Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Hydrogen Transportation Wins Over Growing Reliance on Oil, H2 GROW, Act to accelerate getting cars and trucks powered by hydrogen on our roads as a way to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. In the House, Congressman Chris Cox will also be introducing the H2 GROW Act, so we will have the first bipartisan, bicameral bill to provide incentives for commercialing hydrogen-powered cars and the fueling stations needed for hydrogen cars to have widespread acceptance.

Our legislation has the support of a diverse coalition of interest groups, ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to the automobile industry. It is not a coalition that naturally flocks together. In fact, on many environmental issues, these groups are skirmishing, not coalescing.

Just as these groups have come together, Congressman Cox and I have felt, on a bipartisan basis, that he and I could find common ground on the critical issue of hydrogen fuel cells. Unlike some other proposals to promote hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the H2 GROW Act goes beyond researching hydrogen to kickstart the market for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and fueling equipment. Legislation he and I will introduce today, the H2 GROW Act, uses marketplace incentives so that a significant number of fuel cell vehicles can hit American streets in the next decade. In effect, our legislation goes beyond the popular wisdom that you can't do much to actually get these vehicles on the street anytime soon.

Our legislation stipulates that when someone opens a fueling station, sells fueling equipment, sells hydrogen fuel for use in vehicles, or buys a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the tax man won't cometh for the next 10 years. By creating incentives this way, our legislation, can catalyze commercialization of fuel cell vehicles. Tax holidays and tax incentives will stimulate a private market for everything from creating the infrastructure needed for fuel cell vehicles, to direct incentives for American consumers.

By using this approach, our legislation only pays for performance. It does not subsidize research that may or may not advance the goal of getting hydrogen-powered cars on the road. The tax credits and other incentives only reward actions that actually put cars on the road or fueling equipment in use.

Best of all, the price tag is minimal. The government isn't expecting any significant revenue from fuel cell vehicles anyway in the next 10 years--and that's the life of our bill. So there's no enormous cost to the government.

Congress has a clear choice between taking 20 years to get a significant number of hydrogen vehicles on the road and making real, measurable progress in the next 10 years. In my view, reducing this country's dependence on foreign oil is a national security priority. At a time when more than half our energy is imported, enacting policies that promote energy independence is a true act of patriotism. Our legislation would promote that energy independence.

Here are two examples of how our legislation provides critically needed incentives for the fuel cell market:

Congressman Cox and I want to make it worth the consumer's while to buy a fuel cell vehicle in the first place. So a tax credit will help make up the difference between the cost of a gasoline-powered vehicle and a fuel cell car. For example, if in 2009, a consumer buys a fuel cell car for $25,000, the consumer can write $3,750 off his or her taxes to make the fuel cell car more affordable.

To help gasoline stations begin to shift to serving consumers with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, our bill provides a 20-percent tax credit for every unit of hydrogen fuel sold equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.

The bill also helps taxpayers get the most of the fuel cell vehicle in terms of convenience and ease of use. With hydrogen fuel cells, filling up your car could be something you do at your home or your office as well as a retail filling station. So our bill gives taxpayers who install hydrogen fueling equipment in their homes a tax credit for up to 50 percent of the cost of the refueling equipment.

In my view, these are practical steps away from our reliance on foreign oil and toward better, cleaner transportation for all Americans. I also believe this plan is the best, most effective use of taxpayer dollars on this issue.

Companies like GM and Toyota--two car companies that are endorsing the H2 GROW Act--are already developing the technology to improve the performance and reduce the cost of fuel cell vehicles with more reliable, affordable

materials. These companies are already putting the money and time into that effort. What Congress needs to do is help the American people and American businesses take advantage of these new products as they're perfected, and help them hit the streets as quickly as possible.

I firmly believe the H2 GROW Act is a strong step toward helping consumers to shore up this Nation's economic and environmental stability for future generations. I know Congressman Cox feels the same way, and I encourage my colleagues to support our bipartisan legislation to accelerate commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell cars and help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

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 on the time the Democrats have with respect to the Estrada nomination.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, for your courtesy earlier in the morning.

Mr. President, right now the eyes of the Nation are focused on international crises. The threat of war with Iraq, the conflict at the United Nations, and a diplomatic standoff with North Korea are all critical issues about which this country is concerned.

But here at home there is a domestic crisis of massive proportions that affects the lives of millions of Americans each day; that is, the failure of our health care system to work for all Americans.

I will take just a few minutes to discuss this because next week I anticipate that thousands of Americans will get together in communities across the Nation as part of the special effort to highlight the concerns of the uninsured. This is under the auspices of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, an organization that works in a nonpartisan fashion.

I expect to see thousands of Americans in their communities-- businesspeople, senior citizens, labor organizations, those from charitable groups--so many who are falling between the cracks in our health care system speaking out and calling for congressional action. I think it is very timely because Congress must get at this critical issue.

Very shortly, the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and I will again go forward with our bipartisan proposal, the Health Care That Works For All Americans Act. Our legislation has been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the American Association of Retired Persons--three groups that do not normally flock together-- because I think there is a feeling that what has been tried for the last 57 years, in the effort to create a health care system that works for all, simply has not worked.

For 57 years, there has been an effort to write health care legislation in Washington, DC. The American people find these bills illegible, the special interest groups attack, and invariably nothing happens.

So what Senator Hatch and I will shortly propose is something fundamentally different, an effort to look outside the beltway here in Washington, DC, to the American people, an effort that will begin with the central questions, and coming up with a system that works for all Americans.

Those questions are, first and foremost, what are the essential services Americans want in a comprehensive health reform bill? Second, what will those services cost? And, third, who is going to pay for them?

I am of the view that getting the American people involved in those kinds of issues--issues that are central to creating a system that works for all--is the only way Congress is going to break the gridlock on this question.

Right now, we are seeing our small businesses getting annual premiums rising more than 20 percent a year. Many health care providers, particularly physicians in rural and urban areas, are leaving the Government programs because of inadequate reimbursement rates. Certainly we have heard from many health care providers about rising insurance costs. And then, of course, for seniors, their prescription drug bills are hitting them just like a wrecking ball.

All of this, of course, is happening before the demographic tsunami of millions of baby boomer retirees, as 2010 and 2011 approaches. In those years we are going to start seeing a bow wave of baby boomer retirees that is going to continue for 15 to 20 years, after it begins in 2010 and 2011, and clearly our health care system is not prepared for it.

So the question then becomes, what is going to be done to break the gridlock on this issue? You have very powerful interests. And certainly, partisan feelings on these issues run very strongly. If you go to a lot of Republican meetings and talk about the health care cost crisis, they say: Of course it is a problem. We have to act on this. It is just the trial lawyers' fault. Let's go and take them on, and things will get better.

Then if you go to a lot of Democratic meetings and talk about health care costs and the health care crisis, they will say: You bet it is the insurance companies. If you take them on, everything is going to get better.

What Senator Hatch and I have said, in this essentially unprecedented, bipartisan effort, that really would involve the American people in creating a new health care system, is that we realize so many of these powerful organizations are going to have to look at changes that have been resisted in the past. My sense is it is time for the Congress to act, and to begin by ensuring there will be congressional action on these issues.

If you look, for example, at the last time the Congress debated significant health reform, back in 1993 and 1994, there were not even any votes on this issue. After all of the debate and all of the controversy surrounding those proposals in 1993 and 1994, there were not even votes in the Congress on fundamental reforms.

So what Senator Hatch and I have done is ensure that after the public is given an opportunity to weigh in--in community meetings, on line, and across the country--on the kind of health care system that would work for all Americans, we guarantee a vote on the floor of the Senate and a vote in the House of Representatives on this issue.

I think by involving the public, and then following up promptly with an assurance there will actually be votes in the Congress on these issues, we have a chance to move this debate forward in a fashion we have not seen in the past.

What seems unfortunate is there are lots of ideas with respect to how to move forward on comprehensive health reform but no vehicle for bringing together the American people and a way for Congress to follow up on those initiatives. That is why I have believed, with Senator Hatch, we can take a fresh approach that could really break with the past.

I was struck, in preparing this legislation, how similar the efforts were over the last 58 years. If you look at what Harry Truman proposed in 1945, in the 81st Congress, it was remarkably similar, in terms of how the debate unfolded, to what President Clinton proposed in 1993 and 1994. In both cases, you began with bills written in Washington, DC. The American people found the proposals incomprehensible. They were attacked by interest groups. And the legislation died at that point.

I see the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Chamber. I know he is going to begin discussion on the Estrada nomination very shortly.

Since he is in the Chamber, I express my thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has been working with me for a substantial amount of time on our bipartisan health reform proposal. Because next week will involve thousands of Americans at the grassroots level talking about these issues, I thought it was important to come to the floor today and say that the Senate is now listening because the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has been willing to work with me on these issues, because he shares my view that it is critically important that we break the gridlock on the health care issue.

I announce to the Senate that very shortly Senator Hatch and I will be going forward with our proposal, the Health Care that Works for All Americans Act. We have gotten a formal endorsement from the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the AARP--three groups that do not exactly flock together on a regular basis. To a great extent, those organizations have been involved because of the prestige and stature of the senior Senator from Utah. He is, of course, the author of the

CHIP legislation, which was a tremendous breakthrough in terms of health care coverage for young people. He has worked with me extensively on community health center legislation.

At a time when the eyes of our Nation are focused on international crises, I want to draw some attention to the incredible crisis at home with respect to health care. We have millions of citizens who are not old enough for Medicare. They are not poor enough for Medicaid. Small businesses are being crushed by annual premiums. Physicians are leaving the system. Older people are not able to afford their medicine. This Congress, with the ingenuity and the talent in this Chamber, can come up with a health care system that works for all Americans.

Toward that end, I have been very gratified that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Utah, has joined me for a substantial time. We are going to stay at it until we get our proposal on the floor and the Congress breaks with this 57-year gridlock on the health care issue, gridlock that dates back to the days of Harry Truman. We can do it with some bipartisanship, which is what the Senator from Utah and I have tried to offer.

I will talk more about this next week when Coverage for the Uninsured Week begins across the country.

I thank again the Senator from Utah and yield the floor.

Mr. President, gasoline prices are soaring through the stratosphere, and the Federal Trade Commission, which is supposed to be standing up for the consumer, ought to stop playing footsie with the oil companies and take steps to protect the American people. I have been trying to get the Federal Trade Commission to do its job now for several years. In fact, I have supplied them with detailed reports outlining anticompetitive practices in the oil industry in hopes that I could get their attention. Unfortunately, they are still sitting on the sidelines.

This morning I will outline what some of those anticompetitive practices are that the oil companies are now using to victimize the American consumer.

The oil companies are redlining. What they have sought to do is keep independent wholesalers known as ``jobbers'' from competing in markets by refusing to let independent dealers buy better priced gasoline from the local jobbers. This is a technique to wall off whole communities from competition. Redlining is going on today.

The oil companies are also zone pricing. They charge different prices for the same gas at their own branded stores in adjacent neighborhoods, pricing it as high as the market will bear. They have also charged independent dealers higher wholesale prices than they charge the company stores. The end result, the independents cannot compete.

So what we have in communities across the country is two stations that are located next to each other, and because of a Supreme Court decision, oil companies are required to treat those companies similarly situated in the same way. But what the oil companies do very cleverly is divide that community into different zones. Then they can stick it to one of the stations. That station goes out of business. There is a local monopoly and the consumer gets hosed once again.

A third area I have outlined for the Federal Trade Commission is that the oil companies keep the market to themselves. In the past, they have kept down refineries that could have increased supply and introduced new competition. We have given this information to the Federal Trade Commission and, again, they sit on their hands.

Finally, of particular importance to west coast consumers, where up and down the west coast of the United States prices have soared, people are paying $2 a gallon and close to it in many communities. What we have seen in the past is the oil companies have exported gasoline to Asia at a discount and then more than made up for it by sticking consumers with higher prices in the tight west coast market.

The oil companies today would say they are no longer doing this, but the fact of the matter is that oil company representatives told my Oregon colleague, Senator Smith, who has worked with me so cooperatively on many of these issues, in an open hearing in the Commerce Committee that they would export to Asia once again whenever it was in their commercial interest. So hypothetically, if they were allowed to drill for oil in the national wildlife refuge in Alaska, apart from the environmental considerations, based on the testimony in the Senate Commerce Committee, the oil companies would be taking that oil from the wildlife refuge, selling it to Asia at a discount and sticking it to people in Oregon, Washington, and California.

It seems to me the Federal Trade Commission ought to be taking steps to stand up for the consumer. If they do not think they have the authority to stand up for the consumer at this point, they ought to come to the Senate and tell us what authority they actually need in order to protect the consumer and the gas-buying public. The unfortunate response from the Federal Trade Commission has been to simply sit this issue out.

For example, on July 17, 2002, in a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, I outlined once again for the Federal Trade Commission these anticompetitive practices. I went through with them the impact of redlining, of zone pricing, of the pressure that has been put on independent gasoline stations. I asked them to furnish for the record any set of concrete steps they have actually taken to protect the consumer.

We cannot find anything. We cannot find any specific action the Federal Trade Commission took, either before July 17, 2002, when I asked them that question, or since then. I am very troubled because I think the problems we are seeing today, and they are long-term problems, cry out for someone in the Federal Government to stand up for the consumer. It is the job of the Federal Trade Commission to deal with anticompetitive practices. These are long-term, anticompetitive practices that are siphoning the competition out of the gasoline markets in the United States.

I hope the Federal Trade Commission will either do its job under existing law--I think they have the authority to deal with these anticompetitive practices--or if they do not believe they do have the authority they need to protect the consumer, they should come to the Senate and outline what powers they need in order to stand up for the American people.

Essentially, both of the reports that I did and have submitted to the Federal Trade Commission found the very same thing. They found that the oil companies were engaging in anticompetitive practices. I hope now, given the enormous impact these huge gasoline price spikes are having on consumers, the ramifications for business--we had scores of businesses and business associations contact us in the past--that we can get the Federal Trade Commission off the side lines. They have a job to do. They are not doing it with respect to protecting the American people from anticompetitive practices in the gasoline businesses.

I intend to keep coming to the floor and the Senate Commerce Committee until the Federal Trade Commission is prepared to do its job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for an excellent statement and associate myself with his remarks. They were extremely well put.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who really is a role model for so many of us. I thank him.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the provisions in the omnibus spending bill, adopted unanimously by the Senate earlier, that will protect the privacy and civil liberties of each and every law-abiding American citizen.

I am going to discuss this over the next few minutes. I see the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, in the Chamber. Before I begin my remarks, I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He and his staff have been so gracious and so kind with respect to this issue.

The program I am going to discuss, the Total Information Awareness Program, is the most far-reaching and most expansive program of surveillance ever proposed. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, in particular, with the help of Senator Byrd and Senator Feinstein, and Senator Grassley, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, worked very closely with me.

But we simply would not have this amendment in the legislation, it would not be bipartisan, if Senator Stevens had not been working with us. Because he is in the Chamber, I particularly thank my colleague for all his help.

Mr. President, and colleagues, the amendment I am going to discuss tonight would prohibit spending for technology research and development in the Total Information Awareness Program, or TIA, unless the Department of Defense reports to the Congress on its plans for the technology.

The provision also establishes proper congressional oversight of this surveillance program by requiring explicit congressional approval for deployment of any Total Information Awareness technology that would be used to spy on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

The Defense Department itself has had a virtual database--and I will quote--that was described as ``a new kind of extremely large, omnimedia, virtually centralized and semantically rich information repository.'' In my mind, such a novel and broadly proposed program--a program that has fingers snaking into so many areas of Americans' lives--is a textbook case of a program that needs vigorous congressional oversight.

In recent days, the Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, have announced the formation of two oversight boards for the TIA Program--one within the Total Information Awareness Program and another Federal advisory board. In my view, this is a positive development. It indicates that they understand the growing concern of the American people about the Total Information Awareness Program.

But I am very pleased that Chairman Stevens and the conferees shared my view, and that is that the establishment of these panels in no way reduces the need for congressional oversight of the Total Information Awareness Program. The conferees understood that these oversight boards, while useful, are not an argument for abdicating the responsibility of the Congress on this issue.

As I mentioned, this has been a bipartisan effort with Senators Feinstein and Reid--the distinguished Senator from Nevada is in the Chamber, Mr. Reid--who have been very helpful. Suffice it to say, not one Member of Congress--no one in the Senate, no one in the other body, Democrat or Republican--has disagreed with the proposition of our amendment, and that is that it is the responsibility--indeed, the duty--of this Congress to insist on oversight of the Total Information Awareness Program. Not one Senator said: Look, Congress does not need to put brakes on the most far-reaching Government surveillance effort ever proposed.

On the contrary, what Congress said was: We are going to insist that this program is not going to be allowed to grow unchecked and unaccountable. In fact, it is the duty of the Congress to protect the civil liberties and privacy of the people we represent. The call for strong safeguards has come through loud and clear, and that call has been recognized in the conference.

One publication in my home State, the Newport News-Times, put it very well. I will quote it. That publication said:

Just visiting the web site of what is affectionately billed

as [the Total Information Awareness Program] is a trip into a

future we hope not to meet. If our government still believes

in the sanctity of the constitution this week, let's hope for

the President's signature.

All across the Nation, Americans have said that while a vigorous response to terror is necessary, a system designed to spy on Americans in America is not. It is not only unnecessary, it is contrary to the freedoms that the war on terror aims to protect.

The total information awareness concept requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit into models. For instance, does a seemingly innocent individual conduct himself or herself according to a pattern that terrorists have exhibited in the past?

To find out whether any current U.S. citizens fit the model of a terrorist living among us, the Total Information Awareness Program would develop a way to integrate the databases that already track our daily lives--bank records, online purchases, and travel plans, for instance. Once integrated, these disparate databases would serve as one giant repository of information on most or all of the computer-linked transactions an individual makes. Then you run the models, then you make a judgment of who looks like a terrorist. TIA's technology would give any Federal agency the capability to develop risk profiles for millions of Americans as they look for questionable conduct.

When I first heard about this program--I am sure there are many others who came to think this as well--when you hear this initially, you say, this sounds like a good idea. If you snoop on everybody all the time, you are more likely to spot a few criminal someones at the moment they are up to no good. But the fact is, the police can't just stop someone on the street and frisk them for no reason. Current privacy law is supposed to prohibit private companies and the Government from rummaging through your online records.

Unfortunately--and this is what you learn when you look at the total information proposal in depth--as it stands, the Total Information Awareness Program would use technology to pick regular Americans up by the ankles and shake them to see if anything funny falls out.

Now, I understand that terrorists are not going to hang a shingle outside their hideaways announcing they have set up shop. They are not technological simpletons. And I know, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, that extraordinary times such as this call for extraordinary measures to track down these terrorists. I do not take a back seat to anyone with respect to tracking down terrorists.

I believe one of the most important things I have been able to do as a Member of this body is to write the Terrorist Identification Classification System, a bipartisan effort, that became law in the last session, that allows us, on an ongoing basis, to watchdog terrorists, the Mohammed Attas of the world. But there is a clear line between something that allows for tracking individuals where there is a known track record of terrorist activity--suspicious activity linked to terrorism--and, in effect, standing by while the Government shines an indiscriminate spotlight into the private lives and dealings of law- abiding Americans in this country on their own soil.

It is a question of striking a balance. The Terrorist Identification Classification System is an appropriate approach

for the Government to take in seeking to weed out terrorism.

The Total Information Awareness Program is over the line. It is invading the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans on U.S. soil. That is why the conferees have wisely chosen to impose checks on it. The intention of the Total Information Awareness Program and those who support it is undoubtedly to protect the America that we love. But the reality is that the program as proposed encroaches on the freedoms that make us love America in the first place.

Millions of Americans understand that. They have made it clear that they don't want this program to move forward unchecked and unaccountable, and that is why there has been such an outcry about it.

A few weeks ago I stood with a coalition in a room not far from this sacred Chamber that does not flock together all that often: Americans for Tax Reform, the Eagle Forum two groups that are certainly conservative by anybody's calculus stood with the American Civil Liberties Union and a variety of groups that would be considered liberal, as they supported efforts to put vigorous oversight in place over this program. Suffice it to say, in my time in the Congress, I have never seen a program that has generated more ideological concern across the political spectrum. We have seen Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives all saying this is a program that warrants vigorous oversight and scrutiny by elected officials.

Just because the administration has promised in recent days to institute oversight panels and to not use their awesome power for nefarious purposes, does not mean that future leaders would not abuse this program. So what we have said is that we are not going to let this program move forward without first ensuring permanent safeguards and protections that without them would threaten Americans not just today but many years in the future.

Some who advocate this program will say that the concerns of Members of Congress and others are overblown. Some say the program will not do what I described and it doesn't threaten the privacy of American citizens in the way that first appears. I hope that is the case. If that is the case, if in fact the Total Information Awareness Program does not threaten the civil liberties and privacy rights of the American people, then the folks over at the Defense Department need to come to the Congress and make that clear.

They need to do what they have not done to date, and that is to explain more about what this program will do and how it will do it.

The fact is, this body is in the dark about the Total Information Awareness Program, the most expansive and far-reaching surveillance program ever proposed. Congress has not been informed as to what safeguards and constitutional protections would be in place when this program goes forward. Therefore, my view is this Congress has no choice but to pursue answers and explanations before allowing the program to proceed. That is what our amendment to the omnibus spending bill does, and that is what the conferees have wisely chosen to do.

My view is that these are reasonable provisions. The amendment calls on the Department of Defense to explain in a report to be delivered to the Congress within 90 days what technology they intend to develop and what they intend to do with it. Then the amendment further states that when any technology is developed for this program, it may not be developed without the express approval of the Congress. If the Total Information Awareness Program is something that is less invasive or smaller in scope or different than I have described, then the administration will have an opportunity to tell us.

This amendment does not prevent those who support the program as initially outlined to have the chance to come back and show why additional threats warrant additional action. What this amendment does is ensure that if this program moves forward, it does so in a fashion that is sensitive to American freedoms, sensitive to constitutional protections and safeguards, while still ensuring that our country can fight terrorism.

Finally, it all comes down to how we come forward and address a special task. What we must do now is to be vigilant, to make sure we are doing what is necessary to fight terrorism, but not approve actions or condone actions that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation-- our Constitution.

I thank my colleagues, particularly Senators Stevens, Inouye, Feinstein, Grassley, Reid, and others, who said repeatedly that Congress should not shirk its obligation. The conferees who were appointed to reconcile this spending bill had a unique opportunity to defend the Constitution and the United States. That is what we are elected to do. That is what we get election certificates for. They answered that call. For that, I offer the thanks of Oregonians and all Americans for whom civil liberties remain so special and precious tonight.

I yield the floor.

Telecommunications Training Institute

Mr. President, it has been said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. In the same way, a journey of a million miles must be completed with one final step.

It was at the moment of that ultimate step on February 1, 2003, that the Space Shuttle Columbia could go no further. In its last moments, America's first shuttle took with it the brave souls of its crew. It is those seven heroes and human beings I honor today, on behalf of every Oregonian who mourns them.

In recent years, the names of shuttle astronauts have seldom been known by most Americans. Now, the names of the Columbia Seven have entered the nation's consciousness through the floodgates of our shared grief: Flight Commander Rick Husband; Pilot William ``Willie'' McCool; Payload Commander Michael Anderson; Mission Specialist Kalpana ``K.C.'' Chawla; Mission Specialist David Brown; Mission Specialist Laurel Clark; and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon.

As the recent chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, I came to know firsthand that America's astronaut corps, and indeed the teams of engineers and experts that support them, are the best this country has to offer. It seems that this particular group of astronauts was the best of the best. And they were not only America's finest, they were India's finest and Israel's finest as well.

Many of this crew were devoted husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. They leave a dozen children behind them who deserve this nation's sympathy and gratitude for the sacrifice their parents' final mission required.

But the Columbia crew also leaves behind their ideals of persistence and patriotism, the humility and humor that called so many people to love them so much, and above all their love of learning and life. Each brought a different background and unique experience to this mission. All defeated great odds and exhibited enormous courage in becoming the astronauts they hoped to be.

From childhood, Rick Husband, Willie McCool and David Brown cherished dreams of liftoff and landing, of spaceships and spirits aloft.

Laurel Clark dove to the depths of the sea in her naval career before reaching the heights of heaven on Columbia.

Michael Anderson was able to break even the barrier of sound, even the barrier of Earth's atmosphere as one of the nation's few African American astronauts.

Kalpana Chawla's mother reportedly had hoped for a son 41 years ago in India. She now says with pride that this daughter did better than any boy could, coming to America less than 20 years ago and twice being chosen as her adopted nation's envoy to space.

Ilan Ramon had led his nation into battle many times. On this expedition, he envisioned Israel at peace. Looking down from the windows of Columbia, he imagined that the quiet and calm of the heavens would someday find his country men and women on Earth.

As President Bush said on Saturday, Columbia is lost. But the optimism of Ilan Ramon and the visions Columbia's crew embodied never need pass away.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once said this: ``Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire. It was given to us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and passionate thing.'' Today I say that it was the great good fortune of every American, of every citizen of the world, that these seven hearts were touched in youth with fire--that it became their profound passion to reach into the skies and grasp the knowledge that lies beyond our planet.

Even as our hearts grieve, there is reason to rejoice. The United States of America and the nations of the world are still called to farther frontiers by these seven, so deserving of our respect.

Mr. President, as the Senate moves forward on the Omnibus Appropriations bill, I wish to explain in greater detail the amendment I first discussed the other day. I offered this amendment with Senators Feinstein, Reid, Boxer, and Corzine to establish clear and unambiguous congressional oversight over the Pentagon's Office of Total Information Awareness, TIA. It is an amendment on which I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I want to especially recognize the invaluable guidance Senator Inouye has provided us in crafting this amendment.

It is an amendment that would limit the scope of the Office of Total Information Awareness. This is a program that is now being directed by retired Admiral John Poindexter, the former National Security Adviser to former President Reagan. It is one that raises a number of important issues that have arisen in our country since the horrific events of 9/ 11.

Let me be clear. The amendment does not kill the program; rather, the amendment shifts the burden to the executive branch to make the case for the program. The amendment would restrict funding for the program unless the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence send to Congress within 60 days a report answering a series of questions about the TIA program, or the President certifies to Congress in writing that that cessation of TIA's research and development work would endanger U.S. national security. Further, the amendment would prohibit DOD from sharing this technology with any Federal agency that wishes to deploy or implement it until the Secretary of Defense informs Congress about the element of the program's technology that would be deployed and the intended method and scope of the deployment, and an authorization and an appropriations law have been enacted to provide for the specific deployment or implementation.

Given the fact that our country is engaged in fighting a war against an enemy without boundaries, clearly we must, as a nation, take steps that constantly strive to balance the rights of our citizens against the need to protect the national security of our Nation.

My concern is the program that is being developed by Mr. Poindexter is going forward without congressional oversight and without clear accountability and guidelines. That is why I think it is important for the Senate, as we reflect on the need to fight terrorism while balancing the need to protect the rights of our citizens, to emphasize how important it is that a program like this be subject to congressional oversight, and that there be clear accountability.

On the Web site of this particular program, the Total Information Awareness Program, is cited a Latin slogan--``Knowledge is power''-- something we would all agree with, and it states:

The total information awareness of translational threats

requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how

they fit in to models. To this end, this office would seek to

develop a way to integrate databases into a ``virtual

centralized grand database.

The ``centralized grand database'' would enable the federal government to look at the education, financial, travel, medical, and other activities of U.S. citizens, and develop risk profiles for millions of Americans in the quest to examine questionable conduct and certainly suspicious activity that would generate concern for the safety of the American people. Our country must fight terrorists, but America should not unleash virtual bloodhounds to sniff into the personal financial, medical, and other records of millions of Americans.

I am of the view the Senate has a special obligation to be vigilant in this area so we do not approve actions or condone actions by this particular office that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation: our Constitution.

I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I know it is a difficult job to find and maintain the proper balance between constitutional rights and the need to thoroughly track down every valid lead on terrorism, but I will tell you, I think it is critically important

that the Senate have oversight over this program, and we make sure there is not a program of what amounts to virtual bloodhounds.

We need to make sure there are guidelines and rules so that there has to be, for example, evidence there is activity that could threaten the country before additional intrusive steps are taken and, second, that there are safeguards in place at a time when it is possible, because of modern technology and new databases, to share information very quickly.

The fact is much of this information is already being shared in the private sector, and that is why so many Americans are troubled about the prospect of losing privacy right now. What is of concern to many about the Office of Total Information Awareness is it will take the current policies that threaten the privacy of the Americana people and magnify those problems, given the fact we have not been informed as to what safeguards and constitutional protections would be in place when this program goes forward.

I am of the view that the Senate must act to suspend this massive data-mining project unless and until the executive branch comes forward to make the case for it and Congress determines whether the proposed benefits of this technology come at too high a price to the privacy and personal liberty of U.S. citizens.

Clearly, to fight terrorism, we have to have the confidence of the American people. In doing so, we must protect their rights. My concern is the Office of Total Information Awareness, as it is constituted today, tips that balance against the procedural safeguards that are needed to protect the rights of millions of Americans while fighting terrorism.

That is why I and my distinguished colleagues believe Congress must act now to limit the scope of the TIA office. The amendment will ensure that as this program is developed in its early days it is done in a fashion that is sensitive and respectful of constitutional protections and safeguards, while still ensuring that our Nation can continue to fight terrorism.

In closing, I again thank the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for his generous assistance.

amendment no. 59

Senator Gordon Smith and I would like to discuss an important element of the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Program. This program is preparing the country for the next energy revolution--what many refer to as the ``hydrogen economy.'' It will establish an energy infrastructure for America based on abundant and domestically produced hydrogen, which will be used to fuel our powerplants, our homes, and our automobiles. The Senator's leadership, and that of the Congress as a whole, has strengthened the program over the past few years. However, there is one area on which the House and Senate have not yet achieved a consensus, an area that Senator Smith and I believe is important for establishing one early element of the hydrogen economy.

I am referring to fuel cells, and specifically the Proton Exchange Membrane, or P-E-M fuel cell. Is the Senator aware that this technology is being developed by American companies for widespread applications, including homes and automobiles, but that before it may be used broadly in these applications, the fuel cell must be greatly improved and made affordable?

That is correct. However, at the current pace of development it will be at least a decade before fuel cell systems are available in any significant numbers for large markets. Meanwhile, Japan and the European countries are investing more in fuel cell development than the U.S. is investing, and we are losing our leadership in this area. Japan's investment last year alone was three times that of the DOE.

Senator Smith and I agree that U.S. fuel cell companies are ready to demonstrate P-E-M fuel cell powerplants that will serve the niche markets, and can accelerate the introduction of fuel cells to markets in the near term and the larger markets in the mid term. Would the Senator agree that there is an exciting opportunity here?

We suggest that the Congress approve $4 million for continued development and validation of advanced P-E-M fuel cells and metal membrane fuel purification technologies in the Energy & Water appropriations measure.

Senator Smith and I appreciate the Senator's consideration of our request. We thank him for the opportunity for this exchange, and his continued leadership for the advancement of energy technologies important to our Nation.

southeast louisiana flood control project

Mr. President, far from the stuff of science fiction, nanotechnology has become a reality in the lives of many Americans. While there is tremendous potential for further study in this field, nanotechnology's current impacts range from the pedestrian to the extraordinary. A TV commercial demonstrates the practicality of nanotechnology through stain-resistant pants. Prosthetic and medical implants have been improved through molecularly designed surfaces that interact with the cells of the body. There is no question that this field will dramatically change the way Americans live.

I was pleased that my colleagues in the Commerce Committee in the last Congress recognized the tremendous potential of nanotechnology and passed this bill out of committee with unanimous bipartisan support. Nanotechnology innovations will bring enormous benefits to America's economy and to nearly every aspect of life in the coming decades. My own judgment is the nanotechnology revolution has the potential to change America on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the computer revolution. I am determined that the United States will not miss, but will mine the opportunities of nanotechnology. At present, efforts in the nanotechnology field are strewn across a half-dozen Federal agencies. I want America to marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe Federal support is essential to achieving that goal.

Legislation I am introducing today will provide a smart, accelerate, and organized approach to nanotechnology research, development, and education. In my view, there are three major steps America must take to ensure the highest success for its nanotechnology efforts.

First, a National nanotechnology Research Program should be established to superintend long-term fundamental nanoscience and engineering research. The program's goals will be to ensure America's leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and to make sure ethical and social concerns are taken into account alongside the development of this discipline.

Second, the Federal Government should support nanoscience through a program of research grants, and also through the establishment of nanotechnology research centers. These centers would serve as key components of a national research infrastructure, bringing together experts from the various disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale projects to succeed and building a network that includes State- supported centers. As these research efforts take shape, educational opportunities will be the key to their long-term success. Through this legislation, I commit to helping students who would enter the field of nanotechnology. This discipline requires multiple areas of expertise. Students with the drive and the talent to tackle physics, chemistry, and the material sciences simultaneously deserve all the support we can offer.

Third, the government should create connections across its agencies to aid in the meshing of various nanotechnology efforts. These could include a national steering office, and a Presidential nanotechnology Advisory Committee, modeled on the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee.

I also believe that as these organizational support structures are put into place, rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the maximum efficiency of our efforts. Personally, I would call for an annual review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the Presidential Advisory Committee, and a periodic review from the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to monitoring our own progress, the United States should keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts through a series of benchmarking studies.

If the Federal Government fails to get behind nanotechnology now with organized, goal-oriented support, this Nation runs the risk of falling behind others in the world who recognize the potential of this discipline. Nanotechnology is already making pants more stain- resistant, making windows self-washing and making car parts stronger with tiny particles of clay. What America risks missing is the next generation of nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care, agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national security.

America risks missing a revolution in electronics, where a device the size of a sugar cube could hold all of the information in the Library of Congress. Today's silicon-based technologies can only shrink so small. Eventually, nanotechnologies will grow devices from the molecular level up. Small though they may be, their capabilities and their impact will be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere molecules.

America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my home State, Oregon State University researchers are working on the microscale to create lapel-pin-sized biosensors that use the color-changing cells of the Siamese fighting fish to provide instant visual warnings when a biotoxin is present. An antimicrobial dressing for battlefield wounds is already available today, containing silver nanocrystals that prevent infection and reduce inflammation. The health care possibilities for nanotechnology are limitless. Eventually, nanoscale particles will travel human bodies to detect and cure disease. Chemotherapy could attack individual cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact. Tiny bulldozers could unclog blocked arteries. Human disease will be fought cell by cell, molecule by molecule, and nanotechnology will provide victories over disease that we can't even conceive today.

America risks missing a host of beneficial breakthroughs. American scientists could be the first to create nanomaterials for manufacturing and design that are stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and safer. Nanoscale devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the air as it is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to make American soldiers almost invisible to enemies and even tend their wounds. nanotechnology could grow steel stronger than what's made today, with little or no waste to pollute the environment.

Moreover, and this is even more important given our struggling economy, America risks missing an economic revolution based on nanotechnology. With much of nanotechnology existing in a research milieu, venture capitalists are already investing $1 billion in American nanotech interests this year alone. It's estimated that nanotechnology will become a trillion-dollar industry over the next 10 years. As nanotechnology 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--but only if government doesn't miss the boat.

Our country's 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 legislation I am issuing today. The strategic planning it prescribes will ensure that scientists get the support they need to realize nanotechnology's greatest potential.

In 1944 the visionary President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a leading American scientist's opinion on advancing the United States' scientific efforts to benefit the world. Dr. Vannevar Bush offered his reply to President Harry S Truman the next year, following FDR's death. In his report to the President, Dr. Bush wrote, ``The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way to do it.''

Those principles, so true nearly 60 years ago, are truer still today. I propose that the government now accept new responsibilities in promoting and developing nanatechnology. I am pleased to be joined on this legislation by Senators Allen, Lieberman, Mikulski, Hollings, Landrieu, Clinton, and Levin. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be entered in the Record.

Mr. President, far from the stuff of science fiction, nanotechnology has become a reality in the lives of many Americans. While there is tremendous potential for further study in this field, nanotechnology's current impacts range from the pedestrian to the extraordinary. A TV commercial demonstrates the practicality of nanotechnology through stain-resistant pants. Prosthetic and medical implants have been improved through molecularly designed surfaces that interact with the cells of the body. There is no question that this field will dramatically change the way Americans live.

I was pleased that my colleagues in the Commerce Committee in the last Congress recognized the tremendous potential of nanotechnology and passed this bill out of committee with unanimous bipartisan support. Nanotechnology innovations will bring enormous benefits to America's economy and to nearly every aspect of life in the coming decades. My own judgment is the nanotechnology revolution has the potential to change America on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the computer revolution. I am determined that the United States will not miss, but will mine the opportunities of nanotechnology. At present, efforts in the nanotechnology field are strewn across a half-dozen Federal agencies. I want America to marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe Federal support is essential to achieving that goal.

Legislation I am introducing today will provide a smart, accelerate, and organized approach to nanotechnology research, development, and education. In my view, there are three major steps America must take to ensure the highest success for its nanotechnology efforts.

First, a National nanotechnology Research Program should be established to superintend long-term fundamental nanoscience and engineering research. The program's goals will be to ensure America's leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and to make sure ethical and social concerns are taken into account alongside the development of this discipline.

Second, the Federal Government should support nanoscience through a program of research grants, and also through the establishment of nanotechnology research centers. These centers would serve as key components of a national research infrastructure, bringing together experts from the various disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale projects to succeed and building a network that includes State- supported centers. As these research efforts take shape, educational opportunities will be the key to their long-term success. Through this legislation, I commit to helping students who would enter the field of nanotechnology. This discipline requires multiple areas of expertise. Students with the drive and the talent to tackle physics, chemistry, and the material sciences simultaneously deserve all the support we can offer.

Third, the government should create connections across its agencies to aid in the meshing of various nanotechnology efforts. These could include a national steering office, and a Presidential nanotechnology Advisory Committee, modeled on the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee.

I also believe that as these organizational support structures are put into place, rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the maximum efficiency of our efforts. Personally, I would call for an annual review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the Presidential Advisory Committee, and a periodic review from the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to monitoring our own progress, the United States should keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts through a series of benchmarking studies.

If the Federal Government fails to get behind nanotechnology now with organized, goal-oriented support, this Nation runs the risk of falling behind others in the world who recognize the potential of this discipline. Nanotechnology is already making pants more stain- resistant, making windows self-washing and making car parts stronger with tiny particles of clay. What America risks missing is the next generation of nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care, agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national security.

America risks missing a revolution in electronics, where a device the size of a sugar cube could hold all of the information in the Library of Congress. Today's silicon-based technologies can only shrink so small. Eventually, nanotechnologies will grow devices from the molecular level up. Small though they may be, their capabilities and their impact will be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere molecules.

America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my home State, Oregon State University researchers are working on the microscale to create lapel-pin-sized biosensors that use the color-changing cells of the Siamese fighting fish to provide instant visual warnings when a biotoxin is present. An antimicrobial dressing for battlefield wounds is already available today, containing silver nanocrystals that prevent infection and reduce inflammation. The health care possibilities for nanotechnology are limitless. Eventually, nanoscale particles will travel human bodies to detect and cure disease. Chemotherapy could attack individual cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact. Tiny bulldozers could unclog blocked arteries. Human disease will be fought cell by cell, molecule by molecule, and nanotechnology will provide victories over disease that we can't even conceive today.

America risks missing a host of beneficial breakthroughs. American scientists could be the first to create nanomaterials for manufacturing and design that are stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and safer. Nanoscale devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the air as it is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to make American soldiers almost invisible to enemies and even tend their wounds. nanotechnology could grow steel stronger than what's made today, with little or no waste to pollute the environment.

Moreover, and this is even more important given our struggling economy, America risks missing an economic revolution based on nanotechnology. With much of nanotechnology existing in a research milieu, venture capitalists are already investing $1 billion in American nanotech interests this year alone. It's estimated that nanotechnology will become a trillion-dollar industry over the next 10 years. As nanotechnology 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--but only if government doesn't miss the boat.

Our country's 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 legislation I am issuing today. The strategic planning it prescribes will ensure that scientists get the support they need to realize nanotechnology's greatest potential.

In 1944 the visionary President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a leading American scientist's opinion on advancing the United States' scientific efforts to benefit the world. Dr. Vannevar Bush offered his reply to President Harry S Truman the next year, following FDR's death. In his report to the President, Dr. Bush wrote, ``The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way to do it.''

Those principles, so true nearly 60 years ago, are truer still today. I propose that the government now accept new responsibilities in promoting and developing nanatechnology. I am pleased to be joined on this legislation by Senators Allen, Lieberman, Mikulski, Hollings, Landrieu, Clinton, and Levin. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be entered in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes this morning.

Mr. President, as the Senate moves to the spending bill, I rise to discuss briefly an amendment I will be offering. It is an amendment I discussed with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is an amendment that would limit the scope of the Office of Total Information Awareness. This is a program that is now being directed by retired Admiral John Poindexter, the former National Security Adviser to former President Reagan. It is one that raises a number of important issues that have arisen in our country since the horrific events of 9/ 11.

Given the fact that our country is engaged in fighting a war against an enemy without boundaries, clearly we must, as a Nation, take steps that constantly strive to balance the rights of our citizens against the need to protect the national security of our Nation.

My concern is the program that has been developed by Mr. Poindexter is going forward without congressional oversight and without clear accountability and guidelines. That is why I think it is important for the Senate, as we reflect on the need to fight terrorism while balancing the need to protect the rights of our citizens, to emphasize how important it is a program such as this be subject to congressional oversight and that there be clear accountability.

On the Web site of this particular program, the Total Information Awareness Program, they cite a Latin slogan: ``Knowledge is power''-- something we would all agree with:

The total information awareness of transnational threats

requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how

they fit in to models. To this end, this office would seek to

develop a way to integrate databases into a ``virtual

centralized grand database.''

They would be in a position to look at education, travel, and medical records, and develop risk profiles for millions of Americans in the quest to examine questionable conduct and certainly suspicious activity that would generate concern for the safety of the American people.

I am of the view the Senate has a special obligation to be vigilant in this area so we do not approve actions or condone actions by this particular office that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation--our Constitution.

I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I know it is a difficult job to find and maintain the proper balance between constitutional rights and the need to thoroughly track down every valid lead on terrorism, but I will tell you, Mr. President, I think it is critically important that the Senate have oversight over this program and we make sure there is not a program of what amounts to virtual bloodhounds.

We need to make sure there are guidelines and rules so that there has to be, for example, evidence there is activity that could threaten the country before additional intrusive steps are taken and, second, that there are safeguards in place at a time when it is possible, because of modern technology and new databases, to share information very quickly.

The fact is much of this information is already being shared in the private sector, and that is why so many Americans are troubled about the prospect of losing privacy. What is of concern to many about the Office of Total Information Awareness is it will take the current policies that threaten the privacy of the American people and magnify those problems, given the fact we have not been informed as to what safeguards and constitutional protections would be in place when this program goes forward.

It is time for the Senate to put some reins on this program before it grows exponentially and tips the balance with respect to privacy rights and the need to protect the national security in a fashion that is detrimental to our Nation.

Clearly, to fight terrorism, we have to have the confidence of the American people. In doing so, we are protecting their rights. My concern is the Office of Total Information Awareness, as it is constituted today, tips that balance against the procedural safeguards that

are needed to protect the rights of millions of Americans while fighting terrorism.

That is why I will be offering an amendment on the spending bill to limit the scope of the office. That amendment will not prevent those in the administration who support the program to come back at a later date and show why additional threats warrant additional action.

It will ensure that as this program is developed in its early days it is done in a fashion that is sensitive, with constitutional protections and safeguards, while still ensuring that our Nation can fight terrorism.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, predictions that the Internet Tax Freedom Act would topple Western Civilization have not come to pass. Since the moratorium on taxation of out-of-State, online sales was first enacted in October 1998, not a single community, county or state has come forward to prove it is being injured by its inability to impose discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. There is simply no evidence that States have lost revenue by technology-driven commerce. On the contrary, the technology sector itself has been pounded as hard as any sector by the economic downturn.

Across the country States are facing tremendous budget pressures. My own State of Oregon is facing a nearly 20 percent budget shortfall, and Oregon has the highest unemployment rate in the Nation. The shift from black ink to red is the result of this Administration's failed economic policies, not the inability of States to impose discriminatory taxes on Internet sales.

Adding new taxes on the backs of consumers is not the way to salvage weakened State and local economies. Sales taxes are among the most regressive revenue measures, and imposing new sales taxes at this time could actually make a bad economic situation worse. A number of States seem to be arguing that their economic future is tied to taxing technology entrepreneurs located thousands of miles away with no physical presence in their jurisdiction. I don't share this view. The reason States don't tax remote sellers, as former Massachusetts Governor Celluci has testified before the Senate, is they don't want the political heat. Few of the 45 States that could collect a use tax on all items their residents have purchased out-of-State actually do so. Most States simply chose not to enforce their own laws, preferring to export their tax burden to out of state businesses who get no benefit from the taxing state.

Congress will soon be asked again by the Streamlined Sales Tax Project States to take the political heat for new sales taxes. The U.S. Senate has voted three times in recent years on whether to overturn Quill to require remote sellers with no nexus to serve the States as their tax collectors. Every time the Senate has rejected the notion. On January 19, 1995, the Senate voted 73-25 to table the amendment; on October 2, 1998, the Senate voted 66-29 to table the amendment; and most recently, on November 15, 2001, the Senate voted 57-43 to table the amendment.

As Congress revisits this issue again this year, we should remember what the Supreme Court said in Quill: ``Congress is . . . free to decide whether, when and to what extent the States may burden mail- order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.'' The authority the Constitution vests in Congress to regulate interstate commerce--online or otherwise--is an enormous power that must be exercised with great care and caution. I believe the moratorium should be extended indefinitely, and that is what the legislation I introduce today would do. I am pleased to be joined once again in this effort by Representative Chris Cox, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.