Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Oregon has been waiting to speak. The Senator from Virginia is in the Chamber as well. But if it might be appropriate, I wish to make a couple of comments relative to my friend's comments. If it is appropriate, I would like to ask consent that the Senator from Oregon be recognized following my presentation. My understanding is he is going to speak for a few moments.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me clear up a couple of issues. First, my colleague from Arizona is straight with all the facts. We have no disagreements about the facts. He indicated I am opposed to the moratorium. I am not opposed to the moratorium. I have voted for an Internet tax moratorium. I hope before the end of this week I can vote for another Internet tax moratorium.

Mr. DORGAN. That is correct. I don't support the specific definition of access. We need to work through that. But that doesn't mean I don't support the moratorium on taxing the Internet. I have supported that previously. I supported the previous moratorium that was in existence, and I support it now. In fact, I will offer an amendment that will demonstrate that support. I appreciate clearing that up. Second, the Senator twice yesterday--I was going to correct him and I did not--talked about the fact that the Democrats have a retreat this weekend on Friday. We Democrats don't use the word ``retreat.'' We call it an ``issues conference.'' We think ``retreat'' is a more negative word. So we have an issues conference, as do the Republican members of the Republican caucus, I think, have a couple times a year. We have an issues conference. We will be doing that beginning on Friday. Let me also comment about the Senator from South Dakota, the minority leader, Mr. Daschle. He offered his amendment. I know the comments by Senator McCain this morning reflect the right of Senator Daschle to offer that amendment. I understand that when one is managing a bill, the last thing you want is an amendment that is off the particular subject. But Senator McCain has correctly stated that the amendment offered by Senator Daschle was well within the rules of the Senate. He has the right to offer that amendment. My guess is, as Senator McCain described his approach earlier in the Senate of offering an amendment, that might be extraneous for the purpose of getting a vote on the amendment at some point. I think Senator Daschle would be very happy to--I can't speak for him--come out here and say: I will withdraw that amendment in exchange of Senator Frist allowing me a vote on that amendment immediately following the Internet tax moratorium. I am guessing Senator Daschle would be very happy to do that. In any event, because he felt a need to offer that amendment on this bill, it doesn't mean he is trying to block this bill. The only block is a mental block among those who might not want to proceed now. The fact is, I think Senator Daschle would be willing to come out here and say: Let us have a 15-minute time agreement or 30-minute time agreement, have a vote, and we will dispose of this amendment--however it is disposed of. Let us do that. I am sure he would say: I don't intend to block this bill but I just intend to exercise my right to get a vote on my amendment, which I think is the same approach the Senator from Arizona has used very effectively, I might add, over many years. If anybody on the floor of this Senate is relentless--and some might use other adjectives--in the pursuit of his passions and demands that he be heard, it is the Senator from Arizona. I expect others who have managed bills who have sat in that very chair have from time to time had to grit their teeth in sufficient volume to have people hear in the Russell Building when Senator McCain comes to the Senate floor, wondering what amendment he will offer and what is its purpose. The approach with which we legislate in the Senate is not always the most efficient approach. The most efficient approach, I suppose, is the one used by the other body in the House of Representatives where they package up, through the Rules Committee, the exact circumstance under which legislation will be considered. They bring a bill to the floor, they will allow these six amendments, and they will have 10 minutes each. They package it up and zip it real tight. The Senate does not work that way. George Washington was happy it does not. So was Thomas Jefferson. I am as well. However, it is frustrating from time to time. Yesterday was a frustrating day. However, I would speak on behalf of the minority leader in saying that the issue offered with respect to renewable fuels is a very important issue. Let's just move on that. Let's get a vote on that. I expect I could ask him to come to the Senate floor, and I expect he would be willing to have a short time agreement if he gets a vote on his amendment. Since he offered the amendment, Senator Domenici came and offered a 900-page amendment dealing with the entire Energy bill, rewritten so that is a different issue. My goal would be to try to move through this legislation. I hope we can find a way to vote on amendments that are offered, have short time agreements.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. I am. I was trying to make the point that those who have a right to offer amendments do not intend to block the legislation. My hope is we can try to determine how we get through this, have votes. I heard a presentation earlier this morning in the Senate saying the problem with the Senate is we are being obstructed every time we turn around. The obstruction is the minute somebody on our side offers an amendment, the place shuts down. I don't understand that. There is a guy in my hometown who had a Model T. He got drunk one night, and when he was driving home he turned the front wheels too sharp. The Model T's were the only cars like the red wagon: If you turn the wheel too tight, it tips over. He turned the Model T too tight and it tipped over. He thought he saw chickens in the road, so he turned the wheels too tight and tipped the Model T. I was thinking of this in terms of getting this moving. When somebody offers an amendment, somebody sees some chickens in the road, so we just stop or tip over. We just do not move. Then somebody says, Well, we do not want to move anymore because the other side has obstructed us. I say--whether it is overtime, whether it is ethanol, or whether it is on minimum wage--they need not obstruct anything. I believe all of those who have offered those amendments have agreed to a very short timeframe. Have a vote and dispose of it, and then move forward. Because the majority does not want to have that vote, they essentially decide we are going to do nothing. We will keep the lights on, we will make it look like we are working, but we are not going to move. That is unfortunate because there is not obstruction from this side. The obstruction would be from those who have decided once my colleague offered an overtime amendment we will no longer proceed with the corporate finance bill; we will no longer proceed because somebody offered an amendment we do not like. With respect to this bill in the Senate, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, my preference would be whatever somebody offers today, ask them, Will you accept a time agreement that is reasonable--15 minutes, 30 minutes? If they say yes, we ought to have a discussion about it for that 15 minutes, call the roll, have a vote, and then move on. We will exhaust that pretty quickly. We will get to the amendments that are at the center of this bill, find out what the sentiment of the Senate is on that, and then, I hope, pass this legislation. I hope at the end of the day I will vote in favor of this, as I have done on previous pieces of legislation dealing with the Internet tax freedom or the moratorium on taxing the Internet. My hope is we can find a solution to this definition. I think we are working on one so that we can vote for it. I want this to pass. I have taken longer than I intended to say something I should have said with greater brevity, but my hope is we can just proceed. We are now at parade rest again, as is the case with every bill, with people saying, Your side is obstructing. We are not obstructing. We can have a 15-minute debate on the Daschle amendment and then vote for it. I am for that. I think Senator Reid would be for that. Let's do that. Then we do not have a worry about the Democratic leader offering an amendment. He offers it and the Senate has an opportunity to vote on it. The place where we should be roundly criticized is if we offered an amendment and said, By the way, we do not want to vote on this; we want to talk about it for 2 or 3 days. No one I am aware of is in the position of doing that. That is not our intention. We simply want to vote on the Daschle amendment. I know my colleague from Oregon is waiting to talk about the very thing that represents the difference on this moratorium issue, and that is the definition. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Oregon has outlined, I think, the center of the discussion and the controversy. To demonstrate the complexity of this issue, when we talk about someone connecting to broadband from their home computer, they are connecting, perhaps, through their telephone system. So it goes from the computer to the telephone wire, back to, I guess--through, perhaps--a D-SLAM, up to an ISP, Internet service provider. So you have a series of things that are happening with respect to the connection. Some would say the connection is between the computer and the telephone service that is going to be provided at a cost of, let's say, $40 a month, and that shall be tax exempt. I agree with that. That connection shall not bear the burden of a tax. I think that is what the Senator is talking about with respect to part of the definition. So then the question goes beyond that. Well, what about the architecture that goes back up through the local phone system to the D- SLAM, to the Internet service provider? What if they are buying a part for the facility that allows them to move DSL out to the neighborhood? That is part of the DSL stream, but it is upstream in the architecture of getting the DSL to the home. So is that part of what the architecture is? One of the difficulties for me is to try to understand what the Senator from Oregon describes as the connection. Is it all the way up to the Internet service provider in every purchase--every part, every piece, or every bit of construction that exists between the computer and the Internet service provider downstream through the architecture? If that is the case, we are talking about a substantial amount of economic activity, almost all of which is now taxed, incidentally, not just for telephone service but similarly for the cable system, which would not then be taxed in the future and would affect the revenue base of State and local governments. But if the definition of the ``connection'' is some $40 a month that one might pay for the DSL service, that, I think, represents a definition that most of us agree with. I am just trying to understand a bit, and perhaps the Senator from Oregon can describe an answer to those questions so I understand it better.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have just a couple of thoughts. First, my colleague from Arizona was also at the hearing this morning when the question to one of the witnesses elicited the answer that taxes really are inconsequential or have almost no impact on the movement and deployment of broadband. I happen to agree with that assessment. What has happened with respect to Japan and South Korea, as an example, where they have had this robust, aggressive development of broadband, it is a result of a couple things. They had a national will, a program, and a determination to make that happen, including loan guarantees, among other things--also, including regulation. What was the regulation? It was that their Government said incumbent providers must make their facilities available to other competitors; their dark fiber must be made available to other competitors. They created robust, aggressive competition and, therefore, a massive buildout of broadband. Good for them. But that was regulation. That was the Government saying you have to make your dark fiber available to the incumbent providers. They have approached this in different ways. Also, we in this Government, right now, have, I understand, over $2 billion of loan guarantees and loan authority in the U.S. for the buildout of broadband. I know that because I offered the amendment which allowed that to happen. Senator Burns and I and others worked on this for a long while. Yet that money has sat down at the USDA and they are not doing much with it. We met with the Secretary of Agriculture to say: Let's move, let's incentivize and develop the buildout of broadband. You have resources, substantial resources. I believe the resources used in Japan were $1 billion in loan guarantees. We have more than that available; it has been available, appropriated, and ready, and it is not being used. While I appreciate the President's speech, I say to the President that we have appropriated money for this. Let's get USDA to move on it. I wish to make the point that there are a couple of things that reflect what has happened in Japan, South Korea, and other countries, I might add, that has dramatically accelerated their buildout of broadband. We ought to be concerned about that. In my judgment, we ought to have regulatory authority, and we ought to have the ability to use what is already appropriated for loan guarantees. We ought to have a national will and a national determination to have a broadband buildout that is aggressive. That is going to happen when our Government says this is a significant priority for us. Attendant to that, I would say, is passage of a moratorium bill. I will support that at the end of the week, provided we can reach this solution on definition. I don't want to describe that as some nirvana that is going to be the event that unleashes some massive, new program of the buildout of broadband. I agree with the fellow from Brookings who said this isn't particularly consequential. It is not the tax issue that is impeding the buildout of broadband. Having said that, we have previously decided, as a matter of public policy, that we did not want to tax Internet service, connection to the Internet. I supported that. That moratorium existed in Federal law, and then it expired last fall. I prefer at the end of this process, this week, I hope, that we will have passed another piece of legislation that represents a moratorium. Why? Well, I think incrementally it is the right policy. I don't know. We have some people on the floor who have law degrees. I guess most of us have advance degrees of some type. I will bet there is not one person on the floor of the Senate at the moment who can understand their telephone bill--not one. We ought to bring them to the floor of the Senate and go over it in some detail. It would take a few days. That would be the ultimate obstruction, trying to read your personal telephone bill. It is so god-awful complicated, nobody can understand it. There is a myriad of charges, fees, and taxes. For that reason, I am sympathetic to the notion of a moratorium, not because I think it unleashes the forces of the buildout of broadband; I think it is a reasonable thing to do. I have not read the submission of the Wall Street Journal printed by the Senator from Virginia today, but I will do that when I have the opportunity. I am interested now that it has been raised. I think what we should do is the right thing, and we ought to do it the right way. So you don't find opposition from me with respect to the objective here. I hope we can reach this definition as we move upstream beyond the immediate connection of DSL, for example, and that we can define what moving upstream means, and exactly what it is we are preventing from ever being taxed by State and local governments, which they may now tax. Once we describe and understand that, I think we can easily find a bill that should get 95 votes in the Senate, to say we subscribe to the basic principle that we should not tax access to the Internet. That is a principle I support, and I hope at the end of the week I will be able to manifest my support by voting for the legislation.

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield on that point, this is like being witness to an accident. We all see different things, apparently. But it is absolutely true that all of the witnesses at the hearing we just attended supported a moratorium on the issue of taxing the Internet. No question. I didn't hear from all these witnesses that it would have ``great'' effect. I didn't hear that term. Nonetheless, I believe they feel, as I do, and as Senator McCain does, that we ought to have a moratorium.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further for a question, I think I understand a bit more. I think I would want to see a greater refinement of it. If the Senator is now saying the definition that he believes is appropriate for this moratorium deals with the bandwidth or the spectrum that is used--essentially the bandwidth that moves that packet of ones and zeros across the country in the form of an e-mail, but he is not talking about things other than that--is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I agree with the last statement. I think we ought to proceed and vote on issues that are before us. I would like to get to the conclusion of the bill, so I support that. Looking at the Senator's chart and listening to his discussion, we are not so far apart on all of this. I do not disagree with that which he has said with respect to much of his desire to prevent institutions of Government from coming in and taking pieces of this and taxing it, but I used an example last year I want to use again to describe my need to understand exactly what will be covered by the moratorium. For example, if we decided to exempt from taxation a loaf of bread because we decided bread is important to life and we do not believe bread ever ought to be taxed, so we want to exempt a loaf of bread, we could have a moratorium on the taxation of a loaf of bread forever. The question will be, does that extend then to the grocery store that buys the shelf to display the bread, because they are probably going to have to pay a use tax to the company they buy the shelf from, and that use tax goes to the State and local government. They are going to make the case there is a moratorium on the taxation of bread. We actually pay a tax on the shelves we are purchasing and that has to be passed along in the price of bread so we believe the purchase of the shelves ought to be tax exempt as part of this moratorium. I am asking that question only to try to understand what the moratorium refers to with respect to the electronic transmission. The electronic transmission the Senator describes I understand should be exempt. The question is, if that facility in Los Angeles the Senator describes, or southern California, which is a facility that is an Internet hub and reroutes the e-mail that is moving along the system, if they are purchasing desks and things in that facility for the purpose of furthering this Internet transmission, should they be exempt? Will they be exempt? Is that what the Senator intends with this definition? I think as soon as we fully understand all of this definition issue that is being raised, the sooner we can move forward and construct an appropriate moratorium, which I will support. So I ask those questions of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am prompted to comment on the interesting, provocative, and controversial comments by my colleague from Georgia. He knows I have long respected him and was pleased when he arrived here in the Senate. I have enjoyed working with him. But I must say I don't have quite so hopeless a notion about our country or its future. I don't despair about what is happening in this country. I think we have incredible challenges to meet, and we must. We have a big globe with 6 billion people on it. One-half of them have never made a telephone call. One-half of them live on less than $2 a day. One hundred fifty million kids are not in school. One and one-half billion people don't have access to clean, potable water. Somehow, in this big challenging Earth of ours, we ended up right here right now. What a remarkable thing for us. It is our time and our responsibility to nurture and protect this democracy of ours. There is no other democracy like it on the face of this Earth. At a time when our country faces challenges, this country somehow provides leadership. The McCullough book about John Adams is interesting to me. John Adams traveled a lot, because he represented this new country they were trying to put together, both in England and in France. He represented our interests, and he would write back to Abigail. As he would write to Abigail, he would lament in his letters to her: Who will provide leadership to put this country of ours together? Where will leaders come from? Who will be leaders? Then he would plaintively say in his letter: There is only us. There is just only us. There is me. There is Jefferson. There is George Washington. There is Ben Franklin. There is Mason. There is Madison. There is only us. In the rearview mirror of history, the ``only us'' represents some of the greatest talent ever gathered on the face of this Earth. Thomas Jefferson: Have we seen another? I don't think so. George Washington was a remarkable person. So the questions John Adams asked--where will leadership come from, who will be the leaders--have been asked of every generation. Somehow, through time, this country has been blessed by leaders who stepped forward and said, Let it be me. Let it be us. This country has been blessed with remarkable leadership. You can take over 200 years a period of 5 years or 10 years in which you can suggest perhaps the leadership was less than it should have been at that time. But somehow the calling of this great democracy to ordinary Americans who have the capability to do extraordinary things has produced that leadership. It will, in my judgment, again also strengthen and nurture our country. I like the original thinking of those who wrote our Constitution. I love the Constitution. I think it is one of the greatest documents ever written which establishes the basis of our freedom--we the people. We have people here who think it is a rough draft. I think we are going to vote on three amendments to the Constitution in next couple of months in the Senate. It has only been amended 17 times in 2 centuries. Do you know why? Because there are not many people who can improve upon the work of George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson's contribution to the Bill of Rights, for example. Outside of the 10 amendments called the Bill of Rights, we have amended the Constitution only 17 times in 200 years. Yet we will, I guess, vote on three of them here in just a matter of time because people think it is a rough draft and something that is easily changed and easily improved. It is the case I think which perhaps causes some of the despair in some quarters in this country, that there is a kind of a crescendo of noise from corners of America that aren't very appealing. I can tell a story which describes a country in great trouble. I can tell that story easily. We have roughly 10 million Americans who do not have a job today. They desperately want a job and their country's economy hasn't provided them a job. There are 10 million people who are out of work, and 30 million to 40 million people are on food stamps. We are the murder capital of the world. We consume one-half the world's cocaine. What an ugly place. Or I can take up some person's dysfunctional behavior and hold it up to a light, and say, Isn't this ugly, and run it through about 10 talk show programs and have it on every morning show, and say, Isn't this ugly? Yes, it is ugly, but it is not America. It is not America. It is somebody's ability and desire to try to entertain people with someone else's dysfunctional behavior. I can give that speech and I hear it from time to time. However, there is another side to this country that gives me cause for great hope and does not lead me to the conclusion that we ought to take away the right of the American people to vote for public officials. Let me describe that, if I might. There was a man named Stanley Newberg who died in New York City. Stanley Newberg is someone I did not know. I saw a paragraph, maybe two paragraphs about him in the New York Times. It simply said this man had died and then described something he had done. I asked my staff if we could find out a little more about him. Let me tell you about Stanley Newberg. He came to America with nothing, to escape the persecution of the Jews by Nazis. His dad had nothing. He began to peddle fish on the Lower East Side of New York. Stanley, beside his dad, walked along the Lower East Side peddling fish in New York City. They made some money and did fairly well. Stanley went to school, went to college. He got his college degree and went to work for an aluminum company. He did so well he rose up to manage the company. He did so well managing, he decided to buy the company. He did very well, and then later he died. When Stanley died they opened his will. In his will, this man left $5.7 million, his estate, to the United States of America. He said: With gratitude for the privilege of living in this great country, with gratitude for the privilege of living in this great country of ours. I thought, what a wonderful thing, to understand what others see. If we did not have immigration laws, this place would be full, just plain full. We have folks from all around the world who want to come and live in this country. Why? It is a beacon of hope and opportunity. We survived the Civil War. We beat back a depression. We beat back the oppression of nazism and defeated Adolph Hitler. We have done so much. We built the atom. We spliced genes. We invented the silicon chip, plastics, radar, the telephone computer, the television set. We build airplanes; we fly them; we build rockets; we go to the moon; and we are hardly out of breath. We cure smallpox. We cure polio. What a remarkable place this is. We have two little vehicles crawling around the surface of Mars analyzing rocks. Isn't that something? I must say, the pictures they got look very much like a place 5 miles south of my hometown, but apparently this is high science and pretty remarkable. This is really a very special place. Is it the case that we face some pretty big, daunting challenges? You bet your life we do. We have a fiscal policy that is way out of whack. A few years ago everyone thought we would have surpluses forever. Now it looks like we will have deficits forever. We have to fix that. We cannot leave that to somebody else. That is our job. That is on our shoulders. This President and this Congress need to fix that. Iraq, Afghanistan--this country represents the beacon of opportunity and freedom around the world. We are involved. We got involved in Afghanistan because we are tracking al-Qaida and dealing with people who killed innocent Americans, and we need to deal with that. We have American troops there, fighting and dying. We do not have a lot of options. We have to prevail and persevere and support those troops. We will. This is not the darkest of hours for our country. This is a great, strong, resilient country--within my judgment, a foundation of goodness people around the world understand. For a long, long time, if anything happens around the world, who is there first? Which country can be looked to to provide help, to say, you are not alone? This country. This country tackles issues other countries do not even want to acknowledge. We had women chaining themselves to the White House gate because they were not allowed the right to vote. They said: We demand the right to vote. We dealt with that issue. The list is endless. We grapple with them. It is not easy. But we are the example of representative self- government in this world that works. It is messy. The noise of democracy is annoying sometimes, but it works. Going back to John Adams' lament to Abigail: where is the leadership, in my judgment, every generation of Americans has seen leadership emerge and develop to lead this great country in times of trouble. That will always be the case because this is a special country, and we do have people who are willing and able. Right now, there is someone running for the Senate someplace in this country whose name I perhaps do not know who likely will be a President some day. Why? Because they have a passion in their heart and their gut to serve this country and want to do right by this country. Let me come back to where I started. The only reason I was provoked to say these things is my colleague gave a speech this morning about something which, as I sat and listened to it--look, I have great respect for my colleague from Georgia. His public service is extraordinary. I first knew about him when he was Governor of Georgia and he was talking about scholarships for kids. I thought, what a great idea. Our future is not people who wear dark suits and suspenders who some people consider windbags in the Senate; our future is kids. That is who will run this country. I have great respect for the Senator from Georgia. I wanted to say this: At a time when there is so much lament about America, I have a great reservoir of hope for the future of this country. This country will prevail. I know, as I have traveled around parts of the world, one example comes to mind. I was on an Army helicopter once that ran out of gas. I learned one of the immutable laws of flying: When you are out of gas in a flying machine, you will land soon. We landed in an area between Nicaragua and Honduras. I was with two other Members of Congress. When we landed, we were out of contact with anybody else. We landed in a clearing in kind of a jungle area between Nicaragua and Honduras, and campesinos from all around came to the helicopter. We were waiting to get rescued. We got rescued in 4 or 5 hours. The campesinos had come up and I got to talking to some people who had never seen anyone from our country. I was asking questions. We had an interpreter with us. Do you know what all of them said they would like to do? They would like to come to the United States of America--all of them. We asked, What would you like? I would like to come to the United States of America. I would like that for me, for my kids. We find that all over the world. Why? Because they see this country as something unusual on the face of this Earth, something very unusual. That did not happen just by accident. I come to this Senate floor not because I have a political pedigree or because I come from a big reservoir of wealth; I come here because a Norwegian immigrant came to this country with her husband, and her husband had a heart attack shortly thereafter. She was left alone with six kids. She took her six kids to a small rural area in southwestern North Dakota and started a farm. She pitched a tent, she built a house, raised a family, and ran a family farm in Hettinger County, ND. She had a son who had a daughter who had me. That is how I got here. And virtually everyone here has a similar story about perseverance, strength, faith, and hope--almost always about hope. Let me conclude by saying while we face many challenges, I have great hope that, yes, the talents of the Senator from Georgia--unique talents, extraordinary talents--and the talents of so many others with whom I have had the ability to serve in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives, and also other venues of public service in this country, give this country a better opportunity for a better future. I have had several other opportunities to work in different environments. I don't know that I have ever worked with a more talented group of people than the men and women, Republicans and Democrats, with whom I have served in the Senate. They are extraordinary people who come to the call for public service. I salute them and say I have great reservoir of hope for the future of this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is obvious from the most recent discussion between my colleagues--Senator Alexander, Senator Wyden, and others-- that if this had been easy to fix, it would have been fixed. I talked to Senator McCain last evening before we broke, and we talked a bit about the process that brought this bill to the floor of the Senate. This bill came from the Commerce Committee. We tried, during the markup in the Commerce Committee, to reach an agreement about the definition. The definition is really the critical piece here, and we were not successful in the committee. We agreed, when we reported it out of the Commerce Committee, that we would continue to work to try to see if we could find an acceptable definition that would represent a compromise. Frankly, we did that. Senator McCain kept his word. We all continued to talk and work to see if, before we brought this bill to the floor, we would have that agreement. But the fact is, we did not reach an agreement. So now we have very differing views about exactly how we should proceed. For my purpose, it does not matter to me whether the moratorium is 1 year, 2 years, 5 years. That is much less relevant to me than the question of this definition, of exactly what cannot be taxed, exactly what we are doing with the definition, exactly what consequences that definition would have on State and local revenues, and on the taxation of certain products and services. The determination of how we create a definition that represents the interests that all of us want is what is critical. At this point, we have been unable to do that. So my hope would be that while this bill is on the floor of the Senate, we can find a way to reach a compromise that is satisfactory. At this point, I would not support the underlying bill that is on the floor with the definition as it currently exists. But what we ought to do is find a way by which we create a definition that does exactly what the Senate wants it to do, without being broader than is necessary to substantially erode the revenue base that now exists with State and local governments. I think that is possible, but it is not easy. Listening to the discussion of Senator Alexander and Senator Wyden and others demonstrates this is very complicated. It happens I have worked in this area for some while because of the issue Senator Enzi and I have worked on, which is not a part of this discussion today, but the one in which we talk about the issue of the consumption tax that exists when you buy a product, for example, from a catalog, from a remote seller, or perhaps over the Internet. When you purchase that product over the Internet or from a catalog, you actually owe a tax; you just don't pay it. Nobody pays that tax or almost no one pays the tax. It is called a use tax. The use tax is applied when the sales tax is not collected. But no one pays, or almost no one pays the use tax. So there is a substantial amount of money being lost to State and local governments for the support of schools and other services. In addition, the folks on Main Street who actually sell the product from their storefront must charge the tax, and their competitor over the Internet sells without charging a tax. So there is a competitive issue that is a problem for local businesses as well. But the issue Senator Enzi and I and many others are concerned about and want to fix is not a part of the discussion. This is a narrower discussion about the moratorium that previously existed with respect to the imposition of a tax on the connection to the Internet. I have no disagreement with respect to the goals of those who want to prevent taxing ``the Internet connection'' in order not to retard the growth of broadband and the buildout of the infrastructure. We have no disagreement about that. I support the moratorium. I supported the previous moratorium. Again, it is of little matter to me whether it is 1 year or 5 years or even longer. What is of great moment to me is how this definition is written. Because if it is written inappropriately, there could be a very significant set of unintended consequences that could be very costly to State and local governments and to their ability to fund education and other matters. In summary, what I say is this: The bill is on the floor at the moment. One of the central pieces of the bill is at this point in great dispute. Unless we can find a way to negotiate a compromise on that definition, my guess is this legislation will not advance. I would prefer that it does advance. I hope we can find a compromise in the coming hours and days so that we write this definition in a manner that expresses the intent of the Senate and are able to move the legislation forward. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me, in response to my colleague from Oregon, say once again I believe we ought to pass this legislation dealing with a moratorium. There might be 5, 10, 15, or 50 areas in which we have worked to try to reach compromise. I don't know the exact number, but I would not dispute that. I simply say again: The problem remains the definition of what is determined to be in the law that represents the moratorium impact; that is, what is the definition of the Internet service? What exactly are you precluding from a State and local tax base? Is it now taxed? Would it be taxed in the future. It is obviously very complicated. If it were not complicated, I believe Senator Alexander and Senator Allen and Senator Voinovich and others would have long ago reached a compromise. But that has not been the case. Perhaps one of the things we could do during this discussion and the ensuing debate today, tomorrow, and beyond, if that is what it takes, is at least begin to understand exactly what is in the compromise that is being proposed and what is in the legislation that has been offered by Senator Alexander and Senator Carper in their 2-year moratorium, called S. 2084. But again, if this were easy, compromise would already have been reached. It is not easy. It is very complicated and difficult and hard to understand. I have been in a good number of meetings in which it appears to me virtually everyone, including myself, failed to understand what we were debating, but we debated it aggressively nonetheless. My hope is we can do better than that this time. We have had a good start with some of the discussion back and forth earlier today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DORGAN. I am prepared to yield back my time if that is the intention of the Senator from Arizona. That being the case, I yield back my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I think we are probably ready to go to the bill. Let me make a point, however, with respect to my colleague from Virginia. Look, once again, there is no disagreement in this Chamber about the question of whether we would support punitive or discriminatory taxes with respect to the Internet. The answer is, of course not. I don't care how long the moratorium is for. Let it be forever, as far as I am concerned. That is not the issue. The issue with the legislation proposed is what kind of definition exists, and what will the impact of that definition be on the revenue base of the State and local governments? If we can get that definition squared away in a thoughtful and appropriate way, we ought to pass this 100-0. I regret that that is not the case with respect to the compromise offered. That should not surprise anybody because this has gone on now for some months. It is complicated, and we have found it difficult to reach agreement or an acceptable compromise at this point. I expect the likely thing to have happen here is we will be on the bill itself and it will be open to amendment. We can have amendments, and perhaps second degrees, and we will have discussion and votes and find out how the Senate feels about the specific definitions. Again, the question of whether there should be support for a discriminatory or punitive tax on the Internet--that ought not to be a question. I think the answer to that is, no, absolutely not. Whether it is 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years, that is not a very big issue for me. We need, in the coming hours, to focus on the question of, What is the right definition? What do we intend to accomplish, and how do we define it in a way that is fair to everybody? I believe we ought to have public policy that encourages the buildout of broadband in this country. I think it will help this country's economy and be something that stimulates economic growth in our country. Whatever we do with this legislation, I don't want to retard the growth of broadband and the development of the Internet. I think that I speak for almost all of my colleagues when I say that. Let's find a way to write this definition in an appropriate manner and that is satisfactory and move ahead. At this point, it hasn't been done even with the compromise. We have much work to do to reach that point. Mr. President, I ask, does the Senator from Tennessee seek time?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that Senator McCain is just off the Senate floor and will be returning in a moment. Until he returns, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment that has been offered a few moments ago by my colleague Senator Daschle is not some mysterious amendment. It is not some amendment that was offered under some mysterious procedure. This is the way the Senate allows amendments to be offered. Senator Daschle has offered an amendment that deals with the subject of energy, and specifically renewable fuels. My colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, indicated that it is the way the Senate can do business. He is absolutely correct about that. The rules allow this amendment to be offered. However, I point out that the Senate really does not do business much anymore. We are not voting much. We are kind of at parade rest. If there was a ``gone fishing'' sign, it would long ago have been hung on all three doors of the Senate. There is very little activity in the Senate. Very little is happening. I expect that is one of the reasons my colleague offered this amendment to this bill. I will talk for a moment about the Energy bill. The Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from South Dakota both indicated that we ought to have an energy policy, and indeed we should. I was a conferee on the Energy bill. I signed the conference report, much to the consternation of some of my friends, because I thought on the whole it advanced our country's interest in energy. It was not perfect. There were some things in it I did not like much, but the fact is, it came to the Senate floor and it lost by two votes. Everyone in this Chamber understands why it lost. It lost by two votes because the White House and the majority over in the House of Representatives decided to put in a retroactive waiver for liability of MTBE. They stubbornly persisted and demanded it be part of the bill even when they were told it was likely to kill the bill. They preferred the bill die rather than take out that provision, the provision that was a favoritism provision for a few enterprises. So the bill died. Now they want to blame others for the death of that energy bill. It does not wash. That energy bill died on the Senate floor, lost by two votes, because there were some that stubbornly persisted in putting a favor in that bill for some of their friends and they would not back away from it. So they lost the bill. They were willing to let the bill go down because of that. For example, that bill contained important provisions that I thought advanced the country's interests: production incentives, conservation, an efficiency title, a renewable fuels title. I will talk for a moment about the renewable fuels title because that is the subject of Senator Daschle's amendment. I think the renewal fuels title is very important and advances this country's interests. I am a strong supporter of it. Incidentally, I will support this amendment, and I hope we get a vote on this amendment. It does not do damage to the underlying bill at all. We can, should, and will, in my judgment, have a vote on this amendment. If we are not going to do a big energy bill, if instead of this week having energy on the Senate floor, which I would have preferred, we have the underlying Internet tax bill, if the priority is always going to be something other than an energy bill for the majority leader, then we have no choice but to take provisions of this energy bill that we think advances this country's interests, bring it to the Senate floor, and see if we can legislate on it. I will now talk about the renewable fuels provision. The renewable fuels provision is pretty simple. Drive to the gas pump this afternoon and see what is going on. We used to see 55 percent of our oil came from off of our shores. It is now 60 percent. Sixty percent of the oil every single day that we use in this country comes from other parts of the world, much of it very troubled. We are putting this country at great risk if we do not understand that endangers this country's economy, that endangers the opportunity for us to expand, grow, and promote opportunity in the future. Yet people seem oblivious to it. They say it is 60 percent coming from offshore, from Saudi Arabia, from Iraq, from Venezuela, from Kuwait, so what? Well, I think many of us understand the so what. This country's economy, this country's well-being in the future, is held hostage by others, some of whom wish this country ill. In the new age of terrorism, we would be well advised to understand that this excessive and growing dependence on foreign sources of oil, foreign oil specifically, is very dangerous to this country. My colleague offers an amendment that says at least one part of the Energy bill dealing with renewable fuels allows us to increase supply of energy in this country in a very significant way that is not only friendly to the environment but allows us to grow some energy in America's fields. It allows us to be innovative in creating new forms of energy to extend America's energy supply. Let me use ethanol as an example. Incidentally, let me say, for those who have heartburn over the offering of this amendment, 69 Senators have already voted for this amendment. This will not be a big problem if you just allow us to have the vote, put it on the bill. If the bill gets signed by the President, we have at least advanced this portion of the Energy bill. But let me talk for a moment about ethanol. The ability to take the drop of ethanol from a kernel of corn and have the protein feedstock left and use that drop of alcohol to extend America's energy supply-- good for us. That is called renewable energy. It expands the supply of energy. It means we can grow our energy in our fields. We have a prodigious appetite for energy in our country. As all of us know, when the price of energy goes way up, the price of gasoline at the pumps continues to increase relentlessly, and we know we have to do something. It ought to be a warning sign. My colleague brings to the floor of the Senate a sensible, thoughtful provision that had wide bipartisan support in this Chamber. What he says is pretty simple. He says if it is the case that we didn't have energy on the floor last month, last week, this week, next month, or even this summer, if that is the case, if that is what the majority wishes to do, to not put the Energy bill back on the Senate floor and allow us to work on that to get a good energy bill, then at least let's take portions of the bill that we know had strong bipartisan support and move that because that will strengthen this country. Once again, let me say to those who counsel let's wait, let's just wait, the question is, Wait for what? Wait for fall? Wait for October? Wait for September? Nobody else is waiting. The price of gasoline is not waiting. The threat to our supply of oil is not waiting. Read yesterday's newspapers about terrorists who want to interrupt the supply of oil. They are not waiting. Why should we wait to construct a sensible energy policy for this country's future? Why should we wait, above all, to move forward a provision that has strong, broad bipartisan support in this Chamber? This is not the time to wait. This is time for us to move forward and understand that our economy, our Nation is at peril with respect to an energy supply if we do not advance those portions of the Energy bill that strengthen this country. I, for example, believe we ought to advance the conservation title and we ought to advance the efficiency title, both of which are very important. My colleague offers, I think, perhaps the easiest and perhaps the most important provision dealing with renewable fuels. The easiest why? Because almost three-fourths of the Senate agree with it. Yet the amendment gets offered and we will have people walking around here choking on it. Nobody ought to choke on this amendment. The Senate ought to agree that this amendment makes sense. This amendment has previously been agreed to. This amendment advances this country's energy interests. We ought to agree to this amendment. Not yesterday, not tomorrow--now. This is not heavy lifting. The only thing that is difficult in this Senate these days is that we are not doing anything. We face some real serious challenges in this country. We have an economy in trouble. We have energy problems. We are involved in a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan. We are beset by the terrorist threat. The fact is, this place is at parade rest. So my colleague Senator Daschle comes to the Senate floor and offers something that says, let's move on this subject; let's step forward; let's do the right thing; let's vote; let's advance this country's energy supply by passing the renewable fuels section of the Energy bill. I understand. I managed the bill on this side on the Internet tax issue. I understand this is inconvenient, but inconvenience is a small price to pay, incidentally, for advancing that important portion of this energy bill. I commend Senator Daschle for offering this, and I will strongly support it and hope we can move it quickly. Let me just say as one person who is managing this on the floor of the Senate--I can't speak for the majority, but let me speak for the minority managing this--this should not take much time at all. My guess is Senator Daschle would agree to a very short time limit on debate. We have already debated this particular issue and had votes on it, so this should not interrupt us more than 30 minutes or an hour, after which we will have expressed ourselves as a Senate to move a very important piece of this energy bill--the renewable fuels portion of the Energy bill--forward with this legislation. My hope is that is what we will decide to do. There is a possibility, however, that what happens the minute someone offers an amendment like this is this place goes into some sort of apoplectic seizure; it shuts down; we go into a quorum call. Why? Because people want to gnash and wipe their brow and wring their hands and fret on what to do because they can't deal with this. The way to do it is to put it up for a vote, have about 70 Senators vote for it, and add it to this underlying legislation, so that in the end we will have this important piece of the Energy bill for the American people. That will be good for this country and good for the American people, and when we have done it, I will say good for the American Senate as well. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Virginia wishes to speak on the bill, and perhaps the Senator from New Mexico does. Let me say to my friend from Arizona, I understand his angst about this. But this is not a new procedure. The Senator from Arizona has employed the same procedure, as have I, as now does Senator Daschle today--that is, offering an amendment that does not relate to the underlying legislation. There is a reason that happens. The reason that happens is the passion one has for legislating on a specific issue that doesn't get resolved because someone else won't allow you to bring it and debate it on the floor. So you offer an amendment under the rules of the Senate to another piece of legislation. That is what happened here. I say to my colleague, he has employed the same tactic, as have I.

Mr. DORGAN. I will be glad to recite them. I will not do it at this moment. There were line-item veto amendments, motor voter, and others. Senator Daschle has not offered an amendment for the purpose of a headline in South Dakota. I happen to support renewable fuels and ethanol, and have for a long while. I make no apology for that, nor would Senator Daschle, because I think it advances this country's energy interests. The reason it has to be offered now, according to Senator Daschle-- and we all understand this--is we had an energy bill that failed here by two votes. I would have preferred we pass an entire energy bill in this Senate. I voted for it and I signed the conference report. I worked with the chairman of the Energy Committee. I would have preferred that to pass because it had titles in four areas I supported. I didn't agree with a colleague who said a few minutes ago he thought there were things that were unworthy and rendered it something we should not have passed. There were things in the Energy bill that were unworthy and I didn't support, but on balance I believed it would advance this country's interests. It failed by two votes in the Senate. That bill contained production incentives, conservation efficiency, and renewable fuels. The issue of renewable fuels is not new. We have worked on this for a long time. If we cannot get the Energy bill, then we ought to get the renewable fuels piece at least. That has such wide, strong support here in the Senate. We have voted on it. I believe it was 69 votes in favor of that provision. We had bipartisan, strong support for that provision. So if we cannot get the Energy bill, let's at least take that which will, in my judgment, be beneficial to this country's long-term economic and energy interests. That is what Senator Daschle offers this amendment for on this bill, because the other opportunities don't exist. If somebody said, well, let's bring an energy bill to the floor this week, rather than this bill, or bring it to the floor next week-- and I am guessing; I don't speak for Senator Daschle--he would have said let's do that, because he supports certain provisions of that bill, voted for it, was the author of the renewable fuels provision and ethanol provision. So my guess is he certainly would want that to happen. But because we are now told the Energy bill will take a back seat to this, that, and the other thing, and that it will now perhaps be fall before we talk about it on the floor of the Senate, Senator Daschle had every right--perhaps an obligation--to come here and say: I have a passion about this, let's advance this. This is an opportunity. Again, let me say I will bet, if I do a bit of research, perhaps almost all of us on the floor, with the possible exception of the Senator from Virginia, because he has been here fewer years-- but I would find everybody now on the floor has offered an extraneous amendment to pending legislation. That is not unusual. It is called for in the Senate rules. We face it every time we bring up a bill. What would be counterproductive is if you offer an amendment that becomes like throwing a wrench into the crankcase; you strip all the gears and shut everything down. That is trouble. That is not the case here. We have already voted on this. We know there is wide bipartisan support. This isn't throwing a wrench in the crankcase; this is advancing a part of the Energy bill that ought to advance. I will repeat, you have to be completely oblivious to reality not to understand we have a serious energy problem. Part of it is going to be solved by enhanced production, part by conservation, and part by efficiency. But another part of it is going to be solved some way, someday, somehow by a renewable fuels title that represents an advancement in our ability to produce ethanol and other renewable fuels. We are going to do that. We can do it sooner or later. We can do it now or we can wait. But I submit to you this: Given what we face in this world, the threat of terrorism, cutting off an energy supply to our country, 60 percent of our oil coming from outside of our shores, much from troubled parts of the world, we had better get the entire Energy bill up and get it done. I pledge--and I think the Senator from New Mexico will recognize I was a constructive part of his deliberations and voted for it and signed the conference report--I will again be a constructive part of those deliberations. But if we are not going to get an energy bill up here, my colleague has every right to come to the floor and try to advance this renewable fuels provision. I support that. It is an appropriate thing to do. I don't believe it should impede us in any way. We can do it in a half hour. We know it, we know what it is, and we know what it will do for this country. It cannot be suggested this somehow is going to slow down this bill; it will not and it need not. The only thing that will do that is if those who decide they don't want this piece of the Energy bill to advance decide to find a way to interrupt this amendment. Having said all that, I will say again it is not about headlines for anybody. It is about the right of Senator Daschle to offer an amendment that is important, which has already been discussed in the Senate. I hope the Senate will have a vote on it and pass it and move on and deal with the underlying bill and pass it when we have solved the definition problem. I support a moratorium, and I believe since we have had a moratorium for 5 years previous, we can find a way to solve the definition problem and continue a moratorium with respect to Internet taxation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.