Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I have here in my hand a document prepared by the National Governors Association that expresses support for extending the Federal ban on State and local taxation of Internet access, so long as the moratorium respects three principles. One: Do no harm to State and local revenues. Two: Be clear about what services are covered by the moratorium to ensure that voice services and other services that use the Internet are excluded from the scope of the moratorium. Three: Stay flexible by extending the moratorium temporarily. These are the same principles that Senator Alexander and others have stated they want to respect.

I agree with these principles, which is why I will offer today a compromise amendment to S. 150, the Internet Tax Non-discrimination Act.

The amendment would ensure that a significant portion--in fact, an overwhelming portion--of State and local telecommunications services tax revenues would remain protected. This means that almost $20 billion of revenue would not be impacted by the proposal that I support. I would contrast this with the $18 billion that the NGA claims the version of S. 150 that passed in the House last year would cost State and local governments, and the almost $12 billion that the association claims S. 150 would take away from States and localities.

I respectfully submit that the relatively small impact that the compromise amendment would have on States and local revenues would stem primarily from our wish to treat all States equally under this moratorium. Still, to accommodate the States that were taxing the Internet in 1998 when the moratorium was first enacted, the amendment would propose to give those States 3 more years of Internet access tax revenues. The compromise amendment would even permit those States that were not originally grandfathered but that nevertheless have begun taxing Internet access 2 years of additional revenue.

The NGA has also asked for clarity in the definition of Internet access. I agree that there should be clarity in this matter. To that end, the compromise amendment provides as plainly as possible that it would not prohibit States and localities from taxing traditional telephone services, voice services that use the Internet, and other services that use the Internet. The amendment also makes clear that e- mail could not be taxed by the compromise amendment. Once again, I have respected another core principle of the NGA in the matter.

And finally, the NGA seeks a temporary, rather than a permanent extension of the moratorium under the premise that, as the association and Senator Alexander say ``A temporary solution is better than permanent confusion.'' The compromise amendment would extend the moratorium for a period of 4 years from November 1, 2003. Simply put, anything shorter would put us back on this floor debating this measure right after it is signed by the President.

So I remind my colleagues: What I will offer today does very clearly address the concerns raised by the NGA and other State and local groups. I hope, therefore, that my colleagues will support me in passing this reasonable compromise.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. President, I appreciate the letter from the Senator from Tennessee. My understanding is, he has four major concerns. I hope to work with him to resolve these concerns. If not, I hope we will see amendments and let the Senate work its will as to whether those concerns are valid in the view of a majority of the Senate. I look forward to seeing and debating and voting on these amendments.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

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

Mr. President, I reserve 5 minutes for the Senator from Virginia when he arrives. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I now withdraw the pending substitute amendment No. 2136.

Mr. President, I send a new substitute amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this substitute, which I will describe in more detail in a minute, is, I hope, a fair and true compromise between the opposing sides in this debate. At least I hope it is viewed by a majority of the Senate as such.

I also understand there are very strongly held views on this issue. This is not the first time we have been to the Senate floor on this issue. This is the third time we have had debate and votes on it, and each time it becomes more difficult because we are talking about a lot more money, a lot more involvement, a lot more taxes and, of course, as technology evolves, of greater importance to America, whether it be economically, whether it be entertainment, or politically. The rise of the Internet in political campaigns in America today is one of the most recent phenomena.

I hope since we have, at least according to a letter I received from Senator Alexander, boiled down our differences to four major differences--I in no way understate the importance of those differences, but there are only four--perhaps we could propose amendments and vote on those four differences and, in the meantime, continue our dialog in trying to reach a reasonable compromise.

I would like to point out it does no one any good for us to leave this issue in limbo. If we are going to allow taxation of the Internet in a broad variety of ways, then the Senate should decide to do so. If we are going to adopt this compromise, then the Senate should do so. The House, as we know, long ago passed legislation.

This particular legislation, before I offered a substitute amendment, was reported out of the committee 10 months ago. I hope all will act together in good faith and try and resolve it.

By the way, those four major differences, as defined in the letter to me from Senator Alexander, are definition, voice over IP, duration, and grandfather clause. I hope we can address each of those either, as I said, in the form of negotiation or in the form of amendments which would be up or down.

I have been told the majority leader says we are going to complete action on this bill by Thursday night late. The Democrats have a retreat beginning on Friday which we all respect. I hope we can get a lot done so we do not find ourselves here at a very late hour on Thursday night.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment to the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act which offers, I believe, a true and fair compromise. On one end of the spectrum are those who do not believe the tax moratorium should be extended, and on the other end are those who want to make it permanent. This proposal, I believe, offers a middle- ground alternative to this debate and addresses the concerns State and local governments have expressed, while retaining some--many have said too few--aspects of the bill that was favorably reported by the Commerce Committee last year.

Before I summarize the substance of the amendment, I would like to spend a moment addressing a couple criticisms that have been raised about the compromise proposal.

First, I have heard a few Members talk about how consideration of S. 150 is moving too fast and that Members and their staffs have not had adequate opportunity to consider the substance of this matter.

With all due respect to my colleagues who believe this has been a less than deliberative process, I can think of few debates recently in which Members have had more time to prepare and negotiate. We voted the bill out of the Commerce Committee in July of last year. The Finance Committee, after requesting a sequential referral, discharged the bill without amending it.

Throughout this time, Members, including Senators Dorgan, Hollings, Allen, Wyden, Sununu, and many others who have spoken on this floor about this matter, continued to negotiate the substance of the legislation.

During that time, we heard from State and local groups such as the National Governors Association and the National Association of Counties. They had several opportunities, and did, to provide significant input.

We are here after almost 1 year of considering this matter, not because we have not discussed the issue thoroughly enough. Nor are we here because we have not properly defined Internet access or otherwise adequately dealt with the specifics of the Internet tax moratorium. We are debating this measure because the two opposing sides will not budge from their positions.

To be clear, the compromise amendment will not likely move those who are firmly on one side or the other. As Senator Voinovich said yesterday, for some Members the philosophical divide in this debate may be ``too deep to bridge.'' Its purpose is only to offer a compromise that other Members can vote for knowing that it strikes a reasonable balance between those who want a permanent and broad Internet access tax moratorium and those who want no moratorium at all.

Second, some Members who do not want to reinstate the Internet tax moratorium have expressed their view that the amendment is not a true compromise; that it does not go all the way to meeting their concerns about State and local revenues. I must respond to them by saying the amendment is a compromise precisely because it does not completely satisfy one side or the other. However, the amendment does protect a significant portion of the $20 billion in tax revenues from telecommunications services that States and localities claim they could lose as a result of S. 150.

In fact, even using the most aggressive revenue loss estimates available, it appears what is at stake is not more than 3.5 percent of total State and local tax revenues from telecommunications services. In my opinion, that is not just a compromise but a very generous concession to those who want to defeat the Internet tax moratorium. To criticize this proposal at this point as somehow not enough is just an empty exercise in moving the proverbial goalpost of this debate.

It seems to me the goalpost continues to move so much that it would not surprise me to hear at the end of this week that some Members actually support a Federal law requiring States to tax Internet access. I remind my colleagues that this debate is about striking a balance between S. 150, the Allen-Wyden bill, and S. 2084, the Alexander-Carper bill.

Clearly, this amendment goes a long way to compromising with the opponents of the Internet tax moratorium. Again, I have to repeat this because it is a crucial point: This body does not typically operate by capitulating 100 percent to one side or the other on a particular matter that is before it. In its normal course of business, the Senate compromises, and that is exactly what this amendment does.

Simply put, the amendment offered today is truly a reasonable compromise that addresses a host of concerns the States and localities have raised over the past 10 months. Throughout the negotiation process, State and local

groups have asked for a temporary extension to the Internet tax moratorium. Specifically, they have asked for a 2-year extension of the moratorium. The compromise amendment would extend the moratorium for 4 years.

Why 4 years? If we do it for 2 years, we would almost automatically be back revisiting the issue immediately when one looks at the process we have just been through. I think 4 years is a great deal less than permanent and not much more than 2 years, as the opponents of this legislation have alleged.

Another concern we have heard from State and local government is extending the Internet tax moratorium would somehow impact traditional telephone services. This amendment would ensure that State and local revenues from traditional phone service would not be impacted in any way, shape, or form. Again, the amendment would accommodate a concern raised by States and localities to the full satisfaction of State and local authorities.

State and local governments have also expressed concern that this bill would hamper their ability to tax voice services provided over the Internet. This amendment addresses that matter by setting forth a broad definition of services, including voice services that are provided over the Internet that would not be considered Internet access and therefore not be subject to the Internet tax moratorium. Once again, I believe this provision should fully address the concern of State and local governments.

The list of concessions made to State and local government interests in the amendment is extensive. For example, the compromise amendment would clarify that the Internet tax moratorium does not apply to nontransactional taxes such as taxes on net income, net worth, or property value. The amendment would clarify that otherwise taxable services would not become tax free solely because they are offered as a package with Internet access. The amendment would grandfather for 3 years, from November 1, 2003, the States that were taxing Internet access in October 1998. It would grandfather for 2 years, from November 1, 2003, the States that began to tax--according to many, improperly-- Internet access after October 1998. It would ensure that universal service would not be affected by the moratorium. It would ensure that 9-1-1 and e-9-1-1 services would not be affected by the moratorium. Finally, it would ensure that regulatory proceedings that do not relate to taxation would not be impacted by the Internet tax moratorium.

I want to point out again, there are really 10 compromises offered in this: the 4-year moratorium, the 3-year phaseout of the grandfather clause, the 2-year grandfather of taxes on DSL, and voice over IP carve-out. It clarifies taxes covered. It clarifies the House's language on DSL. It provides a clear and uniform accounting rule. The universal service fees are unaffected. As I mentioned, e-9-1-1 taxes are unaffected, and nontax regulatory powers are unaffected.

I hope we can move forward if there is not agreement. Meanwhile, we continue to discuss the issue.

Mr. President, this amendment excludes from the definition of tax on Internet access transactional taxes such as gross receipts or gross revenue fees, constitutes an end run around Internet tax freedom, and eviscerates the moratorium itself. If we allow this to exclude payments made for use of the public right-of-way, including access line fees, franchise fees, et cetera, this amendment should be rejected.

I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I regret that I was not here at the time the Democratic leader offered his amendment. But, of course, it would not have mattered really much whether I was here.

I wonder, since we have seen a singular lack of progress in the last few months, particularly in the last few weeks--literally every piece of legislation, with the rarest exception, has been loaded up with extraneous amendments and has had to be brought down. Of course, I have only been here for 18 years. That is not a long time compared to some. But I have to say, I am unaccustomed to this kind of procedure where in good faith we brought this bill to the floor, in good faith we voted cloture on the motion to proceed, and then the Democratic leader stands up and proposes a totally, completely, absolutely extraneous amendment, an entire piece of legislation, the Energy bill, which has been hard fought in this body many times, as an amendment on the Internet tax moratorium bill, without warning, without saying what he was going to do, without having the courtesy to inform me as the chairman of the committee and the manager of the bill. If he had, I would have thought, well, maybe we ought to not bring it up. The temperature is 85 degrees in Phoenix today. It is not raining there like it is outside. Why don't we just go home? Why don't we go home, relax with our constituents and our families and friends, rather than go through this charade of telling Americans that we are legislating.

There was an old line in the cold war era. The Russians said: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us. Well, we pretend to work and we are still getting paid. We are not working. We are not doing anything.

I say to my friend the minority leader and to my friend from Nevada-- and they are my friends--what is this all about? You know very well that if an Internet moratorium is passed, an energy bill will not be part of it. Now we are going to go through the parliamentary charade of having somebody offer a second-degree amendment and somebody else will do a substitute, and then somebody else will offer a second-degree amendment. What am I supposed to tell my constituents, the taxpayers, we are doing here in Washington?

If I had a townhall meeting and said, yes, we had an Internet tax moratorium bill, a bill that is vitally important to both sides as far as whether taxation is going to be imposed on transactions over the Internet, which some 70 or 80 percent of the American people engage in now--billions of dollars--we are going to decide in a parliamentary fashion whether those transactions should be taxed or not taxed, and if so, under what circumstances--this is the third time we have revisited this issue. Ten months ago we passed it.

The Senator from Tennessee will tell me how many hundreds of hours he has devoted to this issue. The Senator from Virginia will tell me how many hundreds of hours he has devoted to it. What do we do? We take up the bill. We have debated it for barely 2 days. And what do we have? The Energy bill as an amendment to the Internet tax moratorium bill.

What am I supposed to tell my constituents? I will tell you what they are going to say: We don't get it. That is what they are going to say: We don't get it. Yes, it is important to me, Senator, whether the State and local governments can tax the things I buy on the Internet. Some people say they should; some people say they should not. But can't you guys and women get together and make a decision on it so I will be relieved of this lack of knowledge as to what the future holds?

What about all those people who are starting businesses that do business over the Internet? What about them? I am sorry, sir, we can't address this issue because we have to take up the Energy bill.

I certainly wouldn't say it is all about ethanol. I certainly wouldn't say it is about a product that we have created a market for which has absolutely, under no circumstances, any value whatsoever except to corn producers and Archer Daniels Midland and other large agribusinesses.

Here we go now. Here we go. The Democrats have a retreat on Friday, so we are not going to be here on Friday. No, we are not going to work 5 days this week. Actually, 3, excuse me. And here we go, now we are going to spend late this afternoon jockeying back and forth.

I am sure there may be a headline in South Dakota that says: Senator Daschle fights for ethanol. I bet there will be a whole lot of press releases, too, and maybe even the distinguished Senator from North Dakota will be fighting for ethanol, too. Meanwhile, we are not addressing the issues that the American people care about.

Right now they care about whether we are going to tax the Internet. I urge my colleagues to tell us, all I want to know is, are we going to spend between now and when we go out of session at the beginning of October in this kind of back and forth?

My side is also guilty, I freely admit. Are we going to spend that time between now and the beginning of October, when we will break to take the electioneering from the floor of the Senate out to our respective States, and do this or are we going to seriously legislate as the American people sent us here to do?

Obviously, I am upset because this is a bill I have been working on for a long time, an issue I have been involved in for many years. Obviously, I am upset by it. I apologize if I have offended any of my colleagues. But at the same time, this has been going on now for months. This is not the first time we have done this. This is about the 50th time, again, on both sides of the aisle. So why don't we make a decision. We are going to attach the minimum wage or we are going to attach lawyers' fees or medical malpractice or one of these; we are going to attach them all back and forth. And we will be able to force votes on it, but unfortunately, we don't legislate.

Why don't we make a decision? Why don't the leaders and all 100 of us get together and decide what we are going to do and what we are not going to do. At least the taxpayers may find some comfort in the knowledge that at least we would tell them what we are doing.

I would imagine that as we speak we will have some amendment and then a second-degree amendment, and we will fill up the tree, which probably very few living Americans understand, including Members of this body, but we will consult the Parliamentarian as to how the mechanics work.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Never.

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

Mr. President, could I ask what the parliamentary situation is?

So we are debating the Domenici second-degree amendment to the Daschle amendment to the substitute or to the original S. 150.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, tonight we will mark a historic occasion-- the 20th anniversary of the International Republican Institute. I am honored to chair the Institute's board of directors, and to have been involved for 14 years with an organization that has done so much for so many. Its staff of experts, under its leadership in Washington, has for two decades fanned out across the globe, bringing the benefits of their experience and education to those who hunger for democracy. For 20 years IRI has worked to advance democracy, promote freedom and self- government, and support the rule of law and human rights. In doing this, IRI embodies the fundamental values on which the American political system is based, and which we must encourage around the world.

Why do we spend energy, money, time and expertise to promote freedom and democracy abroad? We do it because we know that, as Ronald Reagan said in 1982 when he cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ``freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings.'' In America, we enjoy the fundamental right to be free. But we also know that we will never enjoy our rights in the fullness of security until all of humanity is also free.

The promotion of democracy and fundamental human rights is thus an inextricable element of American foreign policy. We use our power not simply to enhance our security, but to promote our values--for the good of others. For 20 years IRI has monitored elections, trained political candidates, promoted government reform, helped organize civil society, and increased political participation. Its mission is vital, and IRI has performed it with success in over 75 countries.

Anyone who reads the newspapers can see how critical this mission is today. Iraq is the biggest democracy project in a generation, and IRI is active on the ground, making a difference on a daily basis. Beyond Iraq, there is a growing recognition that the lack of freedom in the Greater Middle East offends not only America's national values, but also threatens our security. In other regions too--Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and others--freedom is lacking. When we confront these situations, the diagnosis is easy. The hard part is taking action. IRI takes action. Promoting democracy is a huge task--one IRI does superbly--and calls will only increase for it to do more.

I am confident it is up to the job. For 20 years the individuals who make up the International Republican Institute have made a positive difference in the world. While these are not the type of people to rest on their laurels, we should all recognize that these laurels are well deserved.

Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from California if she would like to take 5 minutes. I know she has been patiently waiting.

I thank the Senator from California. I appreciate her patience and hope she is able to speak, as I know she has strong beliefs on this issue.

Over 5 years ago, Congress took appropriate action to pass the Internet Tax Freedom Act which encouraged the growth and adoption of the Internet by exempting Internet access from State and local taxation and by protecting e-commerce transactions from multiple or discriminatory taxes. As my colleagues know, since then the Internet has grown from a tool used by a relatively small percentage of our population to a broadly utilized communications, information, entertainment, and commercial medium as well as an important vehicle for political participation.

To keep promoting the growth of the Internet, many of my colleagues have made efforts to extend the Internet tax moratorium. Regrettably these efforts have stalled. Six months ago, we left unfinished business before the Senate. At the time, many of us were prepared to vote to extend the Internet tax moratorium. Unfortunately, a vote never took place because of disagreement over what components of Internet access should be free from taxation and how long the moratorium should last. As a result, the moratorium expired and State and local governments are now free to impose new taxes on the Internet.

Today, we return to the consideration of S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, which would permanently extend the moratorium on the taxation of Internet access. After 10 months of negotiations, there is still no clear consensus in the Senate over what types of Internet access services should be tax free, nor is there any clear consensus over how long the moratorium should last. One thing is clear, though: There is broad agreement that the Internet tax moratorium should be reinstated. It is also clear that the Members who have been involved in this long negotiation process have listened closely to the concerns of State and local governments.

For example, to address issues raised by opponents of S. 150, Senators Allen, Wyden, Sununu, Ensign, Warner, Smith, Leahy, Grassley, Baucus, Hatch, Boxer, Chambliss, Lincoln and I--a strongly bipartisan effort--offered a substitute amendment that would have narrowed the scope of the moratorium and clarified its effects on State and local revenues. This time around, we will go a significant step further by offering a compromise amendment written to address the core concerns expressed by State and local governments over the extension of the Internet tax moratorium.

Before I get into the details of the amendment, let me be crystal clear about one thing: This compromise will not make everyone 100 percent happy. There are several aspects that will accommodate State and local governments, but the legislation also contains components that are favored by industry and ultimately benefit consumers. So there continue to be disagreements.

The Members who sit on the edges of this debate bell curve will continue to oppose anything that falls short of their desired outcome. However, any practical person who reads the amendment objectively will have to agree. What we are offering constitutes a reasonable middle ground in the debate between those who want to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent and broad and those who want to make the moratorium brief and narrow.

Throughout the negotiation process, State and local groups asked for a temporary extension to the Internet tax moratorium. Specifically, they have asked for a 2-year extension of the moratorium. The substitute amendment would extend the moratorium for 4 years from November 1, 2003. This alone is an extraordinary concession, especially considering the fact that the House of Representatives, in a strongly bipartisan effort, passed a permanent extension of the moratorium last year, and there remains significant support in the Senate for such a measure.

President Bush has expressed his strong support for a permanent extension of the moratorium. Nevertheless, I hope my colleagues who favor a permanent moratorium will support this proposal in an effort to reach an acceptable compromise between industry and consumers and State and local governments.

Another concern we have heard from State and local governments is that extending the Internet tax moratorium would somehow impact traditional telephone services. That certainly was never the intent of the original legislation, as has been made clear by the Commerce Committee's report accompanying the bill.

The report reads:

The modified definition [of Internet access] would not

affect the taxability of voice telephony over the public

switched telephone network (so-called ``plain old telephone

service'' or ``POTS'').

The matter is further clarified in this amendment. Simply put, this legislation would not impact in any way, shape, or form the revenue generated by State and local governments from traditional phone services. Again, a concern of State and local governments was accommodated to the full satisfaction of State and local authorities.

State and local governments have also expressed worry that this bill would hamper their ability to tax voice services and other services that run over the Internet.

For example, the National Governors Association has stated that one of its main concerns is that this legislation will prohibit states and localities from taxing telephone services as they migrate to the Internet. The Senators

from Tennessee and Ohio today have also emphasized that this is one of their three core concerns in this debate. In an attempt to respond to the concern about the migration of telephone services to the Internet, Senators Allen and Alexander agreed in principle to carve voice over Internet Protocol, VOIP, telephon services out of the scope of the Internet tax moratorium. Unfortunately, their negotiations over the precise definition of VOIP telephone services were not successful.

The amendment that I offer bridges the gap in this matter by setting forth a broad definition of services--including voice services--that are provided over the Internet that would not be considered Internet access and would therefore not be subject to the Internet tax moratorium. My compromise would further narrow the definition of Internet access, while ensuring that services incidental to Internet access--such as e-mail and instant messaging--would remain tax-free. Once again, this provision fully addresses the concerns of state and local governments.

Mr. President, the list of compromises goes on and on. For example, my amendment would clarify that the Internet tax moratorium does not apply to nontransactional taxes such as taxes on net income, net worth, or property value.

My amendment would clarify that otherwise taxable services would not become tax-free solely because they are offered as a package with Internet access.

The amendment would grandfather for three years from November 1, 2003, the States that were taxing Internet access in October 1998.

My amendment would grandfather for two years from November 1, 2003, the States that began to tax--according to many, improperly--Internet access after October 1998.

The amendment would ensure that universal service would not be affected by the moratorium.

And finally, my amendment would ensure that 911 and E-911 services would not be affected by the moratorium.

Each of the compromise provisions is included in direct response to State and local government concerns about S. 150. And so my amendment will ensure that the $20 billion in telecommunications taxes that is collected annually by State and local governments will largely remain protected. Any statement to the contrary would be patently false.

Mr. President, my amendment goes a long way to meeting the concerns of the States and localities. However, before those on the other side of this debate start to protest, I would remind them that what I am proposing is truly a compromise between the interests of State and local governments on the one side and industry and consumers on the other. This legislation therefore doesn't--and, as a compromise, can't--adopt the State and local governments' position wholesale.

For that reason, the legislation would make Internet access 100 percent tax-free for all States in its fourth year.

Some question whether it's wise for Congress to make Internet access tax free, but this body has a long history of giving tax incentives and other economic support to industries and commercial activities that we believe help our society. The Internet is clearly a technology that also merits strongly the support of Government, as it is a source of and vehicle for significant economic benefits to our country.

Contrary to statements that have been made on the floor, yes, the railroads were assisted; yes, highways are assisted; yes, our airlines continue to be subsidized; and yes, we need to assist this new incredible technology that is changing America and the world.

In the case of the Internet tax moratorium, however, we are not talking about subsidies. We are merely talking about a national policy of taking a hands-off approach to the continued growth of the Internet. The Internet is now accessed at home by 75 percent of the population-- an estimated 204 million people in the U.S.--up from 64 percent in 2002, and 26 percent in 1998 when Congress rightly decided to implement the ban on taxes on Internet access. That's an impressive 3 times what the Internet use rate was just over 5 years ago. And though the Internet tax moratorium has obviously had its intended effect of contributing to the growth of the Internet, our job is not yet done.

Today, the Internet offers the promise of broadband access services, which provide higher bandwidth connections that permit faster data transmissions and thus facilitate and enhance services such as streaming audio and video. Nevertheless, many of the households with Internet access have only basic dial-up access, and have not migrated to broadband services. In fact, the Pew Internet Project estimates that only 24 percent of American households have broadband access, while most homes still connect through dial-up modem connections. In fact, the United States is falling behind many other developed countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Canada in our deployment of broadband services--and many experts even call the broadband services that we have ``broadband on training wheels'' because they do not provide the speeds provided by the broadband networks of other nations.

Clearly, there remains a strong need to ensure that taxes on Internet access will not pose a hurdle to the continued adoption of basic dial- up access or to the migration from basic Internet access to broadband Internet access. Keeping the Internet tax-free translates into lower costs for consumers, and lower costs give our citizens freer access to important online services like telemedicine and e-learning.

I am glad to.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I thank him for his involvement in this issue. As everyone knows, he is a genius at working his way through difficult and thorny issues. I appreciate his involvement in seeking to try to resolve differences between the two sides--at least to a point where we can move forward. I look forward to his continued assistance as we address this issue.

Madam President, I thank all of my colleagues for their vote. It is certainly a signal that a majority of Senators want to move forward and address this issue. I believe many believe they would like to get involved as well.

If the opponents are going to talk for a while, after that is over, since we are in 30 hours of postcloture debate, if it is sought to be used, it is my intention to propose tomorrow the amendment which I described earlier. I hope we can then move forward with amendments and debate and votes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Dorgan, Snowe, Kennedy, Daschle, and others in introducing the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004. This bill represents a strong bipartisan compromise, and is designed to establish a system for American consumers to safely import lower cost prescription drugs.

American consumers are frustrated, and for good reason. We pay the highest prices in the world for brand name prescription drugs. Prices continue to rise at double digit rates--far outpacing inflation. With over 43 million uninsured Americans and millions more seniors without a substantial prescription drug benefit, filling a doctor's prescription is unaffordable for many people in this country. Every day, far too many families are forced to make difficult choices between life- sustaining prescription drugs and other daily necessities.

The United States represents the largest pharmaceutical market in the world. Our taxpayers make substantial investments into pharmaceutical research and development. And yet, Americans are still paying 30 to 75 percent more for their prescriptions than consumers in Canada, the European Union, and elsewhere.

In 2000, Congress passed the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety, MEDS, Act to provide Americans with a legal means to obtain lower cost prescription drugs from industrialized countries with prescription drug regulatory systems similar to our own. Yet here we are, four years later, and Americans still cannot legally access lower cost prescription drugs from other nations. The safety certification requirement contained in the MEDS Act proved to be a poison pill. In the bill we are introducing today, we have spelled out the safety measures that will be necessary for an importation program, making the certification requirement unnecessary.

According to recent polls, nearly two thirds of Americans believe the government should make it easier to import lower cost drugs from Canada and other countries. And, Americans have begun to take matters into their own hands. Last year, Americans spent an estimated $1.1 billion on prescription drugs imported from Canada, twice the amount that was spent the previous year. And states are now taking action too.

We also passed an enormous expansion to the Medicare program, last year. Unfortunately, that new law largely benefits the pharmaceutical industry and other special interests, and is already slated to cost $534 billion--$134 billion more than was estimated just a few months ago. That law, which will burden American taxpayers for generations to come and contributes substantially to the financial insolvency of the Medicare program, did practically nothing to rein in the cost of prescription drugs.

With all of the money the Federal Government will now be spending on prescription drugs, very little is being done to help reduce their costs. In fact, the Medicare package explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from engaging in negotiations to lower prescription drug costs. This must change.

In the absence of Federal action, States such as Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Vermont and New Hampshire, together with cities such as Springfield and Boston, MA, Montgomery, AL, and Los Angeles, CA, have moved this issue to the forefront. In fact, the City of Springfield recently announced that their drug importation program saved the city more than $2 million in the last 9 months alone. Despite these successes, our Federal regulators continue to oppose any effort to facilitate importation.

Throughout the debate surrounding prescription drug importation, much concern has been raised regarding consumer safety and the security of the U.S. drug supply, with a particular focus on the dangers of Internet pharmacies and counterfeit drugs. Let me be clear. None of us want American consumers to be harmed from purchasing imported prescription drugs. That is why throughout the development of this package, consumer safety has remained our primary concern. This bill includes a number of measures which will make imported drugs as safe, if not safer, than drugs purchased through the domestic supply chain. With proper government oversight, such as that which would be provided under our legislation, Americans should be able to obtain access to safe lower cost prescription drugs from Canada, the EU and other markets.

Under our proposal, during the first year after enactment, the bill would enable individual American consumers, wholesalers, and pharmacists to import FDA approved prescription drugs from FDA approved and inspected Canadian exporters. Recognizing that the Canadian market is too small to satisfy the American demand, one year after enactment, the bill would allow FDA approved pharmacists and wholesalers to import FDA approved drugs from a larger group of nations, including the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

To ensure the safety of this new system, the FDA would be required to regularly inspect Canadian exporters as well as domestic importers. The legislation also would require all importers and exporters to maintain a full chain of custody, or pedigree, for the drugs imported into the

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 335 submitted by this Senator earlier today.

Mr. President, I am joined today by my colleagues Senators Biden, Fitzgerald, Allen, Breaux, Dorgan, and many others in submitting this legislation which calls on Major League Baseball and its players to adopt a legitimate drug-testing policy.

The resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that Major League Baseball's current drug-testing policy stops short of what is necessary to protect the game, its players, and the children and teenagers who emulate them.

As Major League Baseball starts a new season--a time that ordinarily signals renewal and promise--a dark shadow of public suspicion looms over the game and its players. Sadly, the talk amongst baseball fans is less this year about which team will win the World Series and more about which at athletes have cheated by using performance-enhancing substances. Action is clearly needed by Major League Baseball to address this problem and refocus its fans' attention to what takes place on the fields of play.

The sport of baseball is America's pastime and an institution inextricably interwoven into the fabric of our culture. If Major League Baseball and its players fail to act to preserve and protect the sport by adopting a drug testing policy that effectively deters the players from using anabolic steroids or any other similar performance-enhancing substances, this important part of our culture will remain tarnished. The resolution we are introducing today would call on Major League Baseball and its players to restore legitimacy to professional baseball and make the welfare of the sport more important than the self-serving interests that have a choke hold on America's game.

As chairman of the Commerce Committee, which has oversight authority over professional sports, and, more importantly, as a parent, let me be clear. There are real consequences to demanding anything less than clean professional sports. As discussed during a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing on steroid use in professional and amateur sports, the failure to insist on stringent drug testing policies damages the integrity of the games and calls into question records set by those suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs.

No reasonable person would disagree that using any performance- enhancing substance for the sole purpose of gaining a competitive edge over an opponent is cheating. And, simply put, any sports organization that turns a blind eye to drug use among its athletes is as guilty of cheating as the players. This cheating and the negative effect it has on the integrity of any sport is shameful, and Major League Baseball and its players must cease treating the issue of drug testing as just another bargaining chip. But more worrisome still is the poor example set by professional athletes in the eyes of the kids who idolize them and are led by their example.

Some may doubt the powerful effect that athletes have on the lives of kids. Let me remind them of the five-fold increase in the sales of the steroid-like substance androstenedione--better known as ``andro''--that occurred after Mark McGwire admitted to using the substance in 1998 while chasing Roger Maris's home run record. Since then, the problem of harmful supplement use among children and teenagers has reached epidemic proportions. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, nearly 12 percent of high school boys and 3 percent of high school girls use steroids. This is unacceptable.

The adverse health consequences associated with such use are indisputable. Medical experts warn that the effects on children and teenagers include stunted growth, scarring acne, hormonal imbalances, liver and kidney damage, as well as an increased risk of heart disease and stroke later in life. Psychologically, steroids have been associated with increased aggression, suicide, and a higher propensity to commit serious crimes.

Today we call on Major League Baseball and its players to step up to the proverbial plate and implement a drug testing policy that will effectively deter players from using anabolic steroids and other similar performance-enhancing substances. We cannot, and will not, allow professional baseball to collectively bargain away the legitimacy and history of the sport. The current drug-testing regime is simply unacceptable, and without quick and significant change to the way the league tests for drugs among its athletes, the owners and players will continue to be viewed by the public as the knowing perpetrators of a shameful fraud.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to not allow the integrity of professional baseball to be choked by the foul ambition of those who cheat.

In today's East Valley Tribune in Arizona is a letter to the editor. It reads as follows:

I am a 12-year-old Boy Scout working on my communications

merit badge. One of its requirements is to write a letter to

the editor of a local newspaper on a topic I believe in.

I think baseball players should not take steroids.

The letter goes on--this is from Hunter Amos of Chandler, AZ--to talk about the need for baseball to bring about a meaningful drug-testing program. This from a 12-year-old Boy Scout.

It certainly proves the American people are involved and concerned about this issue.

I would like to state the following very briefly. One, organized baseball, Major League Baseball, and its players union have to come together and resolve this issue with a meaningful drug-testing program. A good model would be that which the minor leagues of baseball employ. It seems to me, since it is already in being, that the major leagues could just adopt the same procedures as the minor leagues.

Second, the blame is not entirely on the players. Part of the blame is on the owners. Commissioner Selig stated before our committee: It was the last issue and they refused to budge, and we gave in because we didn't want a work stoppage.

I understand that, but it is an indicator the owners were not that concerned about it; otherwise, they would have held fast.

More importantly, this is for the good of two groups of Americans: One, Major League Baseball players. But, two, young Americans, high school athletes all over America who today believe the way to athletic excellence is to take performance-enhancing drugs. That is wrong. Statistics, as well as anecdotal evidence, from high school coaches all over America are telling us young Americans, young athletes are using performance-enhancing drugs in greater and greater numbers. Who are their role models? The major league athletes themselves.

We are not picking on baseball. The NFL has an excellent program. The other professional leagues do as well, and Major League Baseball obviously has one that is termed by many as a joke.

I could spend a lot of time mentioning Curt Schilling--who is one of my personal heroes; unfortunately he has left the Diamondbacks and is now with the Red Sox--was quoted in Sports Illustrated as saying:

Some of these guys look like Mr. Potato Head.

Some of these guys look like Mr. Potato Head? The damage some of these individuals are doing to themselves is really terrible, but far more terrible is the damage young high school athletes and college athletes are inflicting on themselves because of the precedent and example of Major League Baseball players. My greatest hero was Ted Williams. When I was a young, mediocre high school athlete, I probably would have been tempted to emulate him.

All of us are aware a sense-of-the-Senate resolution has no force of law. I also recognize a sense-of-the-Senate resolution is a far cry from actual legislation. But I want to say now I believe I speak for all of my colleagues in the Senate, particularly those of us who have been involved in this issue, that we expect Major League Baseball owners and players to act. We expect them to act quickly. If they do not, obviously we have to explore other options. I do not want the Congress of the United States to be involved in a management-labor dispute. None of us want

that, and I think there will be difficulty because an action of that type is almost unprecedented. But I point out Major League Baseball does have an involvement with the Congress of the United States. They were not ashamed to come to the Congress of the United States to get an antitrust exemption, probably the most generous of any professional sport. Of course, they are engaged in interstate commerce.

I hope Major League Baseball understands we are serious, and the purpose of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution today is taking one step forward. I pray for the good of these young high school and college athletes and even junior high school athletes that Major League Baseball will realize we are serious and take it upon themselves to reopen negotiations and resolve this issue.

I thank my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, who has been a stalwart on this issue and, in his usual eloquent and persuasive style, has contributed enormously to this debate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

As the Senator is well aware, and I want to thank him for his continued involvement in this issue, this will be reported as a sense-of-the Senate resolution, which we all know is nonbinding. Could the Senator predict what he thinks might happen if we go for another month or two and no action of any kind is taken by Major League baseball? What does the Senator think might happen or could happen?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

As the Senator well knows, there are some superb athletes in Major League baseball today, and they are performing magnificent feats. Yet a cloud hangs over their performances both in the minds of the fans as well as many of their fellow players. Why is it, does the Senator think, that these players and owners would not recognize it is in the best interest of baseball itself? If they do not care about the high school athletes, if they do not care about the detriment to their health after they retire, as we see is happening with steroid users in other sports as well as this one, does not the Senator from North Dakota think they would care about the reputable aspects, or being held in disrepute the records they are making as

they are spending the best years of their lives in Major League baseball?

I thank my friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. He has been involved in this issue longer than I have. I appreciate the opportunity of working with him on a variety of issues in the Senate.

I would like to make one additional point. I have seen some comments by some observers of Major League baseball, and they are saying: Look, it cannot be too big a problem because Major League baseball is breaking all records and it is more popular than it was before and ratings are higher, so it probably then should not be such a big deal.

I will make two points. There was a recent Pew Research poll that showed 90 percent of people who identify themselves as baseball fans say something needs to be done about steroids. But maybe more importantly, there was a time when baseball was very popular and had great attendance and was the national pastime and everybody was happy, but baseball was segregated. Baseball was a segregated sport. I would argue today, baseball in America is a lot better off now that it is an integrated sport, and I would argue that baseball will be a lot better off once we have a reasonable, workable testing program as far as performance-enhancing drugs are concerned.

For the good of our national pastime, I urge that Major League baseball owners and players sit down together and resolve this issue and then, as they have asked, we can move on to other issues of the day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, today, joined by Senator Sununu, I am introducing legislation to fundamentally reform our Nation's intercity rail passenger program. The proposal adopts the core concepts for reform advanced by the administration in its Amtrak legislation--cost- sharing with the States, a network of trains that makes economic sense, and fair and open competition for Amtrak. However, in recognition of the magnitude and complexity of the task of restructuring Amtrak, the legislation takes a more moderate, realistic approach to reform. While I would prefer to see more accomplished in the next 6 years, enactment of the restructuring and reforms we are proposing today would represent meaningful progress toward creating an intercity passenger rail program that makes economic sense and meets the needs of the traveling public.

It is past time for Congress to come to terms with Amtrak's problems and why it is largely a failure. Year after year, for more than 3 decades, Congress has funded an essentially nationalized passenger railroad, that in most areas of the country neither meets a market demand nor provides needed public transportation. After 34 years and $27 billion in taxpayer subsidies, Amtrak still serves less than 1 percent of intercity travelers.

My colleagues and I may not agree on exactly how Amtrak should be restructured, but we should agree that what exists today is far from ideal. Amtrak loses over $1 billion annually. Its debt stands at almost $5 billion, a legacy the taxpayers will bear for years to come. It has mortgaged nearly every asset it owns, including a portion of New's York's Penn Station, to avoid bankruptcy. It operates routes, many of them in the middle of the night, that lose hundreds of dollars per passenger. And despite a Federal investment of $3.2 billion for high- speed service on the Northeast Corridor, the Acela service has been plagued by equipment and operating problems. In a report prepared at my request, the General Accounting Office recently found that Amtrak mismanaged the project, blatantly ignoring the Federal master plan and failing to complete 51 of the project's 72 work elements.

It is past time to end the status quo. If the collective wisdom of Congress is to continue to fund intercity passenger rail service, then we should do so in a manner that makes economic sense. The legislation we are introducing today would restructure the passenger rail program in a realistic way and provide responsible funding for existing service and new corridor development.

First, the legislation would make cost-sharing on shorter-distance corridor routes more equitable. Today, California, Washington, Oregon, and a number of other States play an active role in funding and managing passenger service on corridor routes in their States, while other States pay nothing. This legislation would require equitable cost-sharing for all corridor trains. By the end of the 6-year reauthorization period, States would be required to fund 70 percent of the operating losses on corridor services, the level of contribution already being made by California, the Pacific Northwest, Oklahoma, Missouri, and several other States. Furthermore, the Federal share of operating subsidies would be payable as grants to the States. Where States have taken an active role in managing Amtrak service, there has been more accountability, better customer service, and a higher level of efficiency.

Second, the legislation would restructure Amtrak's long distance routes. I am not proposing, as many of my colleagues would expect, to ``whack'' every long distance train. In fact, closure and consolidation would be a last resort under my proposal. The ultimate goal would be to reduce the annual operating subsidy required for these routes by at least 50 percent whether by restructuring the route, reducing operating expenses, contracting out service to a private operator, or securing State financial support. Amtrak operates 16 long distance trains, including the Sunset Limited, a train that runs through Arizona on its 3-day odyssey from Los Angeles to Orlando and loses over $400 per passenger. Reducing the burden of these trains on the taxpayer is one of my top priorities.

This proposal would also establish fair and open competition for Amtrak. If, after 34 years of being told by Amtrak that profitability is just a few years away or, more recently, that it is on a ``glide- path'' to self-sufficiency, we are now to conclude that Amtrak will always run operating and capital deficits. Our duty to the taxpayers is to ensure that service is operated as efficiently as possible to minimize subsidies. To achieve this goal, there must be fair and open competition for Amtrak from private sector companies and commuter authorities.

Some of my colleagues contend that the private sector would not be interested in operating passenger service, noting that Amtrak was created because the freight railroads did not wish to continue providing what had become unprofitable service with the development of air travel and the Interstate Highway System. But times have changed. Norfolk Southern recently told transportation officials in Georgia that it wants to be considered to run the State's planned commuter service between Atlanta and Macon. Herzon, a private company headquarted in Missouri, operates commuter services in Texas and California, and has been trying to bid against Amtrak to operate the ``Mules'' service between St. Louis and Kansas City. Further, 14 private corporations expressed interest in operating service following a Commerce Committee hearing in which the question of private sector interest was posed.

Fourth, this legislation would establish a process for corridor development modeled after the transit ``new starts'' program. Many States have expressed interest in developing new conventional or high- speed intercity passenger service in highly-traveled corridors. My proposal would evaluate new intercity services on a competitive basis and require that projects meet planning and design requirements similar to those that apply to the well-respected new starts program administered by the Federal Transit Administration. As the States assume more responsibility for operating subsidies, the amount of funding available for corridor development would increase. By year 6 of the reauthorization period, $800 million would be authorized for corridor development.

This legislation also addresses ownership, management, and maintenance of Northeast Corridor. As recommended by the administration, the bill proposes that the Federal Government assume ownership of the Northeast Corridor and implement a plan to restore the Corridor to a state of good repair. The Northeast Corridor States would be encouraged to adopt an interstate compact within 5 years and assume responsibility for the Corridor's management. Other States would be expected to manage their corridor services, and the Northeast Corridor should be no exception. Moreover, over 1,000 of the 1,200 or so trains operated daily on the Corridor are commuter trains, not intercity services. Until the interstate compact is in place, Amtrak would continue to operate and maintain the Corridor.

Finally, the legislation institutes reforms at Amtrak. Amtrak would be required to perform its services under

contract with the Federal Government or States, and would be required to develop a more accurate and transparent cost accounting system. As recommended by the DOT Inspector General, an effort would be made to restructure Amtrak's debt to reduce the cost to the taxpayers.

We encourage our colleagues to support this legislation. Reforming Amtrak and the way our intercity passenger rail program is now organized must be accomplished before Congress considers expanding intercity service. Simply throwing billions more at Amtrak as some of my colleagues propose--whether through appropriations, bonds, or some other funding scheme--will not solve the fundamental problems. We can and must do better.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, joined by Senator Sununu, I am introducing legislation to fundamentally reform our Nation's intercity rail passenger program. The proposal adopts the core concepts for reform advanced by the administration in its Amtrak legislation--cost- sharing with the States, a network of trains that makes economic sense, and fair and open competition for Amtrak. However, in recognition of the magnitude and complexity of the task of restructuring Amtrak, the legislation takes a more moderate, realistic approach to reform. While I would prefer to see more accomplished in the next 6 years, enactment of the restructuring and reforms we are proposing today would represent meaningful progress toward creating an intercity passenger rail program that makes economic sense and meets the needs of the traveling public.

It is past time for Congress to come to terms with Amtrak's problems and why it is largely a failure. Year after year, for more than 3 decades, Congress has funded an essentially nationalized passenger railroad, that in most areas of the country neither meets a market demand nor provides needed public transportation. After 34 years and $27 billion in taxpayer subsidies, Amtrak still serves less than 1 percent of intercity travelers.

My colleagues and I may not agree on exactly how Amtrak should be restructured, but we should agree that what exists today is far from ideal. Amtrak loses over $1 billion annually. Its debt stands at almost $5 billion, a legacy the taxpayers will bear for years to come. It has mortgaged nearly every asset it owns, including a portion of New's York's Penn Station, to avoid bankruptcy. It operates routes, many of them in the middle of the night, that lose hundreds of dollars per passenger. And despite a Federal investment of $3.2 billion for high- speed service on the Northeast Corridor, the Acela service has been plagued by equipment and operating problems. In a report prepared at my request, the General Accounting Office recently found that Amtrak mismanaged the project, blatantly ignoring the Federal master plan and failing to complete 51 of the project's 72 work elements.

It is past time to end the status quo. If the collective wisdom of Congress is to continue to fund intercity passenger rail service, then we should do so in a manner that makes economic sense. The legislation we are introducing today would restructure the passenger rail program in a realistic way and provide responsible funding for existing service and new corridor development.

First, the legislation would make cost-sharing on shorter-distance corridor routes more equitable. Today, California, Washington, Oregon, and a number of other States play an active role in funding and managing passenger service on corridor routes in their States, while other States pay nothing. This legislation would require equitable cost-sharing for all corridor trains. By the end of the 6-year reauthorization period, States would be required to fund 70 percent of the operating losses on corridor services, the level of contribution already being made by California, the Pacific Northwest, Oklahoma, Missouri, and several other States. Furthermore, the Federal share of operating subsidies would be payable as grants to the States. Where States have taken an active role in managing Amtrak service, there has been more accountability, better customer service, and a higher level of efficiency.

Second, the legislation would restructure Amtrak's long distance routes. I am not proposing, as many of my colleagues would expect, to ``whack'' every long distance train. In fact, closure and consolidation would be a last resort under my proposal. The ultimate goal would be to reduce the annual operating subsidy required for these routes by at least 50 percent whether by restructuring the route, reducing operating expenses, contracting out service to a private operator, or securing State financial support. Amtrak operates 16 long distance trains, including the Sunset Limited, a train that runs through Arizona on its 3-day odyssey from Los Angeles to Orlando and loses over $400 per passenger. Reducing the burden of these trains on the taxpayer is one of my top priorities.

This proposal would also establish fair and open competition for Amtrak. If, after 34 years of being told by Amtrak that profitability is just a few years away or, more recently, that it is on a ``glide- path'' to self-sufficiency, we are now to conclude that Amtrak will always run operating and capital deficits. Our duty to the taxpayers is to ensure that service is operated as efficiently as possible to minimize subsidies. To achieve this goal, there must be fair and open competition for Amtrak from private sector companies and commuter authorities.

Some of my colleagues contend that the private sector would not be interested in operating passenger service, noting that Amtrak was created because the freight railroads did not wish to continue providing what had become unprofitable service with the development of air travel and the Interstate Highway System. But times have changed. Norfolk Southern recently told transportation officials in Georgia that it wants to be considered to run the State's planned commuter service between Atlanta and Macon. Herzon, a private company headquarted in Missouri, operates commuter services in Texas and California, and has been trying to bid against Amtrak to operate the ``Mules'' service between St. Louis and Kansas City. Further, 14 private corporations expressed interest in operating service following a Commerce Committee hearing in which the question of private sector interest was posed.

Fourth, this legislation would establish a process for corridor development modeled after the transit ``new starts'' program. Many States have expressed interest in developing new conventional or high- speed intercity passenger service in highly-traveled corridors. My proposal would evaluate new intercity services on a competitive basis and require that projects meet planning and design requirements similar to those that apply to the well-respected new starts program administered by the Federal Transit Administration. As the States assume more responsibility for operating subsidies, the amount of funding available for corridor development would increase. By year 6 of the reauthorization period, $800 million would be authorized for corridor development.

This legislation also addresses ownership, management, and maintenance of Northeast Corridor. As recommended by the administration, the bill proposes that the Federal Government assume ownership of the Northeast Corridor and implement a plan to restore the Corridor to a state of good repair. The Northeast Corridor States would be encouraged to adopt an interstate compact within 5 years and assume responsibility for the Corridor's management. Other States would be expected to manage their corridor services, and the Northeast Corridor should be no exception. Moreover, over 1,000 of the 1,200 or so trains operated daily on the Corridor are commuter trains, not intercity services. Until the interstate compact is in place, Amtrak would continue to operate and maintain the Corridor.

Finally, the legislation institutes reforms at Amtrak. Amtrak would be required to perform its services under

contract with the Federal Government or States, and would be required to develop a more accurate and transparent cost accounting system. As recommended by the DOT Inspector General, an effort would be made to restructure Amtrak's debt to reduce the cost to the taxpayers.

We encourage our colleagues to support this legislation. Reforming Amtrak and the way our intercity passenger rail program is now organized must be accomplished before Congress considers expanding intercity service. Simply throwing billions more at Amtrak as some of my colleagues propose--whether through appropriations, bonds, or some other funding scheme--will not solve the fundamental problems. We can and must do better.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Missouri. I also paid close attention to his statement. I think it is a very important one.

Madam President, how much time is remaining?

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed an additional 10 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Iraq

Madam President, I take the floor to respond to comments made by Senator Byrd, but also to general comments that have been made over the last 48 hours as we all recognize this is a very difficult time for us in Iraq.

I do not have to review with any of my colleagues the events of the last few days and the tragedies in the loss of these brave young Americans who are fighting and sacrificing for someone else's freedom.

I have also heard a number of observers, including some Senators, who have compared events in Iraq to what we went through in Vietnam. I happen to know something about Vietnam, and I know we do not face another Vietnam. I need not go into the long history of our involvement in that nation, the reasons for our failure, but the realities on the ground in Iraq are clear.

There is no superpower that is backing these minority of Shias and Sunnis who are seeking to gain political power through the use of a gun, and there is no comparison as far as the sanctuary which this enemy has. We grant them no sanctuary.

Some have stated we are on the defensive. I would argue that, as we speak, in Fallajuh and other places, our Marines and Army are on the offensive, dedicated to the proposition that no group, no matter what their ethnic or religious beliefs are, will take control of Iraq.

Control of Iraq will be the result of a democratic process and a representative one, part of which is the turning over of power to the Iraqi people on June 30.

We have had this argument back and forth: Should we turn over power of the government to the Iraqis on June 30? I say yes, and I say yes recognizing two realities. One is that it will be a difficult process, and we have a lot more planning to do between now and June 30 for that transition to take place. The other reality, as far as the security situation is concerned, is that America's military will be there in force for a significant period of time, and the American people need to be told that.

This is a long, tough, hard struggle. It is hard for countries to adopt democracies. It is incredibly difficult when they have never known democracy and freedom in the past. A little later, I want to talk a little bit more about what happens if we fail, as well as what happens if we succeed in Iraq.

Again, in Vietnam there was superpower support. There were arms and political support. We did not have a clear plan for victory, and dare I mention that in Vietnam many times we had more casualties in a week, sometimes less than a week, than we have had in a year in Iraq.

To make these comparisons with the Tet offensive or the entire Vietnam conflict is not only uninformed but I think a bit dangerous because, of course, the specifics of our involvement in that conflict fade, as they should, in the memories of the American people.

What is happening in Iraq today is we have a Sunni insurgency that consists of ex-Baathists and Saddam loyalists. They obviously are the only people who were better off during Saddam Hussein's regime because they were the favored minority that were of the same religion as Saddam. They realize they will never run Iraq again because they are in the minority. Because they are in the majority, the Shia will probably dominate that government, but we also have a constitution in Iraq that guarantees the rights of minorities. We are there and a new government will be there to guarantee those same rights.

The realities are the Sunni minority will never control Iraq again. We have a small minority of Shias who are trying to grab some political power before the July 1 transition. There is very little doubt that Sadr's followers are in a distinct minority and the majority of Shias still owe allegiance and have allegiance to the Ayatollah Sistani, who has argued, perhaps not forcefully enough, that we do not have the kind of armed conflict that we are seeing today.

Is this a difficult political problem? Yes. Is it the time to panic, to cut and run? Absolutely not. The vast majority of Iraqi people are glad we are there and they state unequivocally that they are better off than they were under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Lest time dim our memory, let us remember the mass graves that we discovered, the 8- and 9-year-old boys coming out of prison in Baghdad, the despotic, incredibly cruel practices of his two sons. The people of Iraq and America and the world are better off with Saddam Hussein gone.

Now, we can argue about intelligence; we can argue about weapons of mass destruction. That is why we have commissions. That is why tomorrow, in an almost unprecedented fashion, the National Security Adviser to the President will testify before the 9/11 Commission. I am confident she will perform admirably because she is an incredibly intelligent and capable individual.

The fact is, to argue that we should have left Iraq under the rule of this incredibly cruel person who used weapons of mass destruction, who had weapons of mass destruction in 1991, was continuing to attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and if in power would continue to try to acquire those weapons, certainly flies in the face of the facts about Saddam Hussein's regime.

Senator Byrd says we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place and that we should not be there now. I respect the view. I strongly disagree with it, and I think the facts indicate that is not the case. We could argue for days about it, but right now at this moment we need to send a message not only to the Sunnis in Iraq and the minority of Shias in Iraq who are taking up arms and killing Americans that we are there to stay. We are there to stay and we will see it through. If we fail, if we cut and run, the results can be disastrous. Those results would be the fragmentation of Iraq, to start with, on ethnic and religious lines. The second result would be an unchecked hotbed of training ground and birthing of individuals who are committed to the destruction of the United States of America.

We will never solve the war on terror as long as there are millions of young men standing on street corners all over the Middle East with no hope, no job, no opportunities, no future. They are the breeding ground. They are the ones who are taken off the streets and taken into the madrasahs--funded by the Saudis, by the way--and taught to hate and kill, and who want to destroy America, the West, and all we believe in. Their hatred is not confined to the United States of America, as the citizens of Spain have found out, much to their dismay and tragedy.

What happens if we win? What happens if we see this thing through? It will be hard and it will be difficult and perhaps we need more troops. I have said for a long time that we needed more troops of certain types, but we have to see this thing through. And what will happen? What will happen is that we will affirm the profound and fundamental belief upon which this Nation was founded, that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and they are not just in the Western Hemisphere; they are not just in the United States of America; they are not just in Europe. The people in the Middle East have the same hopes, beliefs, and yearnings for freedom and democracy, and they have a right to determine their own future just as have our own citizens and citizens throughout the world.

When they achieve that--and it will be long and hard and difficult-- it will send a message to every despotic regime, every religious extremist throughout the Middle East, their day is done because in a democratic, free, and open society the people want to live in peace with their neighbors and with the world.

So there is a lot at stake. I grieve every moment, as every American does, for the loss of these brave young

Americans' lives. They have made a supreme sacrifice, and we will honor their memory, but at least their grieving families will know they sacrificed in the cause of freedom.

At this particular moment of crisis--and it is a crisis--I urge all of my colleagues and all Americans to join together in this noble cause. Yes, we are free to criticize; yes, we are free to make recommendations and suggestions; but the awesome responsibility lies with all of us, led by the President of the United States, as we attempt to carry out what is the most noble act that no country in the world has ever done besides the United States of America, and that is to shed our most precious blood and expend our treasure in defense of someone else's freedom in the hope that they may enjoy the fruits of a free and open society in a democracy that is guaranteed to all men and women by our Creator.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when we first began the Senate debate on S. 1637 in March, the intended purpose of the measure was to resolve appropriately the controversy between the United States and the European Union over the extraterritorial income, ETI, exemption tax benefit for exports. Almost all of us recognize the critical need to pass legislation to bring the United States back into compliance with World Trade Organization, WTO, agreements and stop the burdensome tariffs now imposed on our manufacturers. Unfortunately, achieving the legislation's worthy purpose is in jeopardy due to a host of special interest tax provision add-ons. I do not support these latest add-ons and, as such, must vote against today's cloture vote.

When S. 1637 was presented to the Senate, it was a 378-page bill. Although only one roll call vote has occurred on an amendment during the floor consideration, the bill had grown to some 527 pages by the last cloture vote on March 22. I reluctantly voted for cloture, voicing my strong concerns about the direction the bill was going at the time. But instead of reigning in the special interest add-ons, they are only growing further. The bill has now grown to a 929-page Easter basket of goodies, but with almost no debate or votes on its provisions, including the latest addition of $13 billion in energy-related tax breaks.

I recognize the strong interest of the chairman of the Energy Committee and others to pass an energy bill. I wish that I could support the bill that the committee has developed, but in its current form I cannot. But I can assure the proponents of the energy legislation that to now shift $13 billion in costs from their bill to the JOBS bill is not the way to gain support for an energy bill. Instead, they need to develop an energy bill that is more evenly balanced between stimulating the supply of conventional fuels and promoting alternative fuels and energy efficiency.

If the Senate is to consider an energy tax incentive bill or an energy authorizing bill, we should be following regular order, and bringing legislation to the floor and debating in its own right. Instead, we are being asked to simply accept a 362-page energy bill add-on without debate or further amendments.

With our limited legislative time during this election year, the Senate would serve the American public far better if it stayed focused on accomplishing the intended purpose of legislating. Unfortunately, the JOBS bill, which is a much needed bill, is being dragged down with the unnecessary weight of billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies, tax breaks, and special exemptions for special interest industries. With the Nation facing a half-trillion dollar deficit, now is not the time for Congress to be enacting new tax credits and carving out sweet deals for special interests.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by a number of my colleagues representing southern and northern border States, including Senators Kyl, Dorgan, Schumer, Clinton, and Boxer in introducing the Border Security and Technology Integration Act of 2004. This bill was developed together with my fellow Arizonan, Congressman Kolbe, who has introduced the House companion to this bill. It is designed to identify and address gaps in border infrastructure and enforcement and promote our Nation's security efforts.

As estimated one million people enter this country illegally every year. Last year, more than 300 people died illegally crossing the border separating the United States and Mexico--and over 200 of those deaths occurred in the Arizona desert. Although the vast majority of these individuals do not intend to harm our Nation, we must recognize our vulnerability to security threats and take action to address identified safety and security lapses. Improving enforcement along our porous borders, as proposed in this legislation, would be one very important step in our efforts to promote national security.

While I commend the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for its many actions taken over the past year, much remains to be done to secure our Nation. We do not have sufficient control of our Nation's borders, and that fact represents a serious threat to our Nation's security. The solution is two part. We must couple comprehensive immigration reform with improvements in infrastructure and enforcement in the border region--one without the other will never solve this problem. Last summer I introduced comprehensive immigration reform legislation to address our broken immigration system. The Border Security and Technology Integration Act of 2004 would address the other half of the border security equation--improving technology, infrastructure, and coordination in the border region.

The Border Security and Technology Integration Act is intended to improve security along the vast expanses of land between ports of entry along our Nation's northern and southern borders. It would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct comprehensive vulnerability and threat assessments throughout Bureau of Customs and Border Protection field offices to determine what technology and equipment are needed to improve security. The bill would establish two

new border technology pilot programs, one to address aerial surveillance and another to address ground surveillance, that together, will comprehensively evaluate technologies that can improve security along the borders.

With jurisdiction along the border divided among a number of Federal, State, local, and tribal government agencies, coordination and communication between entities too often falls short. To address this problem, this bill would direct DHS to develop plans to improve coordination, communications integration, and information sharing among the various governmental agencies.

The bill also would provide additional direction to the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate within the DHS. The S&T Directorate is responsible for coordinating research, development, testing, and evaluation activities for all elements of DHS. It also has distinct program areas dedicated to addressing each major category of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-explosives. In fiscal year 2004, DHS received $1.04 billion in research and development (R&D) funding, with $874 million appropriated to the S&T Directorate.

The Border Security and Technology Integration Act is intended to improve the coordination and integration of R&D needs and priorities managed by the S&T Directorate. Although most of Department's R&D activities are within the S&T Directorate, other directorates within DHS also include an R&D component. The lack of consolidatoin of R&D activities raises concern about the potential for duplication and misuse of R&D funds. The FY 2005 budget request recognizes the need to consolidate research funds, and to assist with this effort, this bill would direct DHS to identify all R&D activities outside of the S&T Directorate and consolidate these activities within the Directorate to minimize waste and duplication of efforts.

Technology transfer, which is defined as ``a process by which technology developed in one organization, in one area, or for one purpose is applied in another organization, in another area, or for another purpose'' is an essential component of the new S&T Directorate. This legislation will direct the Undersecretary of the S&T Directorate to establish a Technology Transfer and Licensing Office to facilitate the transfer of technologies into and out of the S&T Directorate and to handle licensing activities for the S&T Directorate. It also would direct DHS to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a nonprofit government-sponsored enterprise for investing in private sector enterprises that develop new technologies that show promise for homeland security applications.

Again, border security and immigration reform represent national security issues for all Americans and matters of life and death for many living along the border. Since January, over 2,000 suspected smugglers and well over 155,000 undocumented immigrants have been apprehended across Arizona.

The Federal Government's inability to adequately secure our borders perpetuates a state of lawlessness, shifting substantial financial and social burdens to residents of the border region. Violent crimes in Phoenix, alone, have risen 400 percent over the past year, largely due to human smugglers. Across the Nation, hospitals spend well over $200 million a year providing uncompensated care to undocumented immigrants, forcing many hospitals along the border to close their doors or dramatically reduce services. Cash-strapped local law enforcement officials spend millions of dollars covering the cost of incarcerating undocumented immigrants. Frustrated by this situation, some residents have taken the law into their own hands, forming vigilante groups to patrol the border.

While DHS has recently launched several initiatives, including Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona Border Control Initiative, which I hope will substantially improve security in the Arizona border region, we must do more. Manpower alone can never secure the border. We need a comprehensive border-wide security approach that involves people, infrastructure, and technology.

I urge may colleagues to support our efforts to address border security in a reasoned and responsible manner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed by unanimous consent to pass S. 275, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2004 (Act). I would like to thank the bill's cosponsors, Senators Stevens, Dorgan, and Reid for their commitment to professional boxing and the warriors who sustain the sport.

This amendment is designed to strengthen existing Federal boxing laws by making uniform certain health and safety standards, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and providing uniformity in ranking criteria and contractual guidelines. It also would establish a Federal entity, the United States Boxing Commission--USBC--to promulgate minimum uniform standards for professional boxing and enforce Federal boxing laws.

Over the past 7 years, the Commerce Committee has taken action to address the problems that plague the sport of professional boxing. The committee has already developed two Federal boxing laws that have been enacted, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000. These laws established minimum uniform standards to improve the health and safety of boxers, and to better protect them from the often coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. While these laws have had a positive impact on professional boxing, the sport remains beset by a variety of problems, some beyond the scope of local regulation.

Promoters continue to steal fighters from each other, sanctioning organizations make unmerited ratings changes without offering adequate explanations, promoters refuse to pay fighters who have put their lives on the line, local boxing commissions fail to ensure the protection of boxers' health and safety, boxers are contractually and financially exploited, and the list continues. Most recently, we have learned of a federal law enforcement

investigation that reportedly may yield a dozen or more indictments for charges of fight fixing.

All too often my office receives a call from a parent whose child was killed in a match asking why proper medical or safety precautions were not taken by the local commission with jurisdiction, or from a boxer who has worked tirelessly to escape poverty, only to find themselves subject to the exploitation of the unscrupulous few who control the sport.

Professional boxing is the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association or league to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. There is no widely established union of boxers, no collective body of promoters or managers, and no consistent level of regulation among state and tribal commissions. Due to the lack of uniform business practices or ethical standards, the sport of boxing has suffered from the physical and financial exploitation of its athletes.

The General Accounting Office confirmed in a July 2003 report on professional boxing regulation that, because professional boxing is regulated predominantly on a state-by-state basis, there is a varying degree of oversight depending on the resources and priorities of each state or tribal commission. The report also indicates that the lack of consistency in compliance with Federal boxing law among state and tribal commissions ``does not provide adequate assurance that professional boxers are receiving the minimum protections established in Federal law.''

The consequences of this vacuum of effective public or private oversight has led to decades of scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and far too many unnecessary deaths in professional boxing. Yet another tragic, but precise example, of poor local regulation occurred just last year in Utah where a 35-year-old boxer collapsed and died in a boxing ring. The young man should never have been allowed to participate in the bout given that he had suffered 25 consecutive losses over a three-year period leading up to the fight, including a loss only one month earlier to the same opponent against whom he was fighting when he died. While tragic in its own right, this is merely one in a seemingly endless series of incidents that continue to occur as a direct result of inadequate state regulation.

This measure would improve existing boxing law, and also establish the USBC. The primary functions of the commission would be to protect the health, safety, and general interests of boxers. More specifically, the USBC would, among other things: administer Federal boxing laws and coordinate with other federal agencies to ensure that these laws are enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the status and standards of the sport. The USBC also would maintain a centralized database of medical and statistical information pertaining to boxers in the United States that would be used confidentially by local commissions in making licensing decisions.

There has been quite a bit of confusion among local boxing commissions regarding the effect that this bill would have on them. Let me be clear. The purpose of the USBC would not be intended to micro- manage boxing by interfering with the daily operations of local boxing commissions. Instead, the USBC would work in consultation with local commissions, and only exercise its authority should reasonable grounds exist for intervention.

The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing compromise the safety of boxers and undermine the credibility of the sport in the public's view. This bill is urgently needed to provide a realistic approach to curbing such problems.

Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Hollings and other members of the Senate Commerce Committee in introducing the Rail Security Act of 2004.

The recent attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system demonstrated all too vividly that our own transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads could be vulnerable to terrorist attack. Only modest resources have been dedicated to rail security since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, and efforts to address rail security remain fragmented. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not completed a vulnerability assessment for the rail system, nor is there an integrated security plan that reflects the unique characteristics of passenger and freight rail operations.

The legislation we are introducing today would authorize resources to ensure rail transportation security receives a high priority in our efforts to secure our country from terrorism. The legislation directs DHS to complete a vulnerability assessment for the rail system and make recommendations for addressing security weaknesses within 180 days of enactment. It also authorizes funding to address long-standing fire and life safety needs for several tunnels along the Northeast Corridor, and authorizes appropriations to meet immediate security needs for intercity and freight rail transportation. Further, as recommended by the General Accounting Office, the proposal requires DHS to sign a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Transportation to make clear each department's roles and responsibilities with respect to rail security.

The freight railroads, individual commuter authorities, and Amtrak have, on their own initiative, completed risk assessments and taken steps to safeguard passengers, facilities, and cargo. These efforts, accomplished at a very small cost to the federal government, have helped make our rail system safer. The legislation introduced today will augment these efforts and bring these individual initiatives together in a coordinated rail security program.

More than 2 years ago, in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the Commerce Committee reported rail security legislation but unfortunately that proposal was not adopted by the full Senate. The Commerce Committee will meet in the coming weeks to consider this legislation and it is my hope that the proposal will be acted upon quickly by the full Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide a technical correction that would once again allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land within the Salt River Pima-Mariposa Indian Community (SRPMIC). A companion bill is being introduced today by Congressman Hayworth.

The SRPMIC located in Scottsdale, AZ, one of the most diversified economic development portfolios in Indian country. Blessed with a prime location in metropolitan Phoenix, the Tribe has nearly a dozen business enterprises including a sand and gravel operation, a cement company, two golf courses, and a shopping center. The tribe wants to continue diversifying their economy in the hopes of becoming economically self- sufficient. This legislation is intended to help them achieve this goal.

This bill would make technical corrections to title 2l5, U.S. Code, Section 416a(c) relating to ``binding arbitration of disputes.'' Recently, in an effort to consolidate and streamline various rules, regulations, and laws, some sections of Title 25, U.S. Code, Section 81 were repealed that affected the Bureau of Indian Affairs. An unintended consequence of this consolidation was that the definition for leases, which included sublease, substitute lease, and master lease, was altered. Simply put, this legislation would reinstate the

prior definition for leases on the reservation to include subleases, substitute leases, and master leases. Without this clarification, the tribe fears that potential tenants may be leery to invest on tribal land.

This legislation may seem minor, but it would go a long way toward helping the SRPMIC achieve the economic self-sufficiency it is working toward. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and work for its speedy passage.

Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Hollings and other members of the Senate Commerce Committee in introducing the Rail Security Act of 2004.

The recent attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system demonstrated all too vividly that our own transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads could be vulnerable to terrorist attack. Only modest resources have been dedicated to rail security since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, and efforts to address rail security remain fragmented. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not completed a vulnerability assessment for the rail system, nor is there an integrated security plan that reflects the unique characteristics of passenger and freight rail operations.

The legislation we are introducing today would authorize resources to ensure rail transportation security receives a high priority in our efforts to secure our country from terrorism. The legislation directs DHS to complete a vulnerability assessment for the rail system and make recommendations for addressing security weaknesses within 180 days of enactment. It also authorizes funding to address long-standing fire and life safety needs for several tunnels along the Northeast Corridor, and authorizes appropriations to meet immediate security needs for intercity and freight rail transportation. Further, as recommended by the General Accounting Office, the proposal requires DHS to sign a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Transportation to make clear each department's roles and responsibilities with respect to rail security.

The freight railroads, individual commuter authorities, and Amtrak have, on their own initiative, completed risk assessments and taken steps to safeguard passengers, facilities, and cargo. These efforts, accomplished at a very small cost to the federal government, have helped make our rail system safer. The legislation introduced today will augment these efforts and bring these individual initiatives together in a coordinated rail security program.

More than 2 years ago, in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the Commerce Committee reported rail security legislation but unfortunately that proposal was not adopted by the full Senate. The Commerce Committee will meet in the coming weeks to consider this legislation and it is my hope that the proposal will be acted upon quickly by the full Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide a technical correction that would once again allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land within the Salt River Pima-Mariposa Indian Community (SRPMIC). A companion bill is being introduced today by Congressman Hayworth.

The SRPMIC located in Scottsdale, AZ, one of the most diversified economic development portfolios in Indian country. Blessed with a prime location in metropolitan Phoenix, the Tribe has nearly a dozen business enterprises including a sand and gravel operation, a cement company, two golf courses, and a shopping center. The tribe wants to continue diversifying their economy in the hopes of becoming economically self- sufficient. This legislation is intended to help them achieve this goal.

This bill would make technical corrections to title 2l5, U.S. Code, Section 416a(c) relating to ``binding arbitration of disputes.'' Recently, in an effort to consolidate and streamline various rules, regulations, and laws, some sections of Title 25, U.S. Code, Section 81 were repealed that affected the Bureau of Indian Affairs. An unintended consequence of this consolidation was that the definition for leases, which included sublease, substitute lease, and master lease, was altered. Simply put, this legislation would reinstate the

prior definition for leases on the reservation to include subleases, substitute leases, and master leases. Without this clarification, the tribe fears that potential tenants may be leery to invest on tribal land.

This legislation may seem minor, but it would go a long way toward helping the SRPMIC achieve the economic self-sufficiency it is working toward. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and work for its speedy passage.