Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of up to 20 minutes of morning business under my control to discuss S. Res. 216.

Madam President, my good friend from Montana and I have worked together on so many issues. He has objected to this bipartisan resolution which would give the Senate a chance to end one of the most pernicious practices in Washington, DC, and that is the practice of secret holds.

Walk down Main Street anywhere in the United States, and I bet you would not find one out of a million Americans who know what a secret hold is. The hold does not appear anywhere in the dictionary. It is not even in the Senate rules. Yet it is one of the most powerful weapons that any U.S. Senator has. It is, of course, a senatorial courtesy whereby one Senator can block action on a bill or nomination by telling the respective Democrat or Republican leader that he or she would object. The objection does not have to be written down, and it does not have to be made public.

It is a little bit like the seventh inning stretch in baseball. There is no official rule or regulation that talks about it, but it has been observed for so long that it has become a tradition.

Now, the capacity to use this hold, which is in secret--there is no transparency, no accountability--the prospect of using these secret holds is notorious and has given birth to several intriguing offspring: The hostage hold, the rolling hold, and the May West hold. Suffice it to say, at this time of the year secret holds are more common than acorns around an oak tree.

Senator Grassley and I have been working on this for almost 7 years. I am extremely proud that the chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Lott, has joined us on this matter. Senator Byrd is a cosponsor. There is no one in this body who has a better understanding of the rules than Senator Byrd, and Senator Byrd has made it clear this practice is out of hand. It is out of hand because the rules are designed to expedite the business of the Senate and not hold it up.

What we heard earlier in the objection to the effort to end secret holds is emblematic of what has happened. The objection was based on the idea that now was not a good time for the Senate to address this. It is never a good time to address it if you are in favor of doing business behind closed doors. If you are in favor of doing the public's business without accountability, it is never a good time. If you are in favor of doing business in secret, of course, we are never going to bring it up in the Senate.

The minority leader, Senator Daschle, has been supportive of this effort from the very beginning. From the very first day I went to him to discuss this, he said: You are right. The hold is an important power for a member of the Senate, but it ought to be exercised with some accountability.

So there was no objection from this side of the aisle. Unfortunately, we had an objection from the other side. I

think it is unfortunate because I have sought throughout--throughout-- to make this a bipartisan effort.

Chairman Grassley and Chairman Lott deserve an extraordinary amount of credit for the effort to work with me and with others on this issue. The fact is, during this time of the session, one Member of the Senate can spend days asking all 99 other Senators whether they have a secret hold, only to find that Senator does not even know about the secret hold because it was generated by staff.

The Senator who can successfully track down and lift the last secret hold almost feels around here as if they have won the national title.

Every Senator has a favorite example of torturous search for the sponsor of a secret hold. My favorite was during the Rules Committee hearing on holds, Senator Dodd--by the way, who, is very supportive, like Chairman Lott, of this proposal--we heard about the chairman trying to call Senators in airports around the country, trying to find out who had a hold on a bill. Senator Dodd was concerned about this when he was faced with his election reform bill.

I went through the very same exercise on the spam bill where I had to literally go from desk to desk in the Senate to find out who was holding up a measure that everybody was for. Everybody said they were against spam but there were holds, and we had to try to figure out where they were.

The same thing happened on the Internet tax bill. At one time there were seven holds on the Internet tax bill. When I tried to find out which Senators had the holds, I was told that this information would not be shared with me.

Think about the consequences of not dealing with that issue. I say to my colleagues, we may have a virtual ``Grinch'' visiting the consumers of this country because the Senate has not dealt with the Internet tax issue. Come the holiday season, if some States and localities choose to do it, they can go out and tax e-mail, they can go out and tax Internet services that are delivered through wireless devices or DSL because the Senate has not updated the law. I believe it has not updated the law because there was not the opportunity to have a real debate, and we were held up because there were secret holds.

I am very pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee has come to the Chamber to join me in this effort. Perhaps more than any other Member of this body, he understands the implications of this because of his service as chairman of the Rules Committee as well as having served as the distinguished majority leader of this body. He has held hearings on this issue. He reached out to Senator Byrd and Senator Grassley.

We have been working on this issue for years and years. At this time of the session, the secret hold is all powerful. It is one of the most powerful weapons that a Member of Congress has. We do not seek to have it stripped from the Senate. We do not come together on a bipartisan basis to say, let us outlaw the holds. We come together--Chairman Lott, Senator Grassley, Senator Byrd, and myself--to say: There ought to be some sunshine.

Our proposal is for sunshine holds, for saying that the powers exercised by a Member of the Senate should be accompanied by some accountability. You ought to be straight with your constituents.

My good friend, the chairman of the committee, is here. I would like, without losing the remainder of our time, to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, who has been so supportive of the effort to end secret holds, so he could make his remarks, knowing he has a very busy schedule.

Mr. President, how much time remains under my control?

I thank the Chair.

I am happy to yield without losing my time.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for his eloquent statement. He has been so supportive of this effort. Essentially what he and I and Senator Grassley have been talking about is the quaint notion that the public's business ought to be done in public. This is not a complicated idea.

As I have mentioned earlier, I am sure the vast majority of Americans have no idea what a secret hold is. It is not written down anywhere. This is something you wouldn't find 1 of 1,000 people having any idea about. But this is, in fact, one of the most powerful weapons, one of the most significant tools a Member of this body could possibly have. It is utilized without any accountability whatsoever.

The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee pointed out in hearings, and we heard it echoed by Senator Dodd, the bizarre kind of process of trying to track down Senators who are thousands of miles away from Capitol Hill and still claiming to have an objection when, in a lot of instances, they may not even know about it; their staff will have objected to it.

So what we have sought to do in this effort is to not limit the powers of any Member of the Senate but simply to say that power ought to be accompanied by responsibility. Yes, there should be rights. There ought to be rights of every Member of the Senate to stand up and be heard on matters important to their constituents and to this country. But there also ought to be responsibilities.

Chairman Lott has addressed this issue very eloquently by saying one of our most important responsibilities is to let the public see what we are up to. Yes, sunlight is the best disinfectant, but it is especially important, as Chairman Lott has noted, at the end of a session.

If someone exercises a hold in the beginning of a session, there is an opportunity, as the distinguished chairman of the committee has noted, for the leaders to come together with the chairs and work out an effort to resolve a matter in a process that is fair to all sides.

When you are down to the last few days of a session and you are talking about a measure that may involve billions of dollars, the well- being of millions of our citizens, someone can exercise the power to hold up the public's business without any accountability whatsoever. What happens is then the leaders and the chairs traipse all over here, practically going almost the equivalent of door to door, desk to desk on the Senate floor. It got to a point, when I was trying to deal with one particularly exasperating hold, where a Senator came up to me and apologized because he was told there was a hold about which I was concerned. He said: I knew nothing about it. It was put on by a staff person. I asked for its removal.

There are a variety of technical issues on which Chairman Lott and Chairman Grassley and Senator Byrd and I have worked. There is a difference between a consult and a hold. A consult, in effect, is just a request to be informed when a measure is going to be brought up. A hold is something different. A hold is when you want to shut down the effort to go forward and examine an important issue altogether. It is all powerful in the last few days of a session, as the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Lott, has noted.

There is something very wrong with the process when, in effect, you have to traipse all over the Senate trying to figure out whether or not your measure is going to see the light of day.

We have had an objection to our bipartisan effort today, but I think I speak for all of the sponsors when I say we are going to be back at it. Chairman Lott has initiated a very important process in the Rules Committee to examine some of the antiquated practices of the Senate. The holds is one that we see working great injury in the last days of a session. But under the leadership of Chairman Lott, we are going to be looking at other practices in the Rules Committee. I think that is long overdue. I have great confidence that the chairs, Chairman Lott, Chairman Grassley, Senator Byrd, who knows more about the rules of the Senate than I could ever dream of knowing, are going to be able to work with us on a bipartisan basis to address this responsibly.

We have done that. We have asked only that this be done for the rest of this session. I personally do not believe Western civilization is going to come to an end because a Member of the Senate has to be clear about whether or not they are holding up the public's business. But to make it absolutely clear what would transpire, we have in effect a test period, as Chairman Lott has described it, to examine the effect of our sunshine holds, a process that would end some of the stealth and secrecy that surround this issue.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Dayton as a cosponsor of S. Res. 216.

I see Senator Lott and other colleagues have other business to attend to. I will wrap up only by quoting the foremost authority on Senate rules who served as majority leader of the 95th, 96th and 100th Congresses; that is, our friend and colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd. In chapter 28, ``Reflections of a Party Leader,'' volume 2 of his publication in the Senate, Senator Byrd wrote:

To me, the Senate's rules were to be used when necessary to

advance and to expedite the Senate's business.

Giving the sunshine hold a place in the Senate's rules, creating sunshine holds so as to ensure that there is new openness and new accountability in the way the Senate does its business, seems to me to be an ideal way for the Senate to honor those eloquent words of Senator Byrd.

We have not been successful today, despite the best effort of Chairman Lott, Senator Grassley, and others. But we will be back. This practice is continuing to increase. Even when I came to the Senate, I found it used frequently but not to the extent it is being used today. It is time to do the public's business in public. We will stay at this effort to accomplish just that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Bingaman for a chance to talk for a few minutes now. He has done a tremendous job in terms of advocating so many issues vital to the public, and I thank him for his thoughtfulness letting me begin this debate.

Throughout this discussion, we have been told this legislation should not be looked at in terms of any particular provision, but it should be evaluated on its overall merit. We heard that yesterday. We heard that again today.

We have been told that a conference report, particularly, is part of a give-and-take kind of discussion among various legislators and the various parties. Let me be real clear on that. If we are using the give-and-take measure as a barometer of evaluating an Energy bill, it ought to be clear that on this one, it is the public that is giving, and the powerful and the influential are taking a whole package of goodies.

In my view, if you look at this legislation and its provisions that in effect begin with the ``get out of jail free'' card that is given to the MTBE producers, and you go on to this grab bag of tax goodies that are given to powerful interests, on every measure this overall legislation breaches the fundamental principles of good energy policy.

Let me begin by talking about how it would affect our dependence on foreign oil. I believe reducing America's dependence on foreign oil is the dipstick for measuring an Energy bill. By that measure, this legislation is more than several quarts low. Thirty years ago the people of this country waited in long lines to fill up their tanks. They dreamed then of the day when the United States would no longer be dependent on foreign oil. Our citizens were asked to hold their thermostats down, and they said: What is going to be done to make this country and our electric supply less dependent on fossil fuels?

We all understand our dependence on foreign oil has increased. Fossil fuels still provide more than 85 percent of all the energy produced in the United States. If you look at this legislation, what it does is it gives, on a virtual 5 to 1 ratio, most of the tax relief to those powerful interests that, in my view, have contributed mightily to the mess that our country is in.

What is needed, of course, is a bold and aggressive approach in terms of clean and renewable energy. That is regrettably sorely lacking in this legislation.

So the Senate is aware exactly of the numbers: Renewable energy in this legislation gets about $3.4 billion over the next 10 years. The combined credits for those involved in fossil fuels comes to well over $15 billion.

I am of the view that when you look at this legislation and the fact that it does virtually nothing in terms of the key areas like transportation to promote conservation and help us find a way to a different energy future. This legislation simply does not meet the need at this time for a fresh approach in energy.

What is so unfortunate about it is, I believe, a new approach on energy is just about the most patriotic thing our country could do. We all understand the role of oil and energy dependence with respect to global security. Yet this legislation is basically a tribute to yesteryear, a hodgepodge of subsidies for the well connected, and these huge energy conglomerates basically would get additional funds for what they are already doing.

We tried over the last couple of days to amend the legislation. On all of the pro-consumer amendments, they were just gunned down almost in a perfunctory manner. The American people were given 2 days to scan 1,100 pages, more than 40 percent of which by some estimates was brand new text that was not in either the House or the Senate bill. Essentially, we have 500 pages of brand new text that had not been seen by either the Senate or the House.

For purposes of this opening discussion, let me talk about some of the areas about which I am particularly concerned.

The people of my part of the country were shellacked by the Enron scams. One of our major utilities used up hundreds of thousands of dollars of scores of workers' retirement accounts. Now these workers have virtually nothing as a result of Enron. The conference report did virtually nothing to deal with the market manipulation that went on in the Enron case--all of the smoking gun memos we read about in the papers for days involving Death Star, the Ricochet tactics that were used to drive

up market prices, the energy traders who used schemes such as Get Shorty or use a Fat Boy to manipulate energy markets with impunity.

What this legislation does, in effect, is say we will ban just one of the manipulative practices used in Enron but for everything else you have free rein to manipulate the American consumer. It is sort of like building a 4-inch dam across our mighty Columbia; you stop one relatively small practice, but it is going to be drowned out by all the other manipulative schemes.

In my view, this legislation is an open invitation to future Enrons.

With respect to other priorities about which we felt strongly, I tried, for example, to prevent the weakening of current export controls on highly enriched uranium. It seems astounding that at a time when President Bush correctly talked about how important it is to fight terrorism--and we have all been concerned about yellowcake.

I sit on the Intelligence Committee. Of course, I can't get into what is discussed there. But I don't think anybody in the United States doubts the seriousness of the terrorist threat around the world. Controls in current law are intended to end the dependence of foreign companies on nuclear-bomb-grade materials, but the conference report, incredible as it may seem, goes in just the opposite direction and is going to make it easier for terrorists to traffic in these nuclear- bomb-grade materials.

The conference report would give foreign producers a fresh 9-year holiday on converting highly enriched uranium into the much safer low- enriched uranium, a conversion, in my view, that should have happened years ago. I fought in the conference to keep in place the current export controls on highly enriched uranium. I believe had my amendment passed, it would have empowered President Bush to be able to fulfill his goal of keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. Unfortunately, this too went down on strictly party lines.

There are other areas with respect to pro-consumer amendments I thought were important which I will discuss briefly.

Many of our parts of the country have been subjected to price spikes in the gasoline market. We saw last summer that many consumers were spending more than $2 a gallon for gas. In parts of the Southwest, it was up to $4 per gallon for gas.

I sought to give the Federal Trade Commission authority to go after documented anti-consumer practices such as redlining and zone pricing. At present, every time there is a price spike, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham most recently put out various kinds of press releases saying they are doing an inquiry into why gasoline prices have spiked up. Just as sure as the night follows the day, the next time there is a price spike we will hear the very same thing from the Secretary of Energy.

The fact is when you look at the statutes on the books, you will find that the Secretary of Energy has absolutely no authority to do anything with respect to skyrocketing gasoline prices.

What I have sought to do in the conference and over the last few months is give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to go after documented anti-competitive practices in markets where you basically have three or possibly four of the oil companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gas that is sold in this area.

Many Members of the Senate represent just those communities-- communities where in effect you have seen the competitive marketplace forces sucked right out of the gasoline markets in their communities. Unfortunately, that too was rejected on a straight party line vote.

In addition, I offered an amendment to create an advocate for the energy consumer. I believed that if you were going to have a whole passel of deregulation and regulatory changes, somebody ought to have the authority to stand up for the consumer. The great majority of our States do exactly that. We all understand that the energy markets have changed. Now there is much more being done in terms of interstate trading of energy, and there is nothing the States could do to go after abuses in the interstate trading of wholesale power.

In the conference, I offered an amendment. I made it clear I was willing to work with both Republican chairs, Senator Domenici and Congressman Tauzin, on it. Yet that went nowhere as well despite bipartisan support.

Pat Wood, head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, thought it was ``a great idea'' to have an advocate--those are his words, not mine--for the consumer. Regrettably, that idea went nowhere as well.

I have talked about what the conference report doesn't do. I want to talk for a few minutes about what it does do. It gives, for example, oil and gas extractors a blanket exemption under the Safe Drinking Water Act from pumping noxious and carcinogenic fluids underground. It gives energy producers immunity from Clean Water Act protection to present contaminated storm water runoff from polluting our lakes, streams, and marshes. It gives $30 million to a whole host of mining interests to pursue direct leaching of radioactive mine tailings into the ground.

In other words, the conference report either explicitly allows or it pays to create America's future Superfund sites.

I have talked about the get-out-of-jail-free card for the MTBE producers. This in effect would allow these producers protection from lawsuits that forced them to clean up the problem they created.

In our State, even Republicans in the State legislature are concerned about not only losing the ability to fund MTBE cleanup in Oregon but they are concerned about the precedent it sets for future cleanup of various other dangerous materials such as perchlorate and TCE.

I think this is part of what concerns me the most. I have always believed that anything important in this town has to be done on a bipartisan basis. It is probably the concern I have that has dominated my career in public service. I think we had an opportunity for a bipartisan bill in this area. As I have been able to do in my home State with our colleague, Senator Smith, I think there was an opportunity for common ground on a whole host of key kinds of cases that would have laid out a vision for a very different energy future. But essentially what you had for weeks and weeks was a blackout. You had energy blackouts last summer with respect to this legislation. Senator Bingaman and I and others who were in the conference faced an information blackout. Any time you go behind closed doors, any time you do something along the lines of a conference in secret, it is an invitation to special interests to exploit their clout and their influence. That is exactly what has happened here.

I will outline one other provision. I know colleagues are waiting, and I am particularly grateful to Senator Bingaman for this chance to take a few minutes at the outset of the debate and touch on the proposal with respect to standard market design.

In our part of the world, in my home state, we have the highest unemployment rate in the country. Reasonable energy prices have been a key to our well-being. What we have now in this legislation is a glidepath to set up something called standard market design, a one- size-fits-all approach with respect to energy regulation.

I come to that view because there are two provisions in the report and they are essentially contradictory in nature. The first part of the conference report says you cannot engage in a standard market design regulatory regime in effect until 2007. The second part says it is basically OK for FERC to do anything they want. At a minimum, we have a lawyer's full employment program as a result of this regulatory limbo. But what is more likely to happen, because of the power of the interests that want the standard market design, they are going to exploit the regulatory confusion in this legislation to work their will.

On September 30th I received a letter from a Republican FERC commissioner, Joseph Kelliher, in which he explicitly told me that standard market design is a bad idea for Oregon, a bad idea for the Pacific Northwest, and should not be implemented in our region.

I say to the people of my State and my region, I am still going to fight this with everything I have.

Finally, at a time when our country can be held hostage by oil- producing

nations, we had a chance to go forward with legislation that would make us truly energy independent. At a time when cutting-edge renewable resources are at our fingertips, what this conference report does is it lets these exciting technologies slip through our fingers. At a time when the people of our country have been clamoring for a fresh approach, a different energy future, this conference report looks at energy policy through the rearview mirror. I hope my colleagues will reject this conference report and look forward over the rest of this day and perhaps others to talk about it at some length.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a legislative fellow in my office, Kevin Vranes, be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of consideration of the conference report on the Energy bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a substitute text for S. 189, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. I thank Commerce Committee Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Hollings, and my colleagues Senators Allen, Clinton and Lieberman for their tremendous bipartisan assistance and cooperation. With this bill, we pave the way for greater discoveries and applications in an area that will soon become a major economic driver for this country.

The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act will provide a smart, accelerated, and organized approach to nanotechnology research, development, and education. This legislation will marshal America's nanotechnology efforts that are spread out across the State and Federal levels into one driving force. This bill will develop much needed strategic interagency cooperation and coordination through a National Nanotechnology Program. A National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel will advise the President on nanotechnology matters and the American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center will evaluate important workforce and ethical issues to ensure that societal and citizen concerns about nanotechnology are addressed now--at the outset of this science--and will support, not hinder, the development of this important science.

As I have said before, nanotechnology has the potential to change America on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the computer revolution. Nanoparticles and nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care, agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national security. By getting behind nanotechnology now with organized, goal-oriented support, the Federal Government will play a pivotal role in keeping the United States at the forefront of this discipline.

It is estimated that nanotechnology will become a trillion-dollar industry over the next 10 years. With the Nation's unemployment still high and real economic recovery still out of reach, nanotechnology holds the promise of new trade and jobs needed to jump start the economy. As the nanotechnology industry grows, the ranks of skilled workers needed to discover and apply its capabilities must grow too. In the nanotechnology revolution, areas of high unemployment could become magnets for domestic production, engineering and research for nanotechnology applications. I am determined that the United States will mine the opportunities of nanotechnology and this legislation will ensure that the United States takes full advantage of the opportunities nanotechnology presents.

Our Nation's current National Nanotechnology Initiative is a step in the right direction. This nation has already committed substantial funds to nanotechnology research and development in the coming years. But funding is not enough. There must be careful planning to make sure that money is used for sound science over the long-term. That is the reason for the substitute amendment to S. 189 I introduce today. The strategic planning it prescribes will ensure that scientists get the support they need to realize nanotechnology's greatest potential.

With this bill, Congress is challenging the government to accept new responsibilities in promoting and developing nanotechnology. Again, I thank the House Science Committee and House Science Chairman Boehlert for their cooperation and I thank the other cosponsors, Senators Alexander, Warner, Mikulski, Landrieu, Levin, Bayh, Cantwell, Corzine, Hutchison, Kerry, Lautenberg, Baucus, and Rockefeller, for their valuable assistance. I am also pleased to report that this amendment has the support of nanotechnology industry members, such as the Nano Business Alliance. This amended version is the work of bipartisan and bi-cameral cooperation and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this to the President's desk.

Inclusion of Biotechnology

Mr. President, I rise to clarify the legislative intent of S. 189, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. In reviewing the section of the substitute text dealing with the purpose and definitions of fundamental research in nanotechnology that our bill references, I believe that they are not intended to limit research and development to the physical sciences and are intended to include a wide variety of research, including the biotechnology- nanotechnology interface. Senator Stevens, is that your reading of this legislation?

I would just like to take a moment to clarify some of the types of nanotechnology applications that are possible through the research involving biotechnology at the nano-level, which are encompassed by this legislation These examples include applications ranging from industrial manufacturing to advances in medicine to breakthroughs in defense against bioterrorism.

For instance, biotechnology is spurring the development of proteins that will be capable of manufacturing biological structures on the nano-scale. This technology will allow the development of nano- electronics such as micro-transistors and silicon chips. In the area of photonics there is potential for developing new micro-optical switches and optical micro-processing platforms.

Researchers recently discovered a first of its kind carbon-silicon compound in freshwater diatoms. This discovery promises to open the door to understanding the molecular process of biosilicification, or the ways plants and animals build natural structures. This understanding may lead to applications ranging from low cost synthesis of advanced biomaterials to new treatments for osteoporosis.

These are only a few examples of advances made through the interface between biotechnology and nanotechnology. I just want to confirm this legislation should help facilitate

the synergy between the biological sciences and material sciences.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for clarification of this matter and I wholeheartedly agree with him regarding the potential benefits of nanotechnology in the field of health care.

I thank my friend. I think he has made a number of important points about judges. The fact is, there is an alternative path. I think about how I have had a chance to work with my colleague in the Oregon delegation, Senator Smith. We have gotten judge after judge confirmed because we have felt, while some consider it quaint, that you ought to try to work in a bipartisan way. We have not applied an ideological litmus test. I think what the Senator from Florida is saying is that is the kind of approach we ought to be pursuing, to try to find common ground to get the Senate together.

As I begin my comments this morning, I will say that I think a lot of Americans look at what is going on now on the floor of the Senate and say that it is sort of like the great wall of China, an almost impenetrable barrier surrounding a forbidden community where their voices just go unheard.

I know what I hear from my constituents--I have open community meetings in all of Oregon's counties--is awfully different than essentially what the Senate has been doing through the night.

For example, what I hear about is how medical costs are just gobbling up everything in sight. I hear, for example, about how the crushing small businesses, scores of them dying to cover their people, have been unable to do it. I hear about providers, physicians, and others leaving the system because of inadequate reimbursement. I hear about so many who are not poor enough for Medicaid, they are not old enough for Medicare, and they fall between the cracks. Again, there is an alternative approach to all of the partisanship.

The senior Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, has worked with me for a number of years now on the Health Care for All Americans Act. It is absolutely critical that the Senate get moving on this issue because we all understand that there is a demographic tsunami coming. Millions of baby boomers are about to retire in a few years. All of the problems we are seeing today are going to be multiplied three or fourfold.

Yet the Senate isn't tackling that kind of issue because, in effect, things have ground to a halt over exactly the kind of polarization the Senator from Florida has talked about.

I would hope that as we wrap this up, we understand that nothing important is going to get accomplished in the Senate unless there is an effort to work in a bipartisan kind of fashion.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator from Florida is being logical. Heaven forbid that logic break out sometimes in this area that is often called the ``logic-free zone''--this area surrounding the Capitol. It just seems that in so many of these areas, the institution just takes leave of its senses because both of us have described a bipartisan way to deal with the issue of judges--an approach that works in Florida and has worked for Senator Smith and I in Oregon. I do not think the Senate has the time or luxury for a lot of this pettiness.

I mentioned the health care issue with Senator Hatch that I have felt strongly about since my days as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers. This demographic revolution is coming on us, and the prescription drug issue we are tackling now is vitally important. But if there is one thing the Senate has learned, health care is like an ecosystem. What you do in one area affects all other areas. Senator Hatch and I have pulled together an approach that has now gotten the support of the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO to get back on track for what, regrettably, was not finished back in the early 1990s. In the health care area, you see an alternative path.

I see my good friend from Virginia here, Senator Allen. He and I are working on at least five major technology issues right now on the question of Internet access, and we are working in a bipartisan way with the States and localities to ensure that the Internet medium is allowed to grow and prosper. We have come together on nanotechnology, and we are working together.

I want to give some additional time to the Senator from Florida because I know his schedule is short. If you look at the big issues of our day, including the health care question, where I have outlined what Senator Hatch and I are talking about on so many issues that are social and ethical; and the technology question, where it just seems fitting that the Senator from Virginia is here, Senator Allen, my friend and partner on so many of these technology issues, the Senate has a choice either to listen to our constituents and take the bipartisan approach that will lead to real solutions or continue what is seen by most Americans as just small food-fight-like exercises.

I want to give additional time to my friend from Florida because of his schedule. I appreciate, particularly, his outlining, as we have tried to do in Oregon--Senator Smith and I working together--the kind of bipartisan approach that the Senator from Florida has described in his State for choosing judges.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Florida and I have tried to spend our half hour talking about specific ways in which the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, can come together to find common ground. Let me repeat them as we move to the end of our half hour. The Senator from Florida and I have talked about an alternative approach on judges, which works in the State of Florida and in the State of Oregon. I have talked about the health care issue, the issue that I feel the most passionate about, going back to my days when I worked with the elderly, and the wonderful help I have gotten from Orrin Hatch, trying to focus on getting the country ready for this huge set of population changes that is coming. I thought it was very fitting that the Senator from Virginia was here, Mr. Allen, who has worked with me on technology issues.

A fourth area--something that is fresh in the Senate's mind--is that just a few days ago, we got 80 Senators--far more than anyone could have imagined--to support a major natural resources bill dealing with the forest fire issue. This is something of enormous concern in my part of the country and, obviously, all Americans. Our hearts go out to the people in California where they have had this terrible tragedy. Senator Feinstein and Senator Cochran--I always wanted to work with Senator Cochran on an issue as chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I haven't had the opportunity until now. He could not have been more constructive and helpful. I think that is why the Senate got 80 votes for that forest rebuild.

So I think the Senator from Florida is setting the right tone and certainly, in our 20 minutes, on the question of judges, health care, technology, and on the question of forestry, the two of us have shown that there is an alternative to a lot of the smallness, a lot of the harshness that we are seeing dominate this debate.

I thank my colleague for all of this extra time, and I believe the tone he is setting is one that will respond to what I hear the country talking about, and certainly what I hear people of Oregon talking about at our 36 town meetings in every part of the State.

Will my colleague yield?

I think you have given us an ideal way to wrap up our half hour. I want to tick off yet another area where we have outlined an opportunity for an alternative path. We have spent our half hour describing a way in Florida and Oregon where you can deal with judges in a bipartisan fashion. We have talked about health care issues. Orrin Hatch and others have helped me, as have other Democrats. I think that has been constructive and a real path to try to deal with what is coming in 2010 and 2011.

Senator Allen was here and we talked about technology and the fact that the Senate got 80 votes a few days ago for forestry legislation-- an unprecedented bipartisan vote. Finally, the Senator from Florida puts us on this question of fiscal responsibility, another avenue for cooperation between the parties.

I think about the outstanding work done by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who chairs the committee overseeing the operations of Government. She and I have been very concerned about the lack of openness in competition in the contracting process for these reconstruction contracts. It looks, given the events of this week, as though you are going to get more information out of Baghdad than you are going to get out of Government agencies in Washington, DC. There wasn't a shred of partisanship with respect to how we tackle this issue. So I think what we wanted to do in our half hour of time--the Senator from Florida and I--is not just talk about everything that has gone wrong, but to outline on specific issues an alternative path--a path that shows that we are listening; that the notion that somehow Washington, DC, is like a great wall of China, an unpenetrable community for the American people doesn't have to be that way. Whether it is judges, health care, technology, forestry, or the fiscal morass that the Senator from Florida has talked about, we want people who are listening this morning to know that we do think there is another way for the Senate to do its business.

I say to my friend from Florida, we came to Congress essentially together in the other body and then here. I have really enjoyed this and particularly the tone that I think he set out when we began--that the Senate needs to do better, and if you want to get anything important done--which is why we are sent here--it has to be bipartisan. I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, in June of this year, the Federal Communications Commission issued a decision relaxing a number of important rules that limit consolidation in the media industry. In the months leading up to that decision, and ever since, a bipartisan group of Senators has sought to sound the alarm about the dangers of unbridled media concentration. Those efforts eventually led to Senate passage of a resolution to reverse the commission's decision. But the battle continues, and the outcome is uncertain,

Most of the debate on this subject has focused on the details of rules limiting the national reach of broadcasters and the local cross- ownership of television, newspaper, and radio stations. But I would like to call attention to another important dimension of media concentration: the demise of independent producers, who are being bought up or driven out of business by the big networks and big studios.

More and more, the television programming delivered to the homes of American families is controlled by a handful of executives in a handful of corporate boardrooms. Independent writers and producers are growing scarce. Indeed, there soon may be only two remaining independent Hollywood studies that produce scripted television programming. The others have either disappeared or linked up with one of the major networks.

I think that having all programming produced by a few large media conglomerates could pose some real risks for creativity and diversity. That is why I would like to commend my colleague from Arizona, Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, for his leadership in agreeing to cohost a dialogue with Chairman Billy Tauzin of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and representatives of studios, networks, writers, and producers.

I am confident that under the direction of Chairman McCain, this dialogue can produce positive discussion and concrete results, such as voluntary guidelines to help ensure diversity, competition, and opportunity in the market for television programming. I look forward to participating.

Mr. President, maintaining and improving this country's airports and aviation infrastructure is crucial to economic growth and opportunity at both the local and national levels. That is why it is so unfortunate that Congress has not yet been able to pass the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization legislation.

The fact is, this legislation need not have been controversial. But it was made controversial, because conferees went behind closed doors and made changes that contravene the clearly expressed will of both houses of Congress.

My point today is not to rehash the substantive arguments on the points under dispute. I simply want to stress that in no event should this dispute be allowed to bring important airport and aviation projects screeching to a halt. Instead, the responsible path is to recognize that the controversial elements of the legislation may take some time to resolve. In the meantime, both sides should agree to a short-term extension of FAA funding programs, so that no aviation project is held hostage to politics.

Senator Rockefeller has introduced a bill to provide for a 6-month extension of FAA funding programs, and I am signing on as a cosponsor. I hope that our colleagues will join in supporting this legislation, to ensure that

funding for local airports projects will not become a victim of political brinksmanship.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, with my friend and colleague Senator Smith of Oregon, to amend the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act, enacted three years ago, authorizing the sale of the U.S. Forest Service Bend Pine Nursery to the community of Bend, OR, for use as a public park and recreation facility.

In the original bill, Senator Smith, Congressman Walden and I sought to achieve some very basic objectives. We wanted the community of Bend to take title to a property which for many years had been a federally owned plantation for growing pine seedlings, and which will now make a superb park and ball field complex for the use of the community. At the same time, the bill authorized the sale of several other properties in order to raise an account enabling the Forest Service to acquire a new headquarters for the Deschutes National Forest.

In 1999, we drafted the original legislation in very close consultation with the U.S. Forest Service based on the assumption that in so doing, the agency would have the necessary tools and direction to move swiftly to implement the legislation. The intent of the legislation was to have the Forest Service sell the property to the Bend Parks District within a year of its enactment at the estimated value of the property at that time, $3 million.

Unfortunately, the goodwill built up throughout the drafting process was squandered by the Forest Service. Two years of delays in the implementation of the original legislation resulted in an appraised price of $5.8 million as opposed to the $3 million this property was assumed to be worth when the original Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance was enacted in 2000. This delay has been inconsistent with the intent

of the original legislation and runs entirely contrary to the interest of Bend taxpayers.

The community has always been more than willing to pay fair value for this property, and their goodwill and their tax dollars should not be wasted any longer.

The bill I introduce today resolves the issues that stand in the way of implementation of this simple land sale in a fair manner, directing the sale to move forward expeditiously for $3.5 million. That figure is arrived at by assuming the $3 million value of the property on the day the original Act was passed, allowing for inflation per the Forest Service's calculations, and then deducting the value of acreage that the Forest Service has decided not to sell and 15 acres the Forest Service has the ability to transfer to the local school district at no cost.

I look forward to the expeditious resolution to this issue.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, with my friend and colleague Senator Smith of Oregon, to amend the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act, enacted three years ago, authorizing the sale of the U.S. Forest Service Bend Pine Nursery to the community of Bend, OR, for use as a public park and recreation facility.

In the original bill, Senator Smith, Congressman Walden and I sought to achieve some very basic objectives. We wanted the community of Bend to take title to a property which for many years had been a federally owned plantation for growing pine seedlings, and which will now make a superb park and ball field complex for the use of the community. At the same time, the bill authorized the sale of several other properties in order to raise an account enabling the Forest Service to acquire a new headquarters for the Deschutes National Forest.

In 1999, we drafted the original legislation in very close consultation with the U.S. Forest Service based on the assumption that in so doing, the agency would have the necessary tools and direction to move swiftly to implement the legislation. The intent of the legislation was to have the Forest Service sell the property to the Bend Parks District within a year of its enactment at the estimated value of the property at that time, $3 million.

Unfortunately, the goodwill built up throughout the drafting process was squandered by the Forest Service. Two years of delays in the implementation of the original legislation resulted in an appraised price of $5.8 million as opposed to the $3 million this property was assumed to be worth when the original Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance was enacted in 2000. This delay has been inconsistent with the intent

of the original legislation and runs entirely contrary to the interest of Bend taxpayers.

The community has always been more than willing to pay fair value for this property, and their goodwill and their tax dollars should not be wasted any longer.

The bill I introduce today resolves the issues that stand in the way of implementation of this simple land sale in a fair manner, directing the sale to move forward expeditiously for $3.5 million. That figure is arrived at by assuming the $3 million value of the property on the day the original Act was passed, allowing for inflation per the Forest Service's calculations, and then deducting the value of acreage that the Forest Service has decided not to sell and 15 acres the Forest Service has the ability to transfer to the local school district at no cost.

I look forward to the expeditious resolution to this issue.

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

Mr. President, I am going to be brief. I have appreciated the distinguished Senator from South Carolina working with me on this over the years.

The distinguished Senator from South Carolina is absolutely right. The committee bill did the job right. The committee bill kept in place the technological neutrality that we have established over the years-- the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Stevens, who has now left the floor, Chairman McCain, and others. The reason we did that years ago is that we did not have technological neutrality. The Internet was subject to taxes that were not subject to other areas, such as the snail mail delivery of papers.

What has happened, however, is under the substitute that is being offered by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, we get away from the competitive neutrality that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has been advocating.

I want to be very specific about how that is being done, because I think a lot of Members believe that if they vote for the proposal by the Senator from Tennessee that it is somehow a safe vote, that all they are doing is continuing the status quo and it is really kind of an innocuous approach. It is not a safe vote. It is a vote to increase taxes.

I want to be very specific in explaining how that is the case. What has happened as a result of changes in technology over the last few years is you now have, in a number of jurisdictions, DSL--Internet access through DSL being taxed but Internet access through cable modems not being taxed. That is what has happened as a result of the changes in technology and the various changes in government policy. So you already have been moving away from the competitive neutrality we have sought with respect to this issue.

Let me repeat that. Today, Internet access through DSL is being taxed in a number of jurisdictions and Internet access through cable modem can't be taxed anywhere.

Unfortunately, what would happen under the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee is that you would make it easier to continue that competitive disadvantage and, particularly under the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee, it would be easier to tax wireless Blackberry services.

I am of the view that with 391 separate taxes on telecommunications administered in 10,000 different jurisdictions, people across America who have these Blackberrys, which have wireless Internet access, would be subject to scores of new taxes.

So I say to colleagues who are looking at this issue and thinking that somehow the idea of a 2-year proposal is kind of an innocuous safe haven and really not a tax increase--I ask them to think about what it is going to mean for Blackberry users across the country.

These are wireless devices. In a number of jurisdictions where Internet access is obtained through DSL, those services are already being taxed. That would be expanded under the 2-year alternative.

What I would like us to do is what I believe we sought to do 5 years ago when Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, and others got together, and that is to ensure strict neutrality with respect to technology. The Internet wouldn't get a preference; the Internet wouldn't be hurt. The problem now that wireless users are facing with respect to DSL will be compounded if this 2-year alternative goes forward. I hope my colleagues will reject it for the reasons I outlined this morning.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and my friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, who has worked with me on this now for 7 years, we have made some significant headway in the last half hour, 45 minutes. To get this done, there are some difficult choices that have to be made. One that would be very painful for me, given my involvement in the original law, would be to accept some sort of time limit rather than make it permanent.

I say to the Senate, I am willing to look at that in the name of trying to find common ground. What we can't have as we go through this is to have DSLs, this tremendously exciting service which in so many instances is going to be the key for folks getting Internet access in a wireless fashion, hammered again and again in the future. We are going to see if we can find common ground.

The point of this law more than 5 years ago was to ensure technological neutrality so the Internet and the various ways it is delivered would not, in some way, advance some at the expense of others. We still have to find a way for that technological neutrality.

We may be able, given the fact that the staffs are working now to have a breakthrough on this in the next half an hour, but as the author of the original law in the Senate, I want to make it clear that I am open to trying to find some common ground and make some significant concessions to do it. That is what we are considering now.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for yielding.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor a very important constituent, as well as a very important program in my State and across the Nation--CASA for Children. ``CASA'' is short for Court Appointed Special Advocate, and it is a program that is made up of extraordinary men and women who find it in their hearts to devote their time and energy to help some of the neediest of their community's children. CASAs come from all walks of life, all professions, and all educational and ethnic backgrounds, and their mission is to advocate for the best interests of children who find themselves, through no fault of their own, under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system.

As we see all too often in public service, far too many children find themselves enmeshed in the juvenile court system due to abuse, neglect or abandonment. Once in the court system, these kids can find themselves cruelly buffeted by legal battles and their parents' continuing poor choices. Some find themselves in multiple foster care situations at a very young age, and many are eventually permanently removed from the care of their birth parents. CASAs serve their communities by becoming an independent advocate for a child as a sworn officer of the court. They spend time with health professionals, teachers, parents, prospective parents, and the children themselves to help the court reach the best possible conclusion for the interests of the child.

CASA came to Oregon in 1985 under the leadership of Judge Stephen Herrell and citizen advocate, Susan Holloway. For Almost 20 years, CASA has trained Oregon volunteers to be the eyes and ears of the court, making independent objective recommendations regarding the best interests of children.

In Oregon, we have a CASA leader who personally exemplifies the very best of my State in his legacy of commitment to the future of Oregon's children. Mike Elwood, who has been both

a CASA volunteer and a CASA supervisor in Portland, has served variously as a counselor, advisor, and friend to many of my State. Mike once served as a caseworker in the child welfare system, but later came to CASA because he believed it would be the place where he could make the biggest difference.

Today, Mike suffers from a terminal illness. The CASA organization and all of Oregon has been extraordinary fortunate to have him in their ranks. Mike's co-workers describe him as compassionate, funny, possessing a quiet wisdom, able to interject just the right solution when it appears to elude everyone else, and an inherently decent guy. One CASA represented the feelings of a great many in the organization, saying, ``I for one feel blessed to have him in my life. He is the best.''

I want to take this opportunity to honor Mike's contributions to my State, to the Nation, and to humanity, and to wish Mike, his wife Natalie, and his two children, Ryan and Andrea, peace and joy in the days ahead. I have witnessed first-hand the ripples that emanate from simply human acts, good and bad. These ripples can reach across families, across borders, and across generations. Mike's ripples have made this world a far better place. I honor his dedicated service and his life, as well as the service rendered by CASA workers and volunteers all across our Nation.

Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, for beginning the discussion in the kind of tone I think we want to have for this debate. We have on the floor a number of Senators who have been the most interested in this issue. I tell them I think they represent the most thoughtful people not just in the Senate but in public life. We obviously have differences of opinion, but I think we are going to have an important debate, in a thoughtful fashion. The decibel level has certainly gotten pretty high in recent days on this issue.

I am very appreciative to the Senate Democrats who are supportive of the position Senator Allen and I have put together, particularly Senators Leahy, Boxer, Lincoln, and Baucus, all of whom joined as original sponsors of the managers' effort.

I wish to spend a few minutes tonight--I know other colleagues are anxious to talk--to describe how we got to this point and why I believe the approach Senator Allen and I are taking is a wise one.

About 7 years ago, after I came to the Senate, I began to think about how the Senate could write the rules of electronic commerce so as to be fair to all sides while at the same time allowing this tremendously exciting medium, the Internet, to flourish.

We were seeing early on problems with respect to how the Internet was regulated around the country. We saw discrimination. We saw in some jurisdictions, for example, if you bought the newspaper the traditional way, the snail-mail route, you would end up not paying a tax, but if you bought the online edition of that paper, you would pay a tax. That, it seemed to us, was a discrimination against technology. So about 7 years ago, I said the bedrock of our effort ought to be technological neutrality. The Internet should not get a preference, nor should the Internet be discriminated against.

I went to Senator McCain and Senator Leahy of Vermont, really known as the Senate's Mr. Internet. He was up on these issues when I think a lot of people thought a monitor was a television set. The two of them joined me in a bipartisan effort to pass this law that has now been on the books for more than 5 years.

When Senator Allen came to the Senate, he and I teamed up for a number of years on this issue, and, of course, other Senators who have come to this body.

I say in beginning the debate, many of those who now oppose the extension of the law we are proposing are using the very same arguments they made 5 years ago that have not been borne out. For example, we were told years ago that the States would not be able to collect various taxes--property taxes, corporate taxes, and other kinds of taxes. We were told that all across America, Main Streets would shrivel up and die because of Internet sales. We were told that States would lose an enormous amount of revenue. I want to respond to each one of those arguments tonight.

First, with respect to loss of revenue, not one jurisdiction has come forward and given an example of how they are hurt by their inability to discriminate against electronic commerce. All the bill says is you cannot discriminate against electronic commerce, and not one State has come forward and given an example of how they have been hurt by their inability to discriminate against electronic commerce.

Not one independent study has been done in the last 5 years indicating that the States would lose revenue as a result of this bill.

Finally, with respect to this question of Main Street and the retail stores, what we have seen is during the period this law has been in effect, Internet sales have gone from 1 percent to 2 percent. I think it is fair to say our legislation has not exactly emptied the malls of America. In fact, in most of our malls, it is still pretty hard to find a parking spot.

As we go at this issue, it is important to look at the record, and particularly it is interesting to note it in the context of what was discussed tonight.

I have noted that a number of our colleagues, particularly from the rural areas--the Dakotas and other areas--have talked about the importance--and I share their view--of building the network out; of using funds, whether it be tax credits or Government moneys, to facilitate broadband to rural areas. Their effort is one that I support. But think about the consequences of our saying tonight on the floor of the Senate: Let's use Government dollars to help companies build out the network, promote broadband in rural areas. We will say that tonight, but tomorrow we will end up sticking it to consumers with new taxes with respect to Internet access.

In effect, the policies we are talking about promoting tonight with Government dollars--and many Senators are on legislation to offer tax credits to promote broadband to rural areas which would, in effect, be negated by the effort some are offering to allow for these taxes on Internet access.

Senator Allen and I have spent many months trying to work with the State and local governments to address their concerns. We have had months of negotiations, and those negotiations all went on before our distinguished colleagues--the Senators from Tennessee, Ohio, and Delaware--came into the debate.

I note that in the effort to try to find common ground, Senator Allen and I agreed to a number of requests that were made by State and local officials. We agreed, for example, to the request from State and local officials for new statutory language further tightening the definition of ``Internet access.''

We agreed to the request for new statutory language on what is called bundling, which is, in effect, where you have Internet access bundled with information technology services other than Internet access, and it is important to separate the two for taxable purposes.

In addition, we agreed to the requests from State and local officials for new statutory language protecting a variety of other taxes, such as property and income taxes, that were never affected by the original legislation we authored, but we thought in the name of trying to find common ground, we would add that as well.

We have agreed to a request for a savings clause on universal service and a variety of regulatory proceedings.

Finally, we have agreed to allow States grandfathered so as to protect existing treatment under their State laws of these services 3 more years of Internet access taxes.

I say as we begin tonight, Senator Allen and I in 2 months of negotiations agreed to five requests from State and local officials to try to find common ground on this matter, and I ask tonight, what has been offered in return? What have been offered in return are essentially these projections that say vast sums are going to be lost to the States if this legislation that Senator Allen and I have proposed is extended.

I just ask Senators to note the language associated with these projections. The language is always, this bill could cost such-and- such; and the sum is, of course, a very large number. Never is it presented in terms of any kind of independent study that this law has, in fact, cost revenue or would cause revenue to be lost in the future.

After Senator Allen and I made these five separate concessions in an effort to find common ground, we now have these various projections that, for all practical purposes, we are trying to convince the Senate that Western civilization is going to end if we urge that this law be updated.

I know colleagues are anxious to talk, and I certainly want to give them that opportunity. I close with one last point as we begin this discussion.

I think colleagues know the technology sector has taken a real pounding in the last couple of years, but what we have seen in the last few months is that the technology sector is beginning to have a resurgence. We have begun to see, both with respect to the stock market and capital investment in the sector, the technology area is really beginning to come back.

I say to my colleagues in the Senate, I think that if, in fact, the Senate unravels the law of the last 5 years, fails to allow us to update this law, the progress that has been seen in the technology sector in the last few months could well unravel.

If, in fact, the more than 7,000 taxing jurisdictions in this country are allowed to take a bite out of the Internet, and we have the Internet access area broken down into its subparts and all of them are taxed, I think that could derail the very impressive progress we have seen in the technology sector in the last few months.

Let us not put in place a regime of multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce, if for no other reason than it would send a horrendous message to this sector where finally in the last few months we are beginning to see some resurgence.

I see my good friend from Virginia on his feet. I want to tell him how much I appreciate his cooperation. When I began this effort, he was a Governor and was supportive of our efforts then. I am pleased to have had a chance to team up with him as a member of the Commerce Committee.

I also say, because we have Senators who do not share the view of Senator Allen and myself--Senator Voinovich, Senator Alexander, and Senator Carper--that my door continues to be open to all Senators, including Senators who do not share our view, in an effort to try to find common ground.

Senator Allen and I thought the five concessions we made during 8 weeks of negotiations were part of an effort to be sensitive to the concerns of State and local bodies. Obviously, we have not done that to the satisfaction of all and our door remains open to all Senators.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, very briefly, because Senator Lautenberg has not had a chance to speak and he has been gracious enough to just give me a couple of minutes to respond to our friend from Tennessee, I think he knows we have a difference of opinion on this issue, but I want him to know how much I appreciate the way he has worked with this Senator. I think he is going to be a great addition to the Senate. I look forward to the many issues where we are going to find common ground, even though this is not one of them.

Just briefly on this unfunded mandate question, I think it is clear that, with the more than 7,000 taxing jurisdictions in our country, if ever there was something that was inherently interstate in nature, it is the Internet. I think we can just imagine the kind of chaos if even a small fraction of these 7,600 taxing jurisdictions took a bite out of the Internet. We would have a crazy quilt of laws with respect to the Internet.

There are a whole host of activities where the Federal Government has essentially made it clear they were inherently interstate in nature and you do not hear the States expressing any grievances. You don't hear States complaining that they can't tax airline tickets or mail or a variety of other things because we are talking about something that is so crystal clear in terms of its very nature--in effect, the essence of article I, section 8, of the Constitution--that this has been an area where the Federal Government has said it is not appropriate to let thousands of local and State jurisdictions simply make a mishmash out of a regulatory regime that needs to be uniform in nature.

I know we are going to talk more about that tomorrow. I am going to go through, tomorrow, the history of the Unfunded Mandates Act that supports the position Senator Allen and I have taken.

Two other points very quickly and then I do want to let our friend from New Jersey have some time for which he has been patiently waiting. With respect to the telecommunications services issue which the Senator from Tennessee has discussed, I want to make it clear that Senator Allen and I have done everything but hire a sky writer to fly over the Capitol, to make it clear that telecommunications services, which can be taxed today, would and should be taxed in the future. It is absolutely clear with respect to all the work we have tried to do, both in the committee and working with various State and local officials, we feel very strongly about it. It is what the bundling issue has been all about in terms of separating out Internet access, which should not be taxed, and telecommunications services, which ought to be taxed.

Senator Allen and I continue to be interested in working with colleagues to try to find common ground in this area, but the two of us have done everything except march down the street with a sandwich board, trying to argue that telecommunications services must be taxed and that it is Internet access about which we are concerned.

Finally, the last point I would make is we need to have a discussion in the Senate with respect to what the competitive playing field will look like under the amendment at least as outlined tonight by the Senator from Tennessee. We have already seen a competitive disadvantage established, given the developments in the last few years between cable and telecommunications. It is the view of the Senator from Virginia and I, as two Members of the Commerce Committee who have focused on this issue for many months, that we think the competitive disadvantage, which has been established in the last few years between cable and telecommunications, will widen under the proposal the Senate is going to be asked to look at tomorrow as an alternative. We are going to have a chance to discuss it.

Again, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Tennessee with respect to how he has handled this issue. We have a difference of opinion on it, but I admire the Senator from Tennessee very much and I look forward to working closely with him.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I very much share the view of the Senator from Indiana. I simply say that a lot of paper floats around Capitol Hill that never sees the light of day. The document that has to guide the members of the Intelligence Committee--both Democrats and Republicans--is the Constitution of the United States. That is the tone that our vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller, has consistently set throughout this effort to get at the facts with respect to Iraq. That is the path I think every Member of the Senate ought to continue to follow. It ought to be a bipartisan goal. The American people deserve no less.

There are legitimate and very troubling questions that need to be answered about the intelligence used to bring this Nation to war in Iraq. In fact, serious issues have come up just in the last week.

I will say that I found it exceptionally troubling--really chilling-- that just last week, Paul Bremer, who is the point man with respect to the efforts on the ground in Iraq, was asked about the nature of the Iraqi resistance and in fact was told there really wasn't a capability in the intelligence community to give our country the information that is so necessary to protect our courageous men and women who are in harm's way.

That is the kind of issue about which I think every Member of the Senate ought to be concerned. That is what the Intelligence Committee ought to be tackling in a bipartisan way. That is what Senator Rockefeller has consistently been trying to do.

We can go through a lot of the past history. Certainly, in discussions about weapons of mass destruction, we were told right here in the U.S. Capitol on a number of occasions that those weapons have not materialized. There are issues with respect to the past that need to be examined. There are issues such as the point Mr. Bremer made just in the last week that I think are very troubling.

I just urge that every Member of the Senate--and certainly those on the Intelligence Committee--recognize it is not the paper that floats around here that may or may not see the light of day and various kinds of draft documents that are important; what is important is that we do the work of oversight. That is what is in line with the document that ought to guide us--the Constitution of the United States. And that is what Senator Rockefeller has set out for us in his work. I commend him for it.

I yield the floor.