Floor Statements

Mr. President, the agriculture appropriations bill funds several important programs at the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other domestic food services provided through the Department of Health and Human Services. These funding programs are critically important to our Nation's farmers, families, and children.

Considering the importance of this bill, and at this critical time, I am once again greatly disappointed to report the amount of flagrant porkbarrel spending in this bill. This year's agriculture spending bill includes nearly $300 million in questionable earmarks. Despite the obvious need to eliminate the excessive special interest earmarks in the agriculture appropriations bill, the appropriators tacked on 395 of the usual garden-variety, special interest earmarks. Sadly, it appears that the porkbarrel ``business as usual'' attitude reigns once again.

Let's take a look at some of the porkbarrel projects in this year's agriculture appropriations bill:

An increase of $300,000 over the fiscal year 2003 level for research on alternative swine research;

An increase of $1.4 million over the fiscal year 03 level for dairy forage research in Madison, WI;

An increase of $1 million for research on taramix control using China beetles in Reno, NV;

A $100,000 increase for the development of commercially approved vaccines for catfish in Auburn, IL;

An increase of $450,000 over the fiscal year 03 level for a laboratory in Parlier, CA, to study the Glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's disease;

A $150,000 increase to study grape genetics in Geneva, NY;

An additional $300,000 for potato storage research in Madison, WI;

An additional $200,000 for research on seafood waste at the University of Alaska;

An additional $300,000 for the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston, SC;

An unrequested earmark of $631,000 for alternative salmon products in Alaska;

An earmark of $358,000 for alternative tobacco uses in Maryland;

An earmark of $442,000 for apple fire blight in Michigan and New York;

An earmark of $278,000 for asparagus technology and production in the State of Washington;

An earmark of $200,000 for berry research in Alaska;

$600,000 for cool season legume research in Idaho, Washington and North Dakota;

$234,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding studies in New Jersey;

A whopping $2 million for exotic pet diseases in California;

$844,000 for soybean research in Illinois;

$596,000 for peanut research in Alabama;

$502,000 for wheat sawfly research in Montana;

$450,000 for agricultural-based industrial lubricants in Iowa;

$690,000 for agriculture waste utilization in WV--pretty fancy term for fertilizer;

$150,000 for salmon quality standards in Alaska;

$250,000 for the National Wild Turkey Federation, located in South Carolina;

$300,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin;

$2 million to address chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin;

$250,000 to address chronic wasting disease in Utah--maybe we should study chronic wasting disease right here in Washington, because the amount of waste that goes on in this city has reached chronic levels, and that is stating it mildly;

$1 million for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in Utah;

$300,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in Nevada;

$150,000 for beaver control in Kentucky;

$225,000 for blackbird control in Kansas;

$350,000 for evaluating native plant materials in Alaska;

$600,000 for cranberry production in Massachusetts and Wisconsin.

Here is the clincher: the report accompanying this bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to take all necessary measures to maximize and to provide a fair allocation of resources under the farm bill to the State of Alaska. This directive is seen as necessary because the committee is deeply disturbed that Alaska has largely been ignored thus far in the implementation of the farm bill passed in 2002. We certainly would not want Alaska to suffer from a lack of Federal dollars now would we?

Even the reliable earmarks like shrimp aquaculture and peanut research are included. Shrimp aquaculture in Arizona and other states has been a consistent beneficiary of taxpayer dollars for 11 years, with this year's earmark being $4.2 million. Unfortunately, there is little explanation included to justify why targeted Federal dollars for earmarked projects are more important than other programs to protect food safety or more directly support farm programs in this bill.

I am confident that many of my colleagues will maintain the importance of the need to fully fund these and many of the other projects in their respective States. That is fine. I do not fault them for it. In fact, let me state clearly, that I do not question the merits of these projects. Most of them, I am sure, are very important and worthy for Federal funds.

It is the process with which I have a serious problem. The Appropriations Committee has effectively usurped the power of the authorizing committees and acts as one, all-powerful funding machine. Projects are often funded with little or no background study, and are approved after simply being requested by a fellow Senator. These same projects are directed to certain States and localities, completely circumventing the proper, competitive-based awards process. Additionally, the Appropriations Committee routinely uses directive language to force cabinet secretaries and agency heads to use scarce taxpayer dollars to fund members' pet projects, while not alloting them a single dime with which to fulfill the requirements imposed upon them by the appropriators.

This spending spree is an outrage. As all of my colleagues know, CBO recently projected a potentially debilitating $480 billion deficit for 2004. More importantly, we are at war. President Bush is poised to sign a supplemental appropriation of $87 billion for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every one of us has asked ourselves the same question: ``where is that money going to come from?'' I have an idea Mr. President. Let's start with this bill. Let's eliminate all of the unrequested earmarks, all of the special deals, all of the pork and all of the waste. Let's prove to the American taxpayer that we in Washington do not see them as simply a cash cow for our every financial whim.

I urge my colleagues to work harder to curb our habit of funneling resources to parochial interests. Serving the public good must continue to be our mandate, and we can only live up to that charge by keeping the process free of unfair and unnecessary spending that unduly burdens the American taxpayer.

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

Madam President, pursuant to the order of October 30, 2003, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 150, the Internet Tax Moratorium bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill as thus amended be treated as original text for the purpose of amendment; provided there be no point of order waived by virtue of this agreement.

Madam President, I send a substitute to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I say to my friends on both sides of the issue, I think we now have the proper legislative agenda in preparation for amendments. Before I make an opening statement, I thank Senators Allen and Wyden for their hard work on this issue. I also pay my respects to the Senator from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, and the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, who have taken a deep and abiding interest in this issue and have a very real understanding of it. This is a complex and difficult set of issues associated with the Internet.

I apologize for leaving out my dear friend from Delaware, Senator Carper,

who probably knows more than the other two put together; at least, he believes so.

Again, these are difficult and complex issues. They have been affected significantly by changes in technology over the years. When we first did this moratorium issue, it was much simpler than it is today. As the Internet has obtained dramatically new capabilities with dramatic changes in its nature, the issue has changed. The Senators from Ohio, Tennessee, and Delaware have raised significant and valid concerns. We believe we have tried to address those concerns.

Definitions certainly are critical in addressing this issue. Words have meaning and importance when we are talking about this issue before us. I hope we can give fair consideration to the concerns and the proposals made by the opposition to this bill or those who would like to see it significantly modified.

Again, I thank my friends from Virginia and Oregon who have worked tremendously for years in the committee on this issue. I think the Senator from Oregon can remind me how many hearings we have had on this particular issue, but it must be in double digits--more than 10--over the past 6 or 7 years. Those hearings have been certainly appropriate, because each time we have had them the technology changed and the issues changed.

Madam President, this bill would ensure that consumers would never have to pay a toll when they access the Information Highway. Whether consumers log onto the Internet via cable modem, DSL, dial-up, or another technology that has yet to be invented, under S. 150 they will not see any State and local taxes on their monthly Internet bill. Now would their monthly Internet bills increase because of State and local taxes on Internet access that are passed down to consumers. Plainly and simply, this is a pro-consumer, pro-innovation, and pro-technology bill.

S. 150, which was introduced in January by Senator Allen, would make permanent the current Federal prohibition on State and local taxes on Internet access contained in the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 (ITFA). It also would extend permanently the current moratorium in ITFA on multiple or discriminatory state and local taxes on e-commerce transactions.

In addition, this bill would extend by 3 years the current grandfather clause contained in ITFA. This clause permits States that imposed or enforced a tax on Internet access prior to the passage of ITFA in 1998 to continue taxing Internet access. After 2006, this grandfathering protection would lapse.

Five years ago, Congress took appropriate action when it passed the IFTA, legislation that encouraged the growth and the adoption of the Internet by exempting Internet access from State and local taxation, and by protecting e-commerce transactions from multiple or discriminatory taxation.

As my colleagues know, over the past decade, the Internet has grown from a tool used primarily by academics and scientists for research purposes to a broadly utilized communications, information, entertainment, and commercial medium, as well as an important vehicle for political participation. Indeed, the Internet has started to become a fixture and core component of modern American life that has created and continues to generate social and economic opportunities throughout the United States. This was our goal then and it continues to be our goal today.

There is little doubt that the development and growth of the Internet was aided by the moratorium. For example, in the past 5 years and with the help of ITFA, household use of the Internet has doubled. At the time of the legislation's enactment in 1998, 26 percent of United States households had Internet access. By 2001--the year that the moratorium was extended for a 2 year period--just over 50 percent of U.S. households had Internet access. By the end of 2002, approximately 64 percent of American households had Internet access. However, despite these significant growth rates, Internet access adoption rates remain low relative to other basic technologies. Broadband access in particular remain low. Indeed, in 2002, only 15 percent of American households had broadband Internet access. This means that a significant number of American consumers still have not gained the full benefits that Internet technologies promise.

Today, we have the opportunity to extend permanently the Internet tax moratorium and thus fulfill our promise to consumers that Government taxes will not inhibit the offering of affordable Internet access. By supporting S. 150, we can continue to promote the adoption of the Internet by our citizens as well as encourage innovation relating to this technology. Just as Internet access evolved from basic dial-up service to broadband services since the enactment of ITFA, a permanent extension of the Internet tax moratorium is expected to encourage businesses to further evolve Internet technologies and consumers to continue adopting such technologies.

I am fully aware that State and local government groups are concerned about certain aspects of this bill and, in particular, worry that this legislation will result in significant revenue losses to the States and localities. As many of you know, I have worked closely with the co- sponsors of the legislation in an attempt to accommodate many of the concerns of the States and local governments. In fact, I am a co- sponsor of the substitute amendment to S. 150 only because I was satisfied that the amendment's co-sponsors had compromised as much as they reasonably could with the States and localities. What we present today is a good-faith effort to address State and local worries while still keeping intact one of the key goals of S. 150: to keep Internet access tax free from taxation.

I point in particular to our efforts to clarify that traditional telephone services would not become tax-exempt as a result of this legislation. Nor will this legislation prevent the States from imposing property, income, and other non-transactional taxes on Internet access providers. Nor would this bill make tax-free any service packaged with Internet access solely by virtue of such bundling. In addition, in order to give currently grandfathered States a reasonable amount of time to adjust their budgets, the bill extends the existing grandfathering provision by 3 years instead of terminating it immediately.

I also am aware that some of my colleagues object to the Internet tax moratorium because they believe that Congress has no role in how States and localities tax Internet access. I respect the views of those Members, but I also respectfully disagree with them on this matter. Interstate communications--including the Internet--are part and parcel of interstate commerce, which Congress has the constitutional right to regulate. This means that Congress does indeed have the right to determine how the Federal Government, the States, and localities tax the Internet.

There is also the argument that this extension is an unfunded mandate. On this point, it is important to note that this bill would not impose any additional responsibilities on State or local governments. Rather, S. 150 only says that States and localities may not impose taxes on Internet access. That's it. Furthermore, Congress made sure that ITFA held the Federal Government to the same standards as those imposed on the States. The act expresses the sense of Congress that no new Federal taxes on Internet access should be enacted. The Federal Government is in this with the States and localities because keeping Internet access tax-free is a core goal of our national economic policy.

With respect to the question of whether it's wise to make Internet access tax free, this body has a long history of giving tax incentives to commercial activities that we believe help our society. The Internet is a technology that is a source of and vehicle for significant economic benefits. The proponents of this legislation strongly believe the Internet clearly merits the tax incentives provided by S. 150. But this debate is not just about economic benefits.

During my presidential candidacy, one of the many rewarding experiences I had was seeing how the Internet served as a medium for political participation. Hundreds of thousands of people logged on to may campaign website where they were able to access information and organize. For me, keeping Internet access tax-free is about protecting consumers' wallets, but it also is about improving our political process and the right and ability of those citizens to participate fully in that process.

I recognize that there are others who wish to continue to make the Internet tax moratorium temporary. Their premise is that Internet technologies continue to evolve and thus Internet access may develop into a service the States and localities would wish to tax. I would respond that this moratorium should be permanent to continue encouraging those very Internet-related innovations. By making this moratorium permanent, the businesses that invest in and provide Internet access technologies will be able to operate in a predictable tax environment. This will result in continued investment in this very important medium.

I will be very candid on this point, though: If a permanent moratorium passes and 3, 4, 5 years down the road we find that the effects of this moratorium were other than what we intend today, I will join my colleagues in reviewing this issue and work to amend the legislation to correct any unforeseen problems with it. But that should only happen if and when there is a legitimate problem. That doesn't need to happen, and it shouldn't have to happen, on a predetermined schedule.

Today, however, we are here to vote on a bill that enjoys strong bi- partisan support--further evidence of the fact that this Senate believes in a permanent extension of the moratorium and the consumer and business benefits such an extension will bring. Likewise, H.r. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, which is similar to S. 150, also enjoyed significant support in the House of Representatives. Indeed, the House passed H.R. 49 in September with strong bipartisan support, including support from the House leadership of both parties.

S. 150 has been thoroughly vetted and considerably negotiated. It was approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in July after the committee held hearings on the bill. In October, the Senate Committee on Finance discharged S. 150 after that committee examined the bill. Throughout this legislative process, the various stakeholders have met several times to try to come as close to a middle ground as possible without sacrificing the basic goals of this legislation. I believe that this bill is a strong attempt to address the concerns and needs of all the relevant stakeholders.

For all of the reasons stated, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and add it to the long line of pro-consumer legislation we have passed this year--including the Do Not Call Registry and spam legislation. Let us again join together to give American consumers affordable access to the Internet, a crucial medium of communications, information, commerce, and political participation.

I look forward to hearing the debate and discussion by my colleagues on both sides of the issue. We hope to have an amendment proposed by the Senators from Delaware, Ohio, and Tennessee, and we would like to debate that. Others would like to speak on that amendment, so we will not have a time certain set for that amendment. But we hope we can have it at a fairly early time in the morning. My understanding is we will be back in at 9:30.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, prior to wrap-up, this completes the debate and discussion for this evening. It is my understanding that Senators from Tennessee, Ohio, and Delaware have an amendment that has been filed and they will call it up when we begin our continued debate on this legislation tomorrow morning at 9:30. I hope we can limit our debate on that amendment and have a vote on it and then take up other amendments. It is still the intention of the majority leader to finish this legislation tomorrow. I hope we can achieve that goal.

I know everybody would like to go home on Friday afternoon, but I have been assured by the majority leader we will remain until completion of the legislation.

I think it has been a good debate tonight. I thank all of my colleagues. I look forward to disposing of the amendments tomorrow when we reconvene at 9:30.

I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I understand S. 1832, introduced earlier today, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 261, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to this matter be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3232, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 352, S. 1643.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 351, S. 1066.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 354, S. 1663.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to consider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 244, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 350, H.J. Res. 63.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the joint resolution, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the amendment to the preamble which is at the desk be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the amendment to the title which is at the desk be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Friday, November 7; I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 150, the Internet tax moratorium bill.