Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

We agree.

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

California does not tax DSL now.

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate the question from the Senator from Minnesota, who is distinguishing himself for his keen interest in technology issues. He is correct in his understanding of those matters and in his reading of the legislation. As the author of the original Internet Tax Freedom Act, it is my intent that when it comes to services that are comparable to today's circuit switched voice but which are provided over internet protocol, what some call VOIP, the legislation's moratorium would not apply. In other words, the internet access moratorium would not apply to the sale of telecommunications services that are carried or routed over the Internet that are comparable to circuit switched voice services.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Will the Senator yield?

I am glad to work with the Senator. I wish to consult with the chairman and also Senator Allen, but it has always been our intent--and as the prime Senate sponsor of the law back in 1998 it was always my intent--that franchise fees not be affected by the Internet tax moratorium.

As the Senator has correctly noted, I say to the distinguished Senator from Texas, Texas has changed the name of its franchise fee to an access line fee. It was never our intention that franchise fees be affected by the moratorium.

I am very happy to work with the Senator from Texas on it. I will have to consult with the Senator from Virginia, but he has always been very gracious working with our colleagues. The two of us will be consulting with the chairman of the committee. I want to make it clear I am very anxious to accommodate the distinguished Senator from Texas.

First, Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North Dakota I very much support what the Senator is trying to do in terms of procedure. It is time to vote. As the Senator has said, whether 15 minutes or half an hour, people ought to get on to the task of voting.

After 8 years of discussing this eye-glazing subject of Internet taxes, we always cringe at the prospect of wading once more into this incredibly arcane area, so I will take a few minutes to talk about the definitions question with respect to Internet access. This is clearly the big hangup.

The Senator from North Dakota is here. He has been exceptionally cooperative, even though we have had different views on the subject over the last 8 years. I will take a couple of minutes to describe what the central concerns are with respect to working out the definition of the Internet access.

The concern on my part is, as the Alexander language is written today, in effect it will hide taxes on Internet access, No. 1; and, No. 2, it opens the door to multiple State and city taxes on the individual component parts the American people think of as Internet access. No Senator wants to do this. There is no Member of the Senate who gets up in the morning and says, I want to have thousands of new Internet taxes. However, the way the definition of the Alexander language is written today, it will, in fact, open up the opportunity to tax wireless Blackberry services, spam-filtering systems, Web hosting, and the like.

I will take a minute to touch on both of these concepts, the question of hiding the Internet taxes and the question of opening the entire Net to taxing the individual components. We will have to work through those two in order to do as the Senator from North Dakota has suggested--get this done as we have done on several occasions.

With respect to the hiding of taxes, it comes in the overall bill the consumer receives. We already see this in jurisdictions, for example, that tax DSL. Right now, I believe we are discriminating against the future. Right now cabling, in effect, gets a free ride. DSL gets taxed in a number of jurisdictions. This has special impact for my friend from North Dakota and me because DSL, of course, is the way we will get broadband into rural areas. The way that tax shows up, of course, is in the overall bill. It is just in the overall bill.

So unless we get equity for DSL relative to cable, what is going to happen in America is the Internet tax will be hidden in the overall kind of bill, and the consumer will just see, in Oregon and North Dakota and everywhere else, a higher bill for broadband than they would see right now for cable, and that would be continued.

So we absolutely, in the area of definitions, have to have technological neutrality. That is what we began with 8 years ago when we said everything that happens online is the same thing that is going to happen offline. To get the technological neutrality this time, we have to say that DSL does not get hammered and cable gets a free ride.

Here is an example. I want to offer this to my colleagues because I think it also highlights again our concern with respect to the definitions in the Alexander language and how it opens the opportunity for additional taxes. The Alexander language stipulates there be no tax on services used to ``connect the purchaser of Internet access to the Internet access provider.'' But nowhere in that language is the term ``connect'' defined.

Does it mean that Internet access ends where a computer hooks into the phoneline? Does it mean where the phoneline reaches the central office or where the line makes its first point of presence on the Net? So the term ``connect'' without any definition is simply uncharted territory, and it would again, in my view, allow States and cities to tax Internet access, again, through a kind of hidden approach that is going to keep the consumer from doing what I and the Senator from North Dakota have always tried to do in the consumer protection area: give consumers access to information and make sure there is truth in billing so they can actually choose between various technologies that best assist them.

With respect to the question of the Alexander legislation opening up the door to multiple State and city taxes on the individual components people think of as Internet access, we now have 391 separate taxes on telecommunications administered in 10,000 jurisdictions. The fact is, States tax different technology platforms for Internet access in different ways. So we have a cable modem platform, we have a traditional landline, we have a wireless dial-up in DSL, and, of course, satellites.

The Alexander proposal says that DSL is not Internet access but a telecommunications service, and, in effect, we would then see DSL further taxed. I think that would eliminate the competitive playing field that has always been the point of this exercise for now 8 years. To me, to just force people, particularly in rural areas--in the rural areas I care about and the Senator from North Dakota cares about--to face this discrimination against broadband is particularly troubling.

So I know this is exceptionally complicated material, and Senators have been barraged by all sides on this over the last few days. I have tried to outline how the revenue projections we have discussed over the last 8 years, with the States and localities saying they were going to lose vast amounts of revenue, have not come true. I have talked about how this is an effort, in this iteration of the Internet tax freedom bill, to essentially update our original law with respect to technology. But it is, as the Senator from North Dakota has correctly said, a question of definitions. So this concept, as I have outlined with respect to the Alexander language, in terms of how you would connect the purchaser of Internet access--without that being defined means you can expose jurisdictions to multiple forms of taxation. Then there is the question of hiding the Internet tax, which is what the Alexander proposal will do, because companies do not eat these costs; the companies end up passing them to the consumer.

So what will happen, all over this country--in North Dakota and Oregon and across the country--is that people who order broadband, who essentially look to DSL for their broadband services, will just get a higher bill. They will get a higher bill than people who order broadband through cable. That is regrettable. It certainly violates the principle of technological neutrality.

I repeat, I think the Senator from North Dakota has been very constructive on this issue. We have gone through this water torture exercise now since late 1996, and I am very much prepared to do this once again. But clearly, with respect to these definitions, we have some major issues that have to be worked through.

I also point out, as the chairman of the Commerce Committee did yesterday and Senator Allen has as well, in 10 separate areas, as we worked even for the managers' amendment, we have made efforts to compromise on the definitions question. We have exempted a whole host of areas all of the sponsors felt should not be subjected to taxation. With respect particularly to voice over, the exciting area where phone calls are going to be made over the Internet, we have made it clear in this legislation, in the substitute the chairman of the Commerce Committee

is offering, that we would not change the status quo.

I have heard from California and others that somehow this is going to dramatically change the question of taxation for phone calls over the Internet. The McCain language clearly stipulates--clearly stipulates-- that in that area California and others have been so concerned about, there are no changes.

So I look forward to working with the Senator from North Dakota. I commend him for taking yet another crack, as he has done for 8 years with me, on this subject that I have been comparing to sort of prolonged root canal work. But we are going to get this done, and hopefully it will be this week.

Of course.

Mr. President, with respect to the architecture the Senator from North Dakota has described, people have already paid once. So this question of what is going to be done with respect to various aspects of the architecture is an interesting discussion for us to be pursuing in the Senate, and all of these various components and pieces of equipment, but people have already paid once. And with respect to Internet access, about which we have been concerned, it is almost like a carton of milk: You paid for the carton of milk once; you should not pay again if you are going to pour it on your cereal or something else.

The Senator from North Dakota has raised a question about funding for what is called the backbone of the communications system. But at the end of the day, the bottom line is, people have already paid once. What we want to do with this legislation is to say, on the question of Internet access, nothing about sales taxes and the like. The Senator from North Dakota knows once we get over this, we will have the next issue, which is the question of the streamlining of sales taxes. But with respect to the architecture the Senator from North Dakota has raised, the consumer has already paid once with respect to Internet access.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I still have the floor. I know the Senator from North Dakota wants to talk more about the architecture. The point that is being made with respect to broadband and that Senator McCain has touched on is if we now say the Alexander definitions go forward, broadband through DSL is going to be taxed. That is discrimination against the future. It is particularly burdensome for rural areas, the kind of areas I and the Senators from North Dakota and South Carolina represent. The fact is, you are not going to get broadband into small areas through cable. It is not economically efficient to do it. You are going to get broadband to rural areas through DSL.

I am prepared--once we make sure DSL is not singled out for discriminatory treatment, as it has been in a number of jurisdictions in the past--to work with the Senator from North Dakota and others to get this matter resolved.

Broadband through DSL is going to create a tremendous number of jobs. Brookings has said there are going to be hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment that come about through broadband DSL. The Senator from Arizona is correct in saying we don't have the problem now with respect to broadband exclusively because of taxes. But I can assure my colleagues we will in the future see this problem compounded if broadband secured through DSL is singled out for special treatment. Under the Alexander definition, that would be the case. That is unfortunate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as we move to conclusion of the debate on the question of Internet taxes and votes tomorrow, as has happened so often over the last 8 years that we have dealt with this issue, a lot of Senators have asked for some examples of how all this would work because it is obviously an extraordinarily complicated issue, and the terminology is pretty dense. What I wanted to do was give Senators a sense of what we are talking about.

Of course, under the McCain proposal, Senator Allen and I would simply say, with respect to Internet access, it is tax free. You have already paid for it. It is like buying a carton of milk. You have already paid for it once. You should not have to pay for it again when you pour it on your cereal. That is essentially what the McCain compromise would do.

The proposal offered by the Senator from Tennessee takes a very different kind of tack. I wanted to give a very specific example of how it would work and why I am opposed to what he has been advocating. The Senator from Tennessee, in his proposal, stipulates that there would be no taxes on services used ``to connect a purchaser of Internet access to the Internet access provider.''

That certainly sounds like a laudable goal and something everyone should support. But because the Senator from Tennessee nowhere defines what the word ``connect'' means, I am of the view that proposal alone means that scores of jurisdictions in our country would be able to subject a simple message, sent by a Blackberry via DSL, to scores of taxes.

I want to walk through exactly why I believe that. Let us say, for purposes of discussing an example, you send a Blackberry message via DSL from Providence, RI, to Portland, OR. You type your message in and you hit send.

The first connection--again, I am citing that because it is the language of the Alexander proposal--is with a cell tower in Providence. This would then be connected to a Verizon local phone line somewhere in the Northeast. Then it would be connected to a switch, again somewhere on the east coast. The message at that point is connected to AT&T at a network in one of their many facilities on the east coast. AT&T would then shoot the message across scores of States and connect it at a Qwest switch in Portland, in my home State. That Qwest switch then connects the message to a cell tower in Portland. And then, finally, it connects it to the friend in Portland.

The way that message is sent could involve as many as 100 different connections--the concept that is not defined in the Alexander proposal. But depending on how the word ``connect'' is defined--and it is not laid out anywhere in the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee--you could have hundreds of jurisdictions imposing taxes on the one message I have just described as being sent on a Blackberry from Providence, RI, to Portland, OR.

The reason why that is the case is the Alexander proposal states no taxes would be applied on services used to connect a purchaser of Internet to the Internet access provider. But in the example I just gave, what you would have is scores of jurisdictions across the country saying they are not the exempted connection. They would say they are not the exempted connection, and then they would be off to the races, in terms of imposing these special taxes.

So we are going to have a chance, I think tomorrow, to extend this debate a bit longer. I think people are going to be pretty close to ecstasy to have this debate wrap up, given how long it has gone. But I want to take a minute and try to recap what I think are the central kinds of questions.

From the very beginning, those who have been involved in this effort have tried to promote technological neutrality. We have come back again and again to say all we would like is to make sure that what happens in the offline world is applicable to the online world. We have said it does not make sense today to discriminate against the future, which is broadband delivered through DSL. Certainly, that would be the case if cable gets a free ride and DSL gets hammered.

I am of the view the message you get today under the Alexander proposal--instead of that message, ``you've got mail,'' the message will be ``you've got special taxes,'' and you will have those special taxes because terms like the one I have described this afternoon are not defined.

As I have talked about in the last couple of days, we have pointed out the revenue estimates, which are always so dire in terms of lost revenue on the part of the States and localities, and time after time-- and we have debated this in the last 8 years--those revenue projections have not come to pass. I know Senators and their staffs right now are being bombarded by some officials from State and local governments, saying they are going to lose

enormous amounts of money, and this is going to drain their revenue base, and it will have calamitous financial ramifications.

But as you listen to those projections--and I know they are pouring into Senators' offices--we have heard those arguments again and again, and they have not come to pass. I point out, for example--and I will quote--in 1997, the National Governors Association said the Internet Tax Freedom Act ``would cause the virtual collapse of the State and local revenue base.''

The chairman of the Commerce Committee worked with myself and Senator Stevens and others, and we passed the legislation. The Governors said that revenue base was going to collapse. But in the next year, local and State tax revenues were up $7.2 billion. That is one example from over the last 8 years and the journey we have had in the debate over this legislation.

The same thing happened in 2001. Those who opposed our legislation said: The growth of e-commerce represents a significant threat to State and local tax revenues and they might lose tax revenue in the neighborhood of $20 billion in 2003.

According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, State sales tax collections rose from $134.5 billion in 2001 to $160 billion in 2003, an increase of more than $25 billion in 2 years.

We heard again and again this would be devastating to mom-and-pop stores on Main Streets, and pretty much the Main Streets of Maine and Oregon would shrivel up because of the special fix that was provided for sales online. Over the entire period this law has been on the books, the number of sales online has gone up something like 1.5 percent. It has been a tiny fraction of our economy.

The fact is, the major development over the 8 years we have had this legislation on the books is we have essentially seen most of our businesses go to ``bricks and clicks.'' If you walk on the streets of Maine, or the streets of Oregon, our smallest businesses so often are able to expand their sales because they have a significant online component, and people from all over the world can shop at a small store in Maine or Oregon. I think as the Chair will note, these small stores don't have big advertising budgets. They cannot send people all over the world to market their products. Because of the Internet, they are in a position to have a global marketplace. So major development in this field, rather than wiping out Main Street stores, has helped them.

Senator Leahy brought in a small merchant from Vermont who talked to us specifically about the extraordinary gains they have been able to make as a result of the convenience provided by Internet shopping, which will certainly be harmed if the Alexander legislation were to pass.

I imagine we will continue to pummel this subject a bit more tomorrow. Having been involved in this issue for 8 years, I think it is fair to say the decision the Senate makes on this subject will say a whole lot about the future of the Internet. We learned this morning, as the chairman of the Commerce Committee pointed out, we are already lagging behind in terms of broadband investment. That is the wave of the future. I think small towns in Maine and in Oregon--when we talk about access, for example, to the Net and new technology, it is not going to come about through cable, because cable is going to be very reluctant to make those major investments in small towns, such as those that the distinguished Presiding Officer represents, and my small towns. It is going to come about essentially through broadband, delivered via DSL, and the fact is, today, DSL in many jurisdictions is singled out for special and discriminatory treatment. If we were to not update the law, that would be a trend that would be sure to accelerate.

So I think this is going to be an extremely important vote tomorrow. This is a law that has worked. I will wrap up with this one comment I have mentioned to colleagues, as we have talked about this over the years. I have not found a single jurisdiction anywhere that can point to an example of how they have been hurt by their inability to discriminate against the Internet. That is all we have sought to do over the last 7 years. We said treat the Internet as you treat the offline world. When we started, that was not the case. If you bought a paper the traditional way in a number of jurisdictions, you would pay no taxes. If you bought the online edition of that very same paper, you would pay a tax. That was not technologically neutral. So we passed the first Internet tax freedom bill to deal with that kind of example.

For over more than 5 years, this is a law that has worked. Under the McCain compromise that we will vote on tomorrow, we would simply be updating that law to incorporate the kinds of technologies that evolved over the last few years.

I wanted to make sure tonight that people understood with a specific example of a message that would go from Providence, RI, to Portland, OR, how the vagueness in terms of the definitions in the Alexander legislation would, in my view, subject a simple message sent by BlackBerry via DSL to scores of new taxes. I cannot believe any Senator would want that to happen, and that is why I am hopeful we will get support for the McCain compromise and be able to move forward to final passage of the legislation.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, most American companies make their profit by selling the best product at the best price. But too often in the oil industry it just doesn't seem to work that way. For example, oil companies can even get a subsidy from the Federal taxpayers for shutting down a profitable oil refinery by deducting the cost of that shutdown from their taxes.

I come to the floor today because I hope Congress will put a stop to the perverse incentives that reward oil companies when they reduce the supply of gasoline and gouge our consumers at the pump. In my view, the Tax Code simply should not reward companies that shut down a refinery to reduce the supply and drive up the price of gasoline. My own view is that Congress ought to be providing incentives to oil companies that increase their production, as long as they comply with the applicable environmental law.

I think we are all pleased when we see corporate profits go up, and we are all pleased when the stocks of those companies go up as well. But what I am troubled about with respect to what is going on in the oil industry--and we are going to see profits up again this week, and I gather some have already been announced--is that too often our consumers are getting hosed.

I have been traveling about Oregon over the last few weeks. I have watched as gasoline prices hit over $2 per gallon in some towns. In Eugene, Springfield, Medford, and Ashland--a number of our communities--the average price has been $2.06 per gallon. Each penny of that cost is coming out of the pockets of working Oregonians. It is, of course, helping to increase oil company profits. What I am troubled about is that the taxpayers at the same time are subsidizing practices that are detrimental to their interests.

There has clearly been a pattern of extraordinary profits in the oil industry. A prime example was ExxonMobil, which last year announced an all-time record earnings of $21.5 billion. That is not just the highest earnings ever recorded by an oil company; that is the highest by any company in history.

Again, I want it understood that I like to see our companies make profits. I like it when their stock prices are high. What I don't like is when the consumer has to subsidize anti-competitive practices that are detrimental to their interests. That has certainly been the case with respect to refineries, when an oil company gets an actual subsidy from the Federal taxpayers for shutting down a profitable refinery by deducting the cost of the shutdown from their taxes.

This matter has special implications out in the West. I see my friend from Nevada on the floor. He made an excellent presentation with respect to how his State is affected by gasoline prices. All of us in the West are going to be hit, and hit very hard, by Shell's decision to close its Bakersfield refinery. In that instance, there seems to be no evidence that Shell has gone out and aggressively tried to find a buyer.

Independent analysts have made it clear there is a substantial amount of oil in the area. I will tell you, for those of us in the West, looking at that refinery closure in Bakersfield, that deal smells. It just doesn't add up to have a profitable refinery going down at a time when the company doesn't look as if it is moving aggressively to find a buyer. There is oil in the area and, as I have pointed out, the taxpayer subsidizes the closures of these profitable refineries. Yet the Federal Trade Commission has refused to act.

I hope to be on the floor very shortly with a bipartisan effort to address the anti-consumer practices. At a minimum, let us not have the taxpayers of America subsidizing anti-competitive practices in the oil industry, such as the shutdown of profitable refineries.

I will be happy to yield.

The Senator from Nevada is correct. The fact is the Federal Trade Commission is AWOL on this issue. It has sent letters to all of us in the West saying they are concerned about the issue, but they have not been aggressive in standing up for the consumer.

I pointed out today that the oil companies ought to be rewarded financially when they take actions that benefit the consumer, not when they gouge the consumer. The consumers today are, in effect, getting fleeced from this unfair subsidy that is in the Tax Code when a profitable refinery goes down.

The Senator from Nevada is absolutely correct. The Federal Trade Commission, in my view, is just going through the motions. I think they hope somehow this issue is going to pass. All of us in the West--a part of the country where there is a very tight supply situation--understand this problem is not going away. I intend to join with the Senator from Nevada in trying to put the heat on the Federal Trade Commission.

I agree fully with the Senator from Nevada. In fact, I submitted a resolution urging the President do that. In fact, my resolution mirrors the resolution that was drafted by our former colleagues, Spence Abraham and John Ashcroft, that passed in 2000 when President Clinton was faced with the same kind of situation.

I am very hopeful that the Senate will take up that resolution and do exactly as the Senator from Nevada has said.

I also point out that it was very striking, even before this debate about Mr. Woodward's book, that the Saudi Foreign Minister said recently when they cut production--and he was quoted on the news services saying that he was not even contacted by the Bush administration. He heard that the Bush administration was disappointed from the press, but he was not even contacted by the Bush administration.

If ever there were an administration that had earned some chips with the Saudis, given all that our country has done, this is an administration that has done so. I think the points made by the Senator from Nevada are extremely important.

Mr. President, I believe my time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I appreciate the Senator yielding. He has been very gracious.

Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator a question because I have the sense that the Senator from Tennessee thinks we ought to just use the 1998 definition of Internet access. Is that correct? Is that what the Senator from Tennessee is saying?

What concerns me is that both the 1998 definition and the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee essentially discriminates against the future because the future is about broadband, particularly for rural areas, for job creation, and highly skilled jobs. If you use the 1998 definition, or essentially the Senator's proposal for just Internet access--I emphasis that is all we are talking about, Internet access--what you will have is a situation where folks could get Internet access through cable and those folks end up essentially getting a free ride. But if you get the Internet access and future DSL, you are going to get taxed.

That is why Senator McCain and I and others would like to essentially continue the 7-year path we have had which is to promote technological neutrality--not to advantage one technology against another.

On the question of Internet access, which is what the President talked about yesterday where he said he doesn't want to see Internet access get taxed, that is what is in the McCain proposal. That is what I was trying to do. Unfortunately, that is not in the Senator's proposal or in the 1998 definition.

What will happen is this country will have the technology policy that discriminates against the future and discriminates against the field in which it is going to create highly skilled jobs.

By the way, cable isn't going to be serving those rural areas. It is going to be broadband and DSL which serves them.

I very much appreciate the Senator from Arizona yielding me this time. We have clarified an important concept. Both in the 1998 definition that the Senator from Tennessee said he would

be for or his compromise, in my view, would have the Senate taking a position with respect to the future of the Internet and with respect to the future of technology that would not be in the public interest.

I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding me the time.

I wrap up by way of saying I am going to continue to work with the Senator from Tennessee who has been very thoughtful and generous with his time. We can find a common ground.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, again, I want to make it clear to the Senator from Tennessee, I am anxious to work with him. But what we have seen, essentially, in this iteration of the debate, is a dusting off of the same arguments we have heard on the floor of the Senate in the past, that somehow this is going to result in extraordinary losses of revenue.

For example, in 1997, we were told by a number of the organizations at the State and local level that this was going to produce massive losses of revenue. In fact, the exact quote is: Our efforts, the efforts of Senator McCain and I, and others, in 1997, would lead to a collapse of the State and local revenue system. The very next year, the year after we passed our first moratorium on multiple and discriminatory Internet taxes, we saw revenue go up $7 billion. So we have had essentially all of these dire projections, these calamitous projections year after year--and I put them all in the Record--and they have not come to pass.

The reason they have not come to pass is that nobody is talking about the Internet getting a free ride. All we have said, from the very beginning, is that under this legislation you have to treat the online world like you treat the offline world.

When I came to the floor of the Senate with the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee on this more than 7 years ago--and folks probably found this subject even more difficult then than they do now; I know that is hard to believe--we said: Look, if you buy the newspaper--essentially ``snail mail''--you are not paying any taxes, but if you buy the newspaper in the interactive edition, you pay a tax.

That was discriminatory. All we have tried to do over the last 7 years is essentially keep that principle in place and allow it to evolve with the technology. So for 7 years this has been about technology neutrality and dealing with these questions of State and local finance. The States have not lost money as a result of our making sure that you are not going to see multiple and discriminatory taxes on Internet access.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I believe this time should be taken from the time allocated to Chairman McCain.

Mr. President, Chairman McCain, I and others who have worked on this effort to try to find common ground thought it was important early on to begin efforts to find some areas of agreement that would bring the sides together. Let me outline 10 particular areas of compromise we have essentially offered in the managers' proposal.

I, for example, strongly believe there should be a permanent ban on multiple and discriminatory taxes on Internet access. But in the name of trying to find a compromise, now we have a 4-year moratorium. We have a 3-year phaseout of the grandfather clause. This was something that was important to the States. We have a 2-year grandfather of taxes on DSL. Again, as I talked earlier, that is the technology of the future.

A fourth compromise reflects the concern about voiceover. What we have done is clarified that our legislation is not going to affect taxation of voice communication services utilizing the voiceover Internet protocol. We have clarified the taxes that would be covered, addressed a number of concerns the States had with respect to income and property taxes. We want to make sure those taxes, those opportunities for State and local revenue are protected.

We clarified the House language on DSL which was something State and local groups complained was too open-ended and vague.

With respect to the bundling of services, States and localities asked for a clear and uniform accounting rule. We protected universal services. We protected e-911 taxes, and we also made clear nontax regulatory powers would not be affected.

I thank the chairman for this time. I only wanted the Senate to know that as you tried to bring both sides together, there were 10 specific areas of compromise that were offered. I thank him for the time.

Will my colleague yield?

I want to make sure I understand this. Cable already pays a franchise fee when the streets are torn up in order to offer cable. My understanding of this amendment is that now there would be a new special tax for right-of-way for the very same service.

In effect, my reading of this is that cable would be taxed twice. They already get hit with a franchise fee and now your right-of-way provision would allow for a new special fee, which troubles me, again, because it has been our point all along through Internet access that you have already paid once.

Could my colleague from Texas clarify? Otherwise, I would have to strongly oppose this.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, this week the Senate will spend most of its time on the question of taxation of the Internet. Having been the principal sponsor of the legislation on this subject in the Senate twice, I would be the first to say this subject inherently is about as interesting as prolonged root canal work. But at the same time, I think it is fair to say the decisions the Senate makes with respect to this subject will say a whole lot about the future of the Internet.

For example, the decisions will determine, to some extent, whether e- mail

and spam filters and Google searches and Web sites and instant messaging are singled out for discriminatory tactics. The Senate is going to have to make some decisions about whether Internet access through cable is tax free, but consumers who choose DSL Internet access would get taxed.

I wanted to take just a few minutes this afternoon to go through some of the history with respect to this issue, and particularly suggest that I think the key, as the Senate takes up this subject, is to keep in mind two principles that have been important to me.

First has been the question of technological neutrality. I think it is absolutely key that as the Senate looks to make technology a policy that we ensure there is fair treatment and true competition among all of the various technologies that drive decisions in this field.

I say to the President pro tempore of the Senate, I can recall when we were looking at this legislation initially, and the Senator from Alaska was enormously helpful to me. What we found out was, for example, early on, if you bought the Wall Street Journal in some States and you got the interactive edition, you paid a big tax, but if you bought it the traditional way, through snail mail, for example, there was no tax. That, it seemed to me, was not technologically neutral. That did not ensure we would have competition in the greatest possible way to benefit the consumer, and that was very much at the heart of my concern as I authored in the Senate the first internet tax freedom bill.

The second concern that was foremost in my mind was the question of how this would affect our States and localities with respect to revenue. At that time, we had a number of Governors, mayors, county officials, and others expressing tremendous concern with respect to revenue. I have always tried to take those concerns very seriously. That is why I wanted to outline some of what was said during the years when those early bills were debated because I think we are going to have a repeat of those discussions.

To some extent, some of the State and local officials who raised concerns about the revenue impact of what we did during the first two iterations of the internet tax freedom bill have dusted off the arguments and, in effect, brought them to the Senate again.

To go through some of the history, if I might, back in 1997, the National Governors Association, an organization I tremendously respect, said the Internet Tax Freedom Act would ``cause the virtual collapse of the State and local revenue base.'' But the record shows that the following year, State and local sales tax revenues were up $7.2 billion.

Let me repeat that. We were told in 1997 that we would have a virtual collapse of the State and local revenue base. The following year, we saw a significant increase in local and State tax revenues.

In 2001, when we dealt with the issue again, opponents said:

The growth of e-commerce represents a significant threat to

State and local tax revenues and they might lose tax revenue

in the neighborhood of $20 billion in 2003.

Once again, the record shows otherwise. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, State sales tax collections rose from $134.5 billion in 2001 to $160.4 billion in 2003, an increase of more than $15 billion in just 2 years.

We saw this pattern continue in 1998 as well when the National League of Cities said:

A tax-free Internet would place Main Street retailers at

competitive disadvantage and would doom the sales tax.

But e-commerce still only represented 1.6 percent of total retail sales in 2003, while brick-and-mortar retail sales grew from $2.6 trillion in 1998 to $3.4 trillion in 2003, according to the Commerce Department.

In three instances with respect to projections by the National Governors Association, the National Association of State Budget Officers, and the National League of Cities, as the Senate dealt with the two iterations of the tax freedom bill, when this body was told that tremendous amounts of revenue would be lost, in each instance, as I have just documented this afternoon, actual revenues collected went up rather than revenues going down.

The reason I have taken the time to go through that is I am sure during the course of this week, we are going to hear the same kinds of projections. We are going to see State and local officials come and say if the Senate reauthorizes this law that has been reauthorized twice, pretty much Western civilization is going to come to an end. They are going to say they are going to be in dire straits with respect to the funds they are going to need for critical services and that they will find all form of financial calamity.

I am very interested in addressing those concerns. I have great empathy for the challenge of funding State and local services, but I just want the Senate to know, and why I am focusing on this point at the start of the debate, that again and again over the last 7 years, as this debate has gone forward, the Senate has been given these projections about calamitous losses to our States and localities if the internet tax freedom bill is passed, and as I have pointed out, in instance after instance, revenue has gone up rather than down.

I think it is fair to say that all of these technologies, in the issue of whether someone gets internet access over DSL or whether they obtain it through cable, are complicated. That is why I, Senator Allen, Senator McCain, and others who have worked on this issue have tried to spend time talking to all concerns. Frankly, we have made a number of changes in an effort to try to accommodate the issues brought up by those who do not share our view.

For example, we have in several instances tightened definitions of Internet access that have been raised. We have agreed to a request for new statutory language on what is called bundling, where various technologies are bundled together. We have added language to protect a host of taxes for States and localities, such as property and income taxes that have never been affected by the original legislation, but because there was concern on the part of States and localities, we wanted to drive home our intent not to have these areas taxed.

We have also agreed to a request for provisions to protect universal service, regulatory proceedings, and we also agreed to deal with some requests from States for what is called grandfathering so as to protect existing sources of revenue.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure that consumers who now hear the message ``You've got mail'' don't get a message, ``You've got special taxes.'' That is what this issue has always been about. It is clear from the history of this legislation that we do not want the Internet to get preferential treatment, nor do we want it singled out for discriminatory treatment. That is what I sought to do when we began this debate late in 1996. I pointed out, for example, how a newspaper that was purchased online would be taxed, but a newspaper that was purchased in the traditional way would not be taxed. That is not technological neutrality.

That is what the sponsors of this legislation are seeking to protect. The alternative that several of our colleagues are interested in would take a very different approach. That alternative would essentially break up Internet access into individual components so that if they chose to do so, States and localities could tax each one of those components.

Under that, for example, Internet consumers could be subjected to close to 400 separate telecommunications taxes, administered by something like 10,000 different jurisdictions.

In effect, each piece of e-mail, the filtering systems that families use to block pornography and spam and each Web site, each blackberry message conceivable is exposed to tax by scores of jurisdictions. Each town that chooses to do so could tax the e-mail flowing through its phone or cable lines even if the e-mail was not being sent from or to someone in the jurisdiction. I think it is fair to say if even a modest portion of the jurisdictions that could impose these taxes chose to do so, we would be talking about a massive increase in the cost of Internet access to every consumer in America.

What I think this is really all about is that the States and localities essentially see the Internet as the last cash cow in the pasture. In effect, they have been barred by the courts from going after phone sales. They have been barred by the courts from going after

mail order. So now along comes the Internet, and the Internet is being seen as an enormous cash opportunity.

The fact is, Internet sales in 2003 are still only 1.6 percent of total retail sales. They grew at a far more modest rate than brick and mortar sales grew over the last few years, but that is not even the central point.

All of us understand the value of the Internet as a tool for businesses and communication and to improve health care and extend cultural opportunities. The Chair and I share a State with mostly small towns and folks who have to go great distances, and the Internet is one of the best tools, if not the ideal tool, for compensating for major distances from commercial centers and major population centers.

So I hope my colleagues will think through the history I have outlined with respect to the revenue protections and the question of whether vast amounts of revenue are going to be lost because I think the record shows those dire projections to State and localities have not come to pass.

I hope my colleagues will also see the principle of technological neutrality that I sought 7 years ago still is a sound one and one that the Senate ought to preserve. It does not make sense to me to say, for example, that cable Internet access ought to be tax free and then stick it to consumers who choose DSL Internet access.

So we are going to be dealing with these issues over the course of the week, but I wanted to take a few minutes to make clear that we are going to be protecting the States and localities from property and income taxes and telecommunications carriers. They are concerned about it. We agreed to their proposal to deal with what is called bundling to make sure that Internet service providers cannot hide from tax services that would otherwise be subject to bundling. We narrowed the definition of Internet access so as to try to find common ground.

States and localities were concerned about sweeping up all telecommunication services into Internet access so that no telecommunication service could be taxed. The changes in definitions that we made narrowed the definition and ensured that the Senate would still keep up with the significant technological developments in the field.

The bill ensures that all platforms, whether dial-up, digital subscriber lines, cable mode, satellite, wireless, or any other technology platform, as well as the components used to provide Internet access, would be covered by the moratorium.

So I think we are going to have an important debate this week. I expect to spend a fair amount of time on the Senate floor as we discuss it. This has never been a partisan issue. I have worked on this legislation with Chairman McCain and with Senator Allen over the last few years since he has come to the Senate. I think ultimately the decisions that the Senate makes are going to say a whole lot about where the Senate wants Internet to go in the future.

I cannot believe the Senate wants to subject e-mail, blackberries, and a variety of technologies to scores of new and discriminatory taxes. That is what this debate has always been about: should the Internet be subject to discriminatory taxation. If a jurisdiction, for example, taxes brick And mortar sales, they can tax sales online and through the Internet in exactly the same kind of fashion.

I hope the Senate can find common ground on this legislation this week and continue a law that has worked. I am proud to be able to have been a part of this consideration over the last 7 years, and I hope we can pass reauthorization for a third time so as to promote true competition between all technologies in a fashion that ensures that this idea of technological neutrality we had 7 years ago is preserved, and to do it as we have sought to do so that the dire revenue projections we will hear this week about States losing vast amounts of money will not come true as they have not come true over the last 7 years.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the distinguished Senator from Virginia yield for a question?

I thank my colleague for an excellent presentation.

Is it not correct that in the late 1990s we heard the same kind of arguments we are hearing today, that the States and localities would be bereft of revenue, and there would be financial calamity? Is it not correct in 1997, 1998, the National Governors Association said the State and local revenue system would collapse, and that very next year revenue went up something like $7 billion? Was that not the history all through this debate over the last 6 or 7 years, that we have had the projections from State and local officials that there would be disastrous financial consequences, and then you and I and Senator Sununu would look a short time later, and every single time revenue went up; is that correct?

Mr. President, on March 10, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Stephen Johnson to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I did this because I had been trying to obtain information concerning EPA's decision to become involved with the City of Portland combined sewer overflow program since last August. Despite numerous requests, EPA failed to answer my questions and failed to provide me with the documents I had requested, with the exception of a limited number of documents that EPA

would have to provide to any requester under the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

Today, I am releasing my hold on Mr. Steve Johnson to acknowledge that EPA has made a good faith effort to provide documents on the Portland sewer situation since I placed a hold on his nomination. Although I am lifting my hold on Mr. Johnson, I remain troubled by EPA's policy for withholding documents from Members of the Senate and the Environment and Public Works Committee, in particular. I believe the EPA position on this critical issue is contrary to the law and the controlling court decisions. I have also voiced my concern that EPA policy would mean the end of Congressional oversight. I believe that Senators should not be forced to place holds on nominees in order to obtain documents they need to conduct their oversight duties as members of the committee with primary responsibility for oversight of EPA.

I will lift my hold on Mr. Johnson's nomination today to acknowledge recent EPA efforts to respond to my requests. I will also be monitoring EPA cooperation in responding to my requests for information in the future. And if EPA again tries to stonewall as it did to my requests for information on the Portland sewers, I will put a hold on other EPA nominations if that is what it takes to get the agency's attention and cooperation.

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

Mr. President, like you, I was home over the last few days and very much enjoyed being with you, and I particularly enjoyed the honor we received from the Classroom Law Project. It has been a tremendous privilege to be able to team up with you on those kinds of initiatives.

I want to discuss one of the issues about which I heard a great deal and I am sure you did as well when we were home. Gas prices in Oregon have now hit an all-time high. Over this past weekend, folks in Eugene and Medford in particular were paying more than $2 a gallon. Of course in our State this works a tremendous economic hardship. Folks have to drive long distances in many communities, and particularly for small businesses it is of tremendous economic concern at this time.

In light of what I saw last night on the news program ``60 Minutes,'' I want to talk for a few moments about a resolution I have introduced recently calling on President Bush to put some real heat on the Saudis and OPEC to increase oil production in order to help the kind of people I saw over this last week in Oregon who are getting mugged at the gas pump.

When I introduced this resolution recently, to put some real pressure, a full-court press on OPEC to increase oil production, I wrote a resolution that mirrored what a number of our colleagues offered during the years when Bill Clinton was President.

There was an objection to the Senate considering my resolution to start putting some pressure on OPEC and the Saudis to increase production. It seems to me given what a lot of us saw on ``60 Minutes'' last night, I hope some of our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle would now reconsider my resolution and reconsider their objection to it.

In an interview last night on the CBS news magazine, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward talked about the substance of a reported conversation between our President and Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar. Reading a portion of Mr. Woodward's new book, correspondent Mike Wallace said last night, ``Bandar wanted Bush to know that the Saudis hoped to fine-tune oil prices to prime the economy 2004. What was key, Bandar understood, were the economic conditions before a Presidential election.''

I want to start my discussion this afternoon with the question, Should the United States allow a foreign power to decide our Nation's energy security? Certainly this is a troubling question.

It seems to me the pieces of the gas price puzzle are beginning to come together. I will tell you that I believe it forms a very troubling picture.

On March 31, the New York Times reported a senior official in an OPEC country as having said the United States is placing ``very little'' pressure on the oil cartel to increase gas prices. The Saudi official continued by saying of OPEC's discussions with the United States, ``We're telling them, keep your mouth shut.''

Days later, OPEC moved to ratify a 1-million-barrel-per-day production cut that would further drive up gasoline prices in our country. The Reuters news service then reported the Saudi Foreign Minister was asked whether the United States had expressed any disappointment over OPEC's production cut. The Saudi Foreign Minister said, ``I didn't hear from this Bush administration. I'm hearing it from you that they are disappointed.''

Last night on ``60 Minutes,'' Bob Woodward told us the Saudi Ambassador indicated to the President that ``certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.''

I can understand why the Saudis would want to cut production right before the heavy summer driving season, the period that is coming upon us. The Saudis want to boost their profits. I have always said OPEC is going to stand up for OPEC. Anybody who thinks OPEC stands up for the American consumer thinks Colonel Sanders stands up for chickens.

I understand the Saudis and that country are going to be interested in everything that will boost their profits. I can understand why any President would want gas prices to be low with an election coming fast. But what about what the American families want?

We know what the Saudis want. We know about the climate before a Presidential election. While the Saudis count the profits and the President counts on the word of the Saudis, American consumers are counting out more and more of their hard-earned dollars just to fill up at the gas pump.

When the market opened this morning, U.S. crude oil futures were $37.74 a barrel, which is about $8.50--or about 30 percent--higher than a year ago.

As I noted over this last weekend, Oregon families were paying an all-time high for gasoline. A number of our communities have seen prices of over $2 a gallon.

With gas prices through the roof, the administration should have pressured OPEC ahead of the cartel's planned reduction cut, and the President should have used his relationship with the Saudis to bring relief to American consumers.

Let me repeat that. You have the prices soaring through the roof. You have the administration with an opportunity ahead of time to put pressure on OPEC ahead of their planned production cut. Certainly the President has had the kind of relationship with the Saudis that would ensure they listen seriously, and yet we saw this morning's report indicating the White House had different priorities when it came to gasoline prices, OPEC, and the Saudis.

My view is there just isn't any substitute for leadership when our families are hurting financially. Unfortunately, we haven't seen it in recent days.

I call on the Senate once again to send a clear message that the American people come first. The President ought to be using his relationship with the Saudis to help reduce gasoline prices now--not at a time of his choosing or the Saudis' choosing. It ought to be at a time when it best meets the needs of our consumers, and that is right now.

I ask the Senate to once again consider my simple resolution. It parallels the one that was authored by our friends and colleagues now in the Cabinet, Senator Abraham and Senator Ashcroft, who were then serving in this distinguished body. The resolution I authored mirrors theirs to bring pressure to bear on OPEC and the Saudis to increase production. The Senate ought to be able to act at least as quickly on my resolution as it did on the one that passed in 2000. That was good enough

for President Clinton, and it ought to be good enough for this President.

As I noted, we have had a number of our former colleagues in support of it. The previous resolution was introduced on February 28, 2000, and was passed on March 27. I am very hopeful with crude oil prices at a 13-year record high the Senate will now apply the same principle in this administration that was applied in the Clinton administration. We ought to say on a bipartisan basis that every American President ought to have a full-court press in place in order to stand up for the consumer, to stand up to OPEC, and to speak up for our families who are getting clobbered at the gas pumps.

In conclusion, this morning I noted the White House had no comment on the Saudi promise to cut oil prices. They said, Well, you can ask Prince Bandar, and essentially said they weren't going to get involved.

I will say based on what I heard this weekend that standing on the sidelines isn't good enough. This is an area that the Senate ought to come together on in a bipartisan basis, the way it did in 2000. It is a key part of I think a comprehensive strategy to hold down gasoline prices.

I have been trying to get the Federal Trade Commission off the sidelines. Certainly a lot of these refinery shutdowns smell because they look more to be boosting profits than boosting competition. But today I come to the floor of the Senate, given that very troubling report last night on ``60 Minutes'' and say I think there needs to be a full-court press and a comprehensive push on OPEC in order to lower gasoline prices.

We have seen this troubling issue raised in the last 24 hours which makes me feel the question of how much pressure is being put on OPEC and when it is being put doesn't seem to be done in a way that is going to best get relief to the American consumer. The American consumer deserves to have a White House that is pushing now and pushing hard to get relief for the consumer at the gas pumps.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their objection to my resolution to urge OPEC to increase production and increase it quickly so it can be passed by this body on a bipartisan basis as soon as possible.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in the last few days, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia has said--and it has been widely reported by our country's two largest wire services--that Saudi Arabia was not contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's recent decision to cut oil production by 1 million barrels per day. I was very troubled by these comments by the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. I want to read specifically what the Saudi Foreign Minister said when he was asked whether the United States had expressed its disappointment over OPEC's cut in oil production. The Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia said:

I didn't hear from the Bush administration. I'm hearing it

from you that they are disappointed.

This ought to be troubling to every Member of the Senate. Up and down the west coast of the United States, our constituents are getting mugged by high gasoline prices. In community after community, citizens are paying more than $1.90 a gallon. The high driving season is just upon us, and escalating gasoline prices are going to be devastating to consumers and to our economy overall. We all understand consumer spending is a major driver of our economy today, and it is going to be harder and harder to grow the economy and create private sector jobs if these gasoline prices continue to skyrocket.

I am hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the resolution I have introduced urging that OPEC increase production. The reason I am hopeful for bipartisan support is that this resolution, in terms of its substance, is identical to one introduced on February 28, 2000, with our current Secretary of Energy, our friend, Spence Abraham, as one of the principal sponsors. Back then it was clear that our colleagues thought it was important, and we had a number of our colleagues who serve today, our friend Senator Grassley, distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Santorum, and others, all of whom said--and I share their view--that it is important for every administration to put the heat on OPEC in order to protect our consumers. It was important then to make it clear that it was the position of the U.S. Senate that OPEC boost oil production, and it is just as clear now.

At the time that resolution was adopted in March 2000, a resolution sponsored by then-Senators Abraham and Ashcroft, oil prices were in the $25-per-barrel range with a high of $27 per barrel in February of 2000. In recent weeks, oil prices have been in the range of $35 per barrel, spiking up to $38, a 13-year high, last month.

In 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush said it was important to put pressure on OPEC to boost oil production. I certainly share his sentiments. Yet with the comments of the Saudi Foreign Minister last week, it is clear that at best, there has not been a full court press in this administration on Saudi Arabia, on OPEC in order to increase gasoline production.

If ever there were an administration that had earned some bargaining chips to push Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, it is this administration. After 9/11, there was an effort to help the Saudis, a number of them, leave our country. When there was concern about charities and the role that charities had played in financing 9/11, it

was difficult to get key Government documents declassified.

The fact is that Saudi Arabia keeps getting a free pass again and again. On this issue with respect to oil production, if ever there were an administration that had some bargaining chips to play in trying to get OPEC and the Saudis to increase oil production, it is certainly this administration. Now the Saudi Foreign Minister has said, just after OPEC announced another million-barrel-per-day production cut, it was not even contacted by the Bush administration to keep oil production high.

There are other troubling signs which have led me to introduce this resolution. When Secretary Powell was in Saudi Arabia about 2 weeks ago, he also had a chance to talk about the oil crunch and how it is so harmful to the American consumer. The press release that came from the U.S. Information Agency--this is another document coming from our Government--indicated that the Secretary and the Crown Prince and Foreign Minister talked about a number of subjects--terrorism, governmental reforms, a variety of issues--but not the question of oil prices and keeping oil production high.

I have said that OPEC is going to stand up for OPEC. Anybody who thinks OPEC is going to stand up for the American consumer thinks Colonel Sanders is going to stand up for the chickens. OPEC is doing what they think is in their self-interest. If you think they are going to stand up for the consumer, it is a delusion; it is not going to happen. But it is the job of our administration, just as it was in 2000, to stick up for the consumer who is getting clobbered with these gasoline prices.

When the Saudi Foreign Minister says he hasn't even been contacted on this question of boosting oil production, I say that is not good enough. That is not good enough, given the harm it has done to our economy and our consumers by these gasoline price hikes. It is certainly not good enough for the people of Oregon, where consistently we have paid some of the highest gasoline prices in our country.

The American people are entitled to some answers. Certainly, they are entitled to an administration, just as they were in 2000, that does what then-Governor George W. Bush says was important, and that was to push OPEC, put the heat on OPEC, have a full court press on OPEC to increase oil production. Instead, what we have learned from the Saudi Foreign Minister in recent days is that the administration has essentially sat on its hands with respect to this oil production issue.

I will tell you, I think what is coming on this gasoline situation is a perfect storm. The combination of the shenanigans by OPEC--the fact that we are filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the wrong time, swiping oil from the private market, squirreling it away in the reserve at a time when we have enough for our national security needs; the fact that the Federal Trade Commission is not following up on anticompetitive practices--are the factors that are going to come together for a perfect storm with respect to this gasoline issue.

I think it is critically important this Senate go on record on an issue we can do something about, just as we did in 2000 when we were led by a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in making an effort to boost oil production. We ought to do the same now and stand up for the American consumer.

I have introduced S. Res. 330, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carper, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Daschle be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I also want to make sure our colleagues understand the timetable that is behind my resolution. On February 28, 2000, then-Senators Ashcroft and Abraham introduced a resolution calling on President Clinton to pressure OPEC to boost oil production before an OPEC meeting. That resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

On June 22, 2000, then-candidate George Bush said:

I would hope the administration would convince our friends

at OPEC to open the spigots.

On February 10, 2004, our current Secretary of Energy said:

[It is] very clear we are not going to beg OPEC for oil.

On April 1 of this year, at a White House press briefing by Scott McClellan, he said:

Let me just continue to reiterate that we remain actively

engaged in discussions with our friends at OPEC. . . . We

continue to make our view known. The President certainly

makes his views known when he meets with world leaders

and when he talks with world leaders. High-level

administration officials from Dr. Rice to Secretary Powell

to Secretary Abraham are always in close contact with

producers around the world to make our views known. And we

continue to do so.

But given that timeline, on April 1 of this year--just a few days ago--the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia said he had not been contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's decision to cut crude production by 1 million barrels a day. The Saudi Foreign Minister said:

I didn't hear from the Bush administration. I am hearing it

from you that they are disappointed.

That is a direct quote from the Saudi Foreign Minister. We have to have an administration that puts the heat on OPEC, that pushes them to increase oil production and, just as the Senate said in 2000, we ought to say it in 2004.

So given what I have just outlined, I now ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 330, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should communicate to the members of OPEC and non-OPEC countries that participate in the cartel of crude oil- producing countries the position of the United States in favor of increasing world crude oil supplies so as to achieve stable crude oil prices; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, what is troubling about the objection of our distinguished colleague from Texas is that this resolution is, in its substance, identical to the resolution that was offered by those on the other side of the aisle in 2000. It is interesting that when I came to the floor first to discuss this resolution, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, our friend Senator McConnell, said that certainly if we applied a set of principles to the Clinton administration, we can look at it as it relates to the Bush administration. That is exactly what I am doing.

I will tell you, I listened to all of the arguments for the Bush administration's position. We hear about ``quiet diplomacy,'' for example. Maybe it is quiet diplomacy, but apparently the Bush administration's brand of diplomacy was inaudible to the Saudi royal family. So I cannot understand why there would be an objection from the other side with respect to this resolution.

We have the Saudi Foreign Minister saying he had not been contacted by the Bush administration. I outlined the specific timeline of events between 2000 and 2004 that makes the case, in my view, why every Member of the Senate should want to support this resolution, which in terms of its substance is identical to the one passed in 2000. So I think it is very unfortunate that there has been an objection. I note that there has. I hope we will be able to take it up as expeditiously as possible.

Of course.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, first, the Energy bill would do absolutely nothing over the next few months to lower these gasoline prices. What will help to lower the prices is passing this resolution and pushing OPEC to increase crude oil production. In fact, Republicans have even asked, with respect to the Energy bill, what it would do to gasoline prices. There is no evidence that it will lower prices.

This resolution does something in conjunction with making sure we stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, making sure the Federal Trade Commission deals with these anticompetitive practices.

This resolution can make a difference by pushing OPEC to stand up for the consumer. It was good enough in 2000 when a number of our colleagues, led by current Secretary of Energy Abraham, said it made sense. I submit this is something, unlike the Energy bill, which can make a difference for the gasoline consumers getting hosed at the pump right now.

For that reason, I think it is unfortunate my colleagues have objected. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, software programmers in Beaverton, OR, every day have to compete with those in Beijing. I think it is very important for the Senate to set in place bipartisan policies that are going to finally give a fair shake to our workers who are competing in tough global markets.

I come to the floor this afternoon because I have developed, with the support of Senator Coleman, our colleague from Minnesota, a bipartisan proposal that would give the Senate a chance to help hundreds of thousands of laid-off

high tech workers and service employees by extending trade adjustment assistance benefits to them so they can receive job training, income support, and health insurance tax credits.

So often these workers have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and we know--especially the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate--these high tech workers have been the envy of our American workforce. There is extraordinary ingenuity among these hundreds of thousands of programmers and engineers and designers who have helped drive our economy in this century. Their creativity has generated an exceptional wave of economic prosperity, and trade agreements on services and intellectual property helped carry the fruits of the work of our workers around the globe.

Information technology developed by American workers transformed the world and the way business is done. Overseas cable costs have dropped by as much as 80 percent in the last 5 years which, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, has spread the Internet far and wide. The Internet has made it a lot cheaper to send work through a phone line than to ship a bulky package on an airplane.

Globalization of technology has globalized the technology workforce. So, in fact, the workers I am honored to represent in Beaverton, OR, do have to compete against workers in Beijing, and certainly geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can be done.

But the transformation from an economy built on smokestacks to one built on packages of light has come at a heavy price. So often trade agreements in the past considered these high technology and service workers as an afterthought. The irony is now some of the very same workers who launched the technology revolution have actually become its victims. Hardly a day goes by without a front-page story in our country about an American programmer on his way out who is having to train a foreign worker who will replace him.

Senator Coleman and I have been working with a number of colleagues. Senator Baucus on this side of the aisle has been exceptionally helpful. We talked with a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Senator Coleman and I have developed a bipartisan proposal to make sure these workers, who have not gotten a fair shake in the past, do have an opportunity to get back into our marketplace economy.

It is not a moment too soon. The American Electronics Association 2003 Cyberstates report found unemployment among computer programmers jumped from 4.5 percent in 2001 to 6.2 percent in 2003. High tech employment fell by 540,000 jobs to 6 million in 2002 and a further loss of 234,000 jobs was expected in 2003.

The average American may think the Federal Government is helping those technology workers and service workers whose jobs have been displaced by trade. But the reality is that assistance is not available because the trade assistance law, which was authored in 1962 for displaced manufacturing workers, did not contemplate the tremendous number of jobs we now have in the technology sector, with all of those software programmers and engineers and designers. The U.S. trade assistance laws were designed for the manufacturing era.

Since 1962, when workers lost their jobs in a manufacturing plant as a result of trade, they could get help through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act has, in fact, helped hundreds of thousands of those displaced workers. But workers in the technology and the services sector, which now accounts for four- fifths of the U.S. workforce, have not been eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Time after time when a displaced software developer, accountant, or someone who has worked in the telemedicine field has gone knocking on the doors of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, they have been turned away. The bipartisan amendment I have developed with Senator Coleman will open the doors of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act to the hundreds of thousands of displaced technology and service sector workers.

All of these workers who have been displaced by trade and by global marketplace forces deserve the same kinds of benefits. All of them have a chance to use these programs as a trampoline back into the private economy, so they can capture the jobs for which their skills have blessed them. Our amendment will establish equity in the program between manufacturing and service workers.

The Wyden-Coleman amendment will cover three categories of trade- impacted service workers: those who lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays off because of import competition; public and private sector service workers who lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas; and secondary service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance and where a closure has caused a layoff or closure at a secondary firm.

This is an extraordinarily important statute because it provides retraining, income support, health insurance tax credits, and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs. It can also help secondary workers or individuals who supply parts or services and who may have lost their jobs because their facilities shut down due to import competition or they move overseas. This is exactly the type of trade- displaced service worker opportunity that our citizens need.

A self-described ``newly employed software engineer'' from Hillsboro, OR, wrote in December that ``my job was moved to India where the company can pay Indians a fifth of what they pay Americans.''

Another wrote:

[A]s a 50-year-old high-tech manufacturing engineer with 26

years' experience, I was laid off in December 2002. I am sure

the new factory the company is building in China will prevent

my ever returning. I can't even get hired into an entry level

position anywhere because I am over-qualified.

These unemployed Oregonians and the hundreds of thousands of other information technology professionals who have lost their jobs deserve an opportunity to get the training, health care, and income assistance so they can get back on their feet and use their skills in the private marketplace. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act would target these kinds of workers who have been hurt by unfair competition.

Globalization of information technology hardware production from 1995 through 2002 cut information technology hardware costs 10 to 30 percent, translating into higher productivity growth and adding $230 billion to our gross domestic product. Information technology became affordable to business sectors that were previously bypassed by the productivity boom.

We are now talking about the small and midsized companies in health care, construction, and a host of related fields. But as information technology hardware prices declined, the importance of information technology services and software increased to almost 70 percent of information technology spending in 2001. With the growth in software and services outpacing hardware spending by almost two to one, the demand for cheaper information technology services has lent strength to this whole trend to move these jobs offshore. No one appears to have anticipated the extraordinary speed in which all of this has taken place or the scale of jobs moving offshore.

The workers who lost their jobs and their livelihoods from jobs that have gone overseas cannot afford to wait for the higher skilled jobs that economists keep telling them is right around the corner. Higher value and higher paid systems integration jobs may come along, but in this period unemployed information technology professionals seem to feel they are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of new highly skilled information technology jobs.

At the end of the day, what I am saying, along with the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, is it should be irrelevant whether an individual works in today's economy in the services and technology sector or whether they work in the manufacturing area. Each of our workers who has been displaced by trade should be eligible for the same benefits. That is what our bipartisan proposal would do. The hundreds of thousands of workers who have been laid off in every part of our country in the technology sector and in the service sector are looking to whether the

Senate will modernize the trade adjustment laws so they finally can get a fair shake and so they can pick up the skills and the health care and the income support that is going to let them get back on their feet, use their ingenuity, and use their work ethic to have a chance for a high-skill, high-wage job once again.

I call on the Senate in a time of discussion about gridlock and the inability to move forward on important legislation. This is an example of two Senators who have worked with colleagues from both political parties to come up with a proposal that can help hundreds of thousands of workers in an economic crunch today that is sure to continue. We hope the Senate will move expeditiously on our legislation.

It seems to me, to put it in the context of my home State, that when a worker who is a software programmer in Beaverton, OR, works hard and plays by the rules, it ought to be the job of the Senate to say when that worker is up against a software programmer in Beijing and the Beijing worker works for a fraction of the wages of the worker in Beaverton we create policies which are going to make it possible for our workers to move ahead to have the kind of quality of life that will allow them to support a family and participate in the community.

I call on the Senate to pass our bipartisan proposal as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.