senator from Virginia has mentioned those 10 or 12 States that were grandfathered under the original Internet tax moratorium. I think it is important to understand--because the opponents have claimed there is an unfunded mandate--isn't the only reason the Congressional Budget Office will score an unfunded mandate because those 10 or 12 States were grandfathered in the first place? In other words, if we had not made any effort to allow those States to continue to collect some taxes on Internet access, there would be no unfunded mandate because those taxes would have been eliminated, as one might argue they should have been in the first place? But isn't that the only reason there is a so-called unfunded mandate in the first place?

Madam President, will the Senator from Virginia yield for one additional question?

Madam President, the Senator from Virginia is talking about the kind of Internet access-specific taxes that the opponents of this bill would like to apply. There are a number of States that are taxing Internet access today. There are a handful of others that have begun to tax DSL and other forms of broadband. These are all taxes that are unique to Internet access. Yet the opponents continue to suggest that there is a subsidy involved here.

I want to ask the Senator from Virginia to clarify this point because I can't think of any taxes that are applied broadly from which this bill would exempt Internet access providers. Isn't it true that if you are an Internet access provider, you would still have to have pay State payroll taxes?

Would they be subject to capital gains taxes in those States where it was applicable?

Would they have to pay property taxes in those States where they owned property and operated facilities?

If there were an Internet transaction that was selling a good within a State that had a sales tax, just like a mail order product, wouldn't they be responsible for the applicable sales taxes in those States?

Would the Senator agree that there are no taxes that are being applied uniformly or broadly in States that these Internet access providers would be exempted from? This is a bill that simply avoids discriminatory taxes that single out Internet access or multiple taxation where you can have taxes levied at the State level and the county level and the city level; isn't that the ultimate goal of the bill?

Madam President, I wish to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the issue of the PATRIOT Act and to follow up on the remarks earlier this afternoon by Senator Craig of Idaho. I have joined Senator Craig in cosponsoring the SAFE Act, a piece of legislation that would make certain modifications to the PATRIOT Act. I will not go into all of the details of the legislation, as Senator Craig did. However, I do want to highlight a couple of the main provisions of the legislation to outline our thinking in crafting these provisions and underscore why I think we need to take a step back, look at the PATRIOT Act in its totality and try to make it work better and try to strike a better balance the protection of the civil liberties we all cherish as Americans and the tools we do believe are necessary for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct the war against terror.

It is unfortunate some people have come out with a knee-jerk reaction

calling for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. Before the PATRIOT Act our laws did not reflect or foresee a day and age with cellular phones, satellite phones, and a high-speed Internet. There are a lot of very important provisions of the PATRIOT Act that do update our law enforcement capabilities in a way that reflects changes in technology. Protecting civil liberties while giving law enforcement the ability to operate as technology and new threats to our security emerge is critical to winning the global war on terror.

We can draw an appropriate line to protect civil liberties in a few specific areas. First, let's look at sneak-and-peek warrants, or a delayed notification search warrant. Senator Craig spoke at length about the provision in the SAFE Act that would modify the PATRIOT Act to say instead of requiring notification within a reasonable amount of time, which is clearly an arbitrary definition. Instead, we ought to have a set time limit that notification of a search warrant executed without notice has to be provided within 7 days of the execution of the warrant.

Now, if there is a threat to safety, or risk of flight, or a risk of damage to the investigation, the SAFE Act allows law enforcement officials to go back to the judge and extend that notification another 7 days. And that can continue indefinitely. This approach--specifying a time limit on the warrant and providing for more judicial review--is much clearer and more respectful of civil liberties. For anyone to suggest adding clarity in the law for notification undermines the capacity of law enforcement to continue to do their job, I think, is a level of rhetoric that does not serve an important debate such as this very well.

Second, we added clarification to the provision in the PATRIOT Act that deals with a roving wiretap. The SAFE Act would require law enforcement to specify either the suspect to be put under surveillance through a roving wiretap--an order that follows that suspect as they use different cell phones, and other means of communication--or specify a particular location to be monitored. Specify the suspect or specify the location. Changing the PATRIOT Act to require such specification would add clarity to ensure the PATRIOT Act is not misused and minimizes the likelihood that innocent parties would be unknowingly tapped. And again, such a change would only improve the PATRIOT Act as it would protect those who are not targets of investigation but it still give law enforcement the ability to conduct this kind of a roving wiretap.

Third, another provision of the SAFE Act applies sunset provisions to a number of different sections of the PATRIOT Act that do not sunset over time. When we talk about a sunset provision in the U.S. Congress, we are talking about a specific period during which the legislation is in force, but after that period--it might be a 2-year or 3-year or 4- year period--the law sunsets, and it needs to be reenacted or reauthorized by Congress.

I think sunsets are healthy. They are good because they force Congress to rethink and reargue a piece of legislation and examine how the legislation has been used and problems that might exist with it. I think we are much more likely to make improvements to legislation if we have to reauthorize it at different periods in the future.

I do not understand why anyone would say a sunset provision weakens legislation. It does not. It simply requires us to renew them at a future date. I do not know why law enforcement would be afraid of a sunset provision. I do not know why the Justice Department would be afraid of a sunset provision. If there is value to the law, it is helping law enforcement do their job, and all the while it is appropriately protecting civil liberties, the law will be reauthorized and improved over time.

I cannot think of any reason the provisions of the SAFE Act that add clarity to the time frame for notification and judicial review of a sneak and peak warrant, that add specification to the person or place targeted for a wiretap, or that sunset provisions to a law--should be opposed on the grounds that they somehow threaten our ability to conduct the war on terrorism. Quite to the contrary, the provisions of the SAFE Act go a long way toward ensuring individual civil liberties are protected, that the ability to misuse or abuse the law is minimized, that law enforcement continues to have what it needs to prosecute the war on terrorism and that Congress has to affirm and reauthorize legislation over time. I only see the SAFE Act as strengthening the PATRIOT Act.

So I join with Senator Craig, Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Crapo, other members of the Senate and the wide range of citizen groups who have all endorsed and supported the SAFE Act. I hope when we begin deliberations and discussions about renewing and extending the PATRIOT Act, these substantive yet modest, thoughtful modifications are a vital part of that debate that is undertaken in this Chamber.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business, and I further ask consent that immediately after my remarks Senator Harkin be recognized.

Madam President, I rise to speak today on legislation I introduced this week called the VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004. This is legislation that deals with the issue of voice communications sent using Internet protocol that many Members of this body may not be familiar with or may not have heard a great deal about; but it is a new technology that takes advantage of the growing broadband networks that are in place in this country to send voice messages, much the same as one might send an e-mail or an instant message. It is a growing area of technology and innovation, but it is one where there is not a very clear path regarding regulatory and taxing jurisdiction, and there are not a lot of laws on the books that clearly address this new technology.

In order to encourage continued investment in and continued use of this application and this system for sending voice traffic and in order to make sure consumers continue to have the benefits of lower costs, new features, and better service that is the potential of this technology, I have introduced legislation this week.

First and foremost, S. 2281 declares this is a technology that uses national and global broadband data networks, the Internet, that we have all read and heard so much about by this point in time. It recognizes these are international networks, global networks, and therefore we should have Federal jurisdiction in this area.

Second, it takes the step of preempting States from regulating in this area, the area related to voice-over-Internet-protocol applications, because what we do not need is a patchwork of 50 different sets of regulations that would stifle the innovation, the investment, and the productivity we all hope will come from this technology.

Even worse, the regulations some States have already begun to try to apply are not regulations developed for the Internet, broadband, or a voice-over-Internet-protocol application. They are really designed for a copper wire circuit switch telephone network that was invented 100 years ago and for which most of these State regulations were developed in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. It is an outdated system and we should not be trying to force old regulatory structures on this new technology.

Third, the VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004 that I have introduced will clarify the definition for information services, for VOIP applications, in a way that can be easily understood given new and emerging technologies.

I was not in Congress at the time, but Congress wrote the 1996 Telecommunications Act that talked about information services and telecommunications. Quite frankly, it did not envision these kinds of voice applications being offered over the public Internet or over private networks. So as a result, we have had lawsuits, not surprisingly. In America, if one is unsure of what is happening, if one does not like the law, get a lawyer and sue, but we have had lawsuits because of the lack of clarity in some of these definitions. My bill would clarify the definition of voice-over-Internet-protocol. It states clearly what it is and what it is not from a regulatory perspective, and then treats it much like we would any other information service that uses Internet protocol, whether it is an e-mail, an instant message, or sending other data over the Internet.

This bill does address a lot of key concerns regarding telecommunications and the old telephone circuit switch telephone network. The bill makes sure that voice-over-Internet-protocol providers participate in existing Federal universal service programs. In other areas, such as E-911 emergency calling, and disability access, the bill calls for an industry group to work out the implementation of these important features for the new technology. S. 2281 will make sure we do not apply the old access charges to this new technology. We put forward a requirement for the FCC to work out a new system for intercarrier compensation and, of course, we recognize law enforcement will need access to these new voice-over-Internet-protocol applications and state it has to be the same or better access but no less than the access available for information services that currently exist today.

Finally, the bill protects consumers by ensuring that this new service won't be taxed at the State level. Everyone knows the more you tax something the less you get. If you want to discourage investment, innovation, and capital from moving into important new services like this, then raise the taxes and discourage that investment. From my perspective, this would be the wrong direction.

I think this bill provides for enormous opportunity for consumers, including robust features and functions, more options, and lower prices.

It is important to note that we have narrowly tailored this bill to deal with the voice-over-Internet-protocol applications. It should be clear that is not an effort to rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

I urge my colleagues to take a look at the legislation and step forward. Let me know your views and thoughts. We are likely to have hearings on this bill in the Commerce Committee in the coming months. I look forward to a vigorous and substantive debate.

Economic Malpractice