Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, apparently under the unanimous consent agreement, that brings us to the amendment itself. As such, I yield myself 8 minutes, and I call up amendment No. 2155.

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

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, 2 years ago we passed a simple extension of the moratorium. That is exactly what we did 2 years ago, and now we are saying there have been no hearings held on it and there has been no committee work on it. There have been individuals working on this because 2 years ago there were a number of us who were deeply concerned about what was going to happen to revenues for cities, towns, counties, and States. We have been working on it in the meantime. We have been working with people from the committees. We have been having groups come in. I particularly want to mention Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Wyden of Oregon, Senator Voinovich of Ohio, Senator Allen of Virginia, and Senator Carper of Delaware. A lot of us have been working and meeting with any group that would meet with us to talk about how we could handle this sales tax loophole. There is pain out there, there is agony out there, and through a process--not a popular process because this amendment does not wind up with what any one group wants. Usually the process around here is to say: This group has enough votes to pass this, and I am going to join that group and we will build in what we can for other people and expand the vote. That is not what can happen because it does not put in any degree of fairness for anybody who is involved in the system. So what we tried to do with this bill was go into a leveling process, one that would provide for sales tax collections so sales tax revenues would not go down. It would take care of an extension of the access tax, and it would provide some encouragement for the States to do something to streamline and simplify their sales tax system. A very important procedure in this provision is one that protects start-up and small businesses, and that is an exclusion from having to collect any tax, even should the Congress at a future date say that needs to be done, on sales of less than $5 million. That is not a start-up business. That is not a small business. So what this amendment actually does is extend the access taxes, in a very conservative way, so we would not overreach on access taxes, but so we would put a prohibition on access taxes. Then it gives some encouragement to the States to simplify their tax systems. It does not agree it will be done. It does not put any tax into effect. It gives them encouragement, and that is something Congress has not been giving them for the last 2 years. We have not been giving them encouragement, other than a few meetings we have had with them to see what kind of work they can do, and they have been meeting. They have been streamlining. They have been working to come up with a system that will make it possible for people to collect the sales tax in a way that will benefit the States and the marketers. I hope my colleagues will take a look at the bill. I know this is something that has been talked about, reviewed by a lot of people, particularly since we turned in this last version of the bill, but through all of the versions that we have worked on. I know the guidelines have been seen that are outlined for the States. There is some flexibility for the States yet, and that is a necessity while they finish out their work, but this bill contains some guidelines for them. Then it provides for us to vote on their provision when they get 20 States together, if they can get 20 States together. That is a pretty large group of people to be able to get into a compact. The encouragement for them to join the compact is, even if Congress approves the compact, they cannot have remote sales tax collections without joining the compact. So we have some requirements we have asked for them for the simplification, and then we have put a provision in if they can get 20 States together--and again, I want to mention how hard that is--the Congress will vote on whether they have simplified or not, whether they have met criteria that we have imposed either in the bill or in our minds since that time. It will require a vote of Congress, and that complies with Federal and Supreme Court direction we have had before. I have a bill. I am pleased with the support. I do want to mention it has been a difficult process. We have worked with the National Governors Association. We have worked with the National League of Cities. We have worked with the International City-County Management Association. We have worked with the National Association of Counties and the Council of State Governments. All of those folks have endorsed what we have done and asked for Congress to take this step of extending the moratorium with encouragement. In their letter they state, irrespective of previous letters on the Internet tax moratorium and contrary to some dear colleague letters circulating in the Senate, we do not support legislation to reinstate the Internet tax moratorium for 2 additional years. The letter is from those groups I mentioned. Besides those groups, we have been working with retailers from virtually every State. We have been working with direct marketers and the Direct Marketing Association. We have been working with realtors. They have a huge stake in this whole process as well. I have to say there are not provisions in this bill that satisfy any one of those groups, but they recognize the need to do this in order to get the States in a position where they can provide for the kinds of services they have to provide in their communities. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from Delaware, particularly since he is from a non-sales-tax State, for supporting this issue and realizing how important it is to other States. I will definitely work to get that done. What we are trying to do is have an even playing field here. I will work to get that as part of the definition and clarification.

Mr. ENZI. I thank my colleagues, who have just spoken, for their comments, for the effort they put forth. I thank all the people for allowing the debate that happened. That had to be done by unanimous consent. Now we know our work is cut out for us. Two years ago we passed a moratorium. Tonight we passed a moratorium. Hopefully before 2 years is up we will have done something that will solve the problem. I appreciate the commitment of the chairman of the Commerce Committee to make that happen. I am sure all the people who are involved in this issue will be extremely happy that some work will be done on it. The hearings will be held. The consensus will be arrived at because it is necessary for our cities, towns, counties, and States. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I thank all of those people who have been dedicated in their work on this issue. There have been innumerable meetings, and Senator McCain, Senator Dorgan, Senator Kerry, Senator Wyden, and I have been the primary people. We have met with these different groups to see what parts of the Internet were their interests. This bill is as close as we can come to pulling everybody to the center. No, it doesn't please everybody. Does it please most of the people? I certainly hope so, and we will have a vote to determine whether it does or not. But this does make permanent the Internet access tax prohibition. Now that is something that Gateway, VerticalNet, Compaq, and other high-tech folks have wanted and do want. This bill does not have new taxes in it. This bill has a provision so that States will be encouraged to simplify their taxes and, at some future time, in order to comply with the Supreme Court decisions mentioned here, there will be a vote to see if Congress approves of their simplification. Unless the vast majority of the States are involved in that, I am sure they won't get approval. We passed a moratorium 2 years ago, and we promised all of these governmental agencies and all of the other people with an interest in sales tax that we would put a bill together, solve their problem, bring them a solution. Have there been hearings? Everybody says there have not been hearings. There have been a lot of meetings. There has not been a bill produced other than what we have here. This is a promise we made to local and State governments 2 years ago. This is some action we can take on it. It doesn't make anything final, but it provides incentive to get people together to work on a problem that is necessary. Cities, towns, and counties, not to mention States, have been put under some unusual circumstances just since September 11. We need to have a mechanism for them to be able to fund them. We have not promised funding for everything. We have made them do a lot. This gives them an opportunity to work out a system whereby they can continue to operate, continue to have revenues that are on a declining basis at the moment, and this is something so that we can have a vote. This just provides for a vote of Congress at a future date when there has been streamlining. The extension of the current moratorium of the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 expired this past Sunday on October 21, 2001. I believe this amendment would thoroughly address this issue as well as the simplification of State and local use tax systems. We had to take a look at the Internet sales tax issue for people who might be using legislative vehicles to develop huge loopholes in our current system. We need to preserve the system for those cities, towns, counties, and states that rely on the ability to collect the sales tax they are currently getting. I believe that the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet should not be extended without addressing the larger issue of sales and use tax collection on electronic commerce. Certainly, no Senator wants to take steps that will unreasonably burden the development and growth of the Internet. At the same time, we must also be sensitive to issues of basic competitive fairness and the negative effect our action or inaction can have on brick-and-mortar retailers, a critical economic sector and employment force in all American society. In addition, we must consider the legitimate need of State and local governments to have the flexibility they need to generate resources to adequately fund their programs and operations. As the only accountant in the Senate, I have a unique perspective on the dozens of tax proposals that are introduced in Congress each year. In addition, my service on the state and local levels and my experiences as a small business owner enable me to consider these bills from more than one viewpoint. I understand the importance of protecting and promoting the growth of Internet commerce because of its potential economic benefits. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. Therefore, I do not support a tax on the use of Internet itself. I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax loophole. Sales taxes go directly to state and local governments and I am very leery of any Federal legislation that bypasses their traditional ability to raise revenue to perform needed services such as school funding, road repair and law enforcement. I will not force states into a huge new exemption. While those who advocate a permanent loophole on the collection of a sales tax over the Internet claim to represent the principles of tax reduction, they are actually advocating a tax increase. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow sales over the Internet to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, revenues to state and local governments will fall and property taxes will have to be increased to offset lost revenue or States who do not have or believe in state income taxes will be forced to start one. Furthermore, State and local revenues and budgets are especially critical now as these governments are responding to protect the security of all of our citizens and businesses. Any action to extend the current moratorium without creating a level playing field would perpetuate a fundamental inequity and ignore a growing problem that will gravely affect the readiness of the nation. After months of hard work, negotiations, and compromise, this amendment has been filed. I would like to commend several of my colleagues for their commitment to finding a solution. I know this amendment is the solution. The amendment makes permanent the existing moratorium on Internet access taxes, but extends the current moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes for an additional four years through December 31, 2005. Throughout the past several years, we have heard that catalog and Internet companies say they are willing to allow and collect sales tax on interstate sales, regardless of traditional or Internet sales, if states will simplify collections to one rate per state sent to one location in that state. I think that is a reasonable request. I have heard the argument that computers make it possible to handle several thousands tax entities, but from an auditing standpoint as well as simplicity for small business, I support one rate per State. I think the States should have some responsibility for redistribution not a business forced to do work for government. Therefore, the amendment would put Congress on record as urging states and localities to develop a streamlined sales and use tax system, which would include a single, blended tax rate with which all remote sellers can comply. You need to be aware that states are prohibited from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales if the states have not adopted the simplified sales and use tax system. Further, the amendment would authorize states to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax Compact through which members would adopt the streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into such a compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006. The amendment also authorizes states to require all other sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales once Congress has acted to approve the compact by law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it. The amendment also calls for a sense of the Congress that before the end of the 107th Congress, legislation should be enacted to determine the appropriate factors to be considered in establishing whether nexus exists for State business activity tax purposes. I strongly support this amendment because I do not think there is adequate protection now. It is very important we do not build electronic loopholes on the Internet, an every-changing Internet, one that is growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology virtually every day. Mr. President, I recognize this body has a constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, I understand the desire of several senators to protect and promote the growth of Internet commerce. I am very concerned, however, with any piece of legislation that mandates or restrict State and local governments' ability to meet the needs of its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic loopholes that will take away all of their revenue. This amendment would designate a level playing field for all involved--business, government, and the consumer. The States, and not the Federal Government, should have the right to impose, or not to impose, consumption taxes as they see fit. The reality is that emergency response personnel, law enforcement officials, and other essential services are funded largely by states and local governments, especially through sales taxes. Passing an extension of the current moratorium without taking steps toward a comprehensive solution would leave many states and local communities unable to fund their services. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. In the current definition in Sec. 1104(5) of the ITFA: The term ``Internet access'' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to users. Such term does not include telecommunications services. I do want to address one very important issue that has not been addressed in this amendment. One of the most important aspects of this legislation deals with State and local taxation of Internet access services. There is general agreement in this body that there should be no new State and local taxes on basic Internet access as a way to assist every American to be able to take advantage of the Internet and its resources. That is a goal I obviously support, and my amendment will do that. As you know, however, I have serious concerns with the current definition of Internet access. I am concerned that without further work, it will subvert our intent, discriminate against some Internet Service providers, and impact state and local governments. Thus, I want to continue to work with my colleagues at a later date to refine that definition so that we accomplish our aim without doing harm. The problem is that the current definition is so broad, and technology is changing so fast that the current definition could unfairly discriminate against many businesses that provide similar content or services over the counter, over a cable wire, or via any other means. The discrimination could affect a variety of products and services that I don't think any of us envisioned as part of access to the Internet. In a nutshell, the current definition essentially includes anything and everything, except telecommunications that could be offered as a part of a package of Internet access services, including television programs, radio broadcasts, games, books, music, motion pictures and other such products and services. Following mergers of Internet service providers and media and entertainment companies, it is not hard to envision an ISP that provides these services and includes all of the items in one bill to a customer. For example, an ISP could provide downloadable movies to customers--allowing a customer to download a set number of movies each month includable in their monthly fee for Internet access, while paying extra for any movies beyond the included amount. This sets up some perverse and discriminatory situations. First, for example, someone who pays $9.95 for basic Internet service that doesn't include movies would have to rent movies separately and pay tax on those rentals, while customers of an ISP that include movies in its $21.95 service would not pay tax on those movies. Second, the tax-exempt benefit of purchasing more expensive Internet access services doesn't stop at just movies. Providers could also include music, publications--and someday soon, downloadable nightly cable broadcasts--and under the current definition these would also be exempt from tax. I don't think any of us ever envisioned when we first debated and enacted a temporary moratorium that the scope of services provided over the Internet was intended to cover anything beyond basic access. I believe that the current definition of Internet access needs to be examined closely by the Congress so that we don't do damage where we intend to do good. I have tried a number of different approaches to defining it, and each of them has issues and problems. I am not ready to give up, however. Furthermore, there are also some that believe the current definition of Internet access needs to be changed because it unfairly discriminates among providers of Internet access and gives some providers advantages over others. The current definition favors large companies over small. It also excludes telecommunications services from the definition of access. In doing so, the language could be interpreted to exclude Wireless Web Access because all services provided by wireless companies are considered ``telecommunications.'' Thus, Internet access purchased from one company might be exempt, but it could be taxable if purchased from a wireless provider. I know our intent is not to discriminate among Internet access providers, but that is the effect of current law. If we don't continue to work on this definition, we will go contrary to the findings in the legislation we are considering. If we allow the current definition of Internet access to remain unchanged, we will be authorizing the disparate treatment of the sales of identical products depending on whether the sale occurs online or not. In simplest terms, the current definition of Internet access would exempt the sales of many products and services that would be taxed if sold in any other way. Besides the fiscal problem this would cause for states, this is also fundamentally unfair, and should be prevented. I think formulating a good definition of Internet access presents a host of opportunities that we should not let pass by. It gives us an opportunity to define a critical component of the infrastructure of our new economy--and, in doing so, provide a definition that allows all new economy companies, both large and small, to operate on a level playing field. It provides us with an opportunity to provide a clear definition that reduces the probability of litigation over the exact meaning of the statute. And, it provides us with an opportunity to insure that we do no harm to the fiscal stability of many levels of government--while providing a positive environment in which business can survive. I hope to continue to work with my colleagues at a later date to develop a definition of Internet access that preserves the tax- exemption for access to the basic services and resources of the Internet. The Internet is such a powerful tool of education and commerce that we should do everything we can to make sure that each American can take advantage of it. At the same time, we need to insure that our goal assisting in the provision of basic access is not subverted by an overly broad definition of access that allows a host of digital goods and services to be bundled together and sold tax exempt. Such subversion would only serve to weaken state and local governments at this important time in our nation's history. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Governors Association, National League of Cities, International City/County Management Association, National Association of Counties, and Council of State Governments be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I am in agreement with both the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from North Dakota. I also agree that the requirement for State administration of sales and use taxes applies only to remote sales, and that this is the intent of the current wording. However, I will join with the Senator from North Dakota in working to further clarify this language in conference.

Mr. ENZI. I reserve the remainder of my time. The other side has used their time?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I take this opportunity to thank the senior Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, for all of the efforts he has made in three areas, as well as a lot of other areas, but particularly in three areas. Energy, of course, of which he spoke, he has been one of the Members pushing for an energy policy for this country since I have known him, which has been quite a while. It looks as if we have the opportunity to get that done soon. It will be largely due to his efforts on the committee and on the floor. I also thank him for the effort he is making in the agricultural area. Our State is very dependent on agriculture. He serves on the Agriculture Committee. I think he is the first person from Wyoming to serve in 40 years. He got in it at a particularly crucial time, as we were redoing the farm bill. I know that is extremely difficult work. When there are 10 Senators together, they offer 20 opinions. Trying to mold those into one bill can be extremely difficult. Of course, the Senator serves on the Finance Committee, as well. That is from where the stimulus package is coming. Again, there are multiple opinions regarding that package. I appreciate the efforts and leadership of the Senator in all of those areas. I look forward to the great packages we will have as a result. Race for the Cure I also mention another effort led by his wife, the Race for the Cure, the breast cancer effort in our State. The four honorary chairs are his wife--definitely not an honorary chair; she spends a great deal of time all year working to raise funds to make people more aware of the need for breast cancer testing, treatment, and early detection. She is an honorary chair, along with our Governor's wife, Sherri Geringer, my wife, Diana, and Congresswoman Barbara Cubin's husband, Fritz. They all work a lot of time during the year. Last weekend, we were at a function that kicks off the next year's Race for the Cure. It is well underway. It is a great effort. It saves life, both men's and women's lives. That evening we were in Rock Springs, WY, for a different function called Cowboys Against Cancer. This event is not limited to any particular type of cancer. Rock Springs puts on an annual fundraising event where anyone in the community with cancer receives funds from this foundation, up to $1,000, to help offset some of their expenses during the year. It is a great community effort to help out neighbors. They asked me to emphasize that, even though we have this focus in the United States on terrorism, anybody who comes down with cancer has a form of terrorism. It is important we keep giving the ways we have been giving, as well as giving in new ways. The American people are the most giving people in the world. This is a time when we need to give in new ways, but we need to continue the old ways, as well. When somebody in your family comes down with cancer, you have ground zero in your home, too. That is the potential for a total loss. I hope everybody keeps up all of those efforts, as well as the new emphasis. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, for the last week, I have been trying to figure out how to pay tribute to a young man from Wyoming whose funeral I attended last Saturday. I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to address his life and our country as well. Last Saturday, it was evident to many people in Cheyenne, WY, that ground zero had come to our State. Jonn Edmunds--that is spelled J-o-n- n; he is named after his dad who is Donn, D-o-n-n--was killed in Pakistan. He was a member of the Rangers, the 3rd Battalion, 75th Regiment, and he was killed in a helicopter crash. Suddenly, the war got closer to all of us in Wyoming. During Desert Storm, there were not very many people killed, but one of them was from Gillette, WY, Manuel Davilla, and we remember him. In this war, not many have been killed: Two, one from Montana, one from Wyoming. Again, Wyoming, according to its population, has given an inordinate number, but if you are the parents of anyone killed as a result of the terrorist attacks and in the military, for you that is a 100-percent loss. It is a much greater loss. It was not just the parents who lost in this instance, it was also a wife. One of the things that struck me at the funeral, which was attended by Army Rangers who helped with the funeral--it was a grand ceremony with all the military honors--what struck me was the youth of these soldiers. I remember one time watching a show put on by Channel 1. It was called ``The Kids Who Saved the World.'' It was designed to show today's generation that the people who fought in World War II were kids. It took some of the people attending reunions, which is what most of the people see of the military, and went back to the picture of them as they participated in D-Day, to emphasize that it is kids who are out there saving us. Jonn Edmunds would have had his 21st birthday on January 3. He would have had his second wedding anniversary on December 27. The first song they played as a part of the service was the song that he and his wife were going to play at their anniversary. Next to the podium, next to the picture of Jonn was a white board, a message communicator they used in their home. Jonn left his last message to his wife on that white board. It said: Anne, I will be OK. I'm going to come back to you. I love you, and I will think about you all the time. Be strong while I'm gone and never forget that I love you. And then he paid the ultimate price. He left a family and a wife and an emphasis in Wyoming. We appreciate the sacrifice that he made and that his family made. It is important we remember that. The service was extremely patriotic, thanks to the help of his fellow soldiers. Something that was read during that service I want to read here. It gives us an idea of the dedication, the focus, the goals, and the understanding that these young men have when they go into battle. It is called the Ranger Creed. The Rangers are a special group of young people. The Ranger Creed: Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor and high esprit de corps of my Ranger Regiment. Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea or air, I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country expects me to move further, faster and fight harder than any other soldier. Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be. One hundred percent and then some. Gallantly will I show the world that I'm a specially selected and well trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow. Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country. Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight onto the Ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor. Rangers lead the way. That is a creed they live by and they recite as they go into battle. I also want to share a poem. The poem was written by Jonn Edmunds' English teacher and was dedicated to his memory at the funeral. The title of it is: ``So This Is How It Feels.'' So this is how it feels to know the pain of war, the ineffable sorrow deep in your gut, beyond tears, beyond consciousness. Elements of disgust, horror and anger, and finally fear, all mixed and meshed inside. So this is how it feels to mourn native sons, the inscrutable sadness for one so young, their future laid bare, barren yet not futile. Elements of patriotism, pride, honor and heroism, and the thoughtful thankfulness for their service, all conglomerate there. So this is how it feels to know the dark of evil, the vague uncertainty of its source made real in the shed blood of our own. Elements of emptiness, apprehension and instability rocking our faith, and finally that fear again. Yet the good will out, our fears will form into faith, history will record how America, though humbled now, held its course as she has through other wars when she knew all too well how it felt. About a week after the September 11 events, my wife and I had an opportunity to attend a dinner. There happened to be a number of ambassadors from other countries at the dinner. It was very reassuring to talk to them. Their message involved the spirit of the American people. There were a lot of people from a lot of countries around the world who thought a major tragedy hit the United States that had been caused by somebody else and we would go to pieces. Instead, what they saw was the American people in a new form of unity and spirit that they had not seen for decades--people coming together, volunteering, helping out, the spirit of America alive again. It is that spirit of America that these young people in our service already know, already recognize. It is the reason they volunteered, that they have put their life on the line to serve our country. Thank goodness we have them. Let us always remember those who have given all. I ask unanimous consent that the newspaper articles referring to Jonn Edmunds be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of the time. I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gregg amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Gregg amendment is the solution to the problem presented in the underlying bill. With all respect to the bill managers, I believe the bill tries to meet new needs before addressing current obligations. The bill appropriates $925 million in new funding for school construction which has never been embraced in the light of open debate because policymakers, year in and year out, have recognized the danger of creating new questionable obligations in the face of our existing appropriate obligation to low-income and disadvantaged children. We already said we are going to do that. We are not doing it adequately, but now we say: Oh, I have this great idea for an economic stimulus; let's jump in on this and build some schools. It is not just the construction industry having a little bit of a problem. In fact, the construction industry is not hit as hard as other industries. The Gregg amendment reflects the pure policy we all espouse. His amendment would redirect $925 million into the title I Targeted Assistance Grant Program. That program disburses money based on a pure poverty formula. Again, that is what we all say our policy does. The underlying bill creates a new program with almost $1 billion in new spending. The greater concern which I have raised many times is that this bill would violate the prevailing wisdom that school construction is a State and local funding obligation. My policy concerns go even further. I offered an amendment to the ESEA bill when it was considered by the Senate earlier this year which addressed my concerns about providing any Federal assistance in the absence of maximized State and local effort and without the strictest eligibility requirements based on poverty. We somehow, to do the school construction, are going to have to get together and talk about that, but that is where it gets difficult. I can relate to some of my previous experience. The Wyoming Constitution requires an equal education for all kids. That is very tough to define and very tough to do. One of the equal education issues determined by our supreme court is equal buildings. What is an equal building? We have one school district that has about 800 students with a declining enrollment for a number of years. For a high school, we can determine 8 or 9 years in advance what the population is going to be based on the other schools that are below it--that it is going to be a continuing declining population. There is a requirement that the State build a new school for them. They want the school to be for 1,200 students. There is no justification for 1,200. We are talking about maintenance, too. The State constitution in Wyoming, interpreted by our supreme court, says there has to be equality when you tell people you are going to build school buildings or suggest perhaps if they do not do maintenance, they will get a new school building sooner. What is the result of this? The State is having to take over school construction. We are probably the ultimate State in the belief of local control, and we are having to go the other way. We are going to have a State organization now that will determine building maintenance. That is a pretty basic school board job. But if you are going to build the building, you have to have some control over the maintenance. If you are going to build the building, you also have to have some minimum requirements and maximum requirements. That has never been the case. Before, communities were able to build the kind of building they wanted to build or not build a building at all. That is not going to happen anymore. Those are issues we have not addressed at the Federal level. I can tell my colleagues that with the difficulty the State of Wyoming is having, it is new ground we do not want to cover without a very basic discussion. ``Equal school buildings'' is very hard to define, and I can tell my colleagues they are going to be even tougher to fund because an equal school building is going to have absolutely everything, and that means the finest football field, the finest swimming pool, and the finest gymnasium. In a lot of communities, that creates some controversy as to whether that is the epitome of education or whether it ought to be the finest chemistry classroom or the finest math facility. We have not had that basic discussion here. We have not been forced to have that basic discussion because we have not gotten into this area. We are starting to get into that area, and we better have that discussion before we find out that we have bitten off a bigger spending bill than this country would ever be able to afford and freed up local governments to again let us buy their votes with their dollars.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Halloween Safety Act of 2001. The purpose of this act is to extend the end date of Daylight Saving Time from the last Sunday in October to the first Sunday in November to include the night of Halloween. The idea of extending Daylight Saving Time was introduced to me by Sharon Rasmussen, a second grade teacher from Sheridan, WY, and her students. Ten years ago Mrs. Rasmussen's class began writing to Wyoming's representatives expressing their wish to have an extra hour of daylight on Halloween to increase the safety of small children. Each year I receive a packet of letters from Mrs. Rasmussen's class encouraging support for this reasonable proposal. Halloween is a time of great importance and excitement for youngsters throughout the United States and many celebrate by trick-or-treating door to door. Legislation has been introduced in the past to extend Daylight Saving Time. Although many of the bills sought to change both the starting date and the ending date, the legislation I introduced today would simply extend it for one week. The need to protect our children is apparent. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, nearly five thousand pedestrians died in 1999, that is an average of 13 deaths per day. Fatal pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions occur most often between 6 and 9 pm. Unfortunately, these general trends are highly magnified on Halloween given the considerable increase in pedestrians, most of whom are children. A study by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control concluded that the occurrence of pedestrian deaths for children ages 5 to 14 is four times higher on Halloween than any other night of the year. School and communities encourage children and parents to use safety measures when children venture out on Halloween and the Halloween Safety Act can further help protect our Nation's youth. When students take an interest in improving our Nation's laws, especially when it would serve to protect other children, I believe it is our duty to pay close attention. If children are concerned about their own safety and create a reasonable approach to make their world a little bit safer, I believe that accommodating their request is not too much to ask. The fact that second and third grade students in Sheridan, WY, have been working on this legislation shows that protecting the children of our country is a primary concern of these students, and it should be for all of us as lawmakers. If one life can be saved or one accident averted by extending Daylight Saving Time, it would be worthwhile. I encourage all my colleagues to support this act for the important benefits the Halloween Safety Act of 2001 would have for children and their parents.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I am happy to yield for a question when I complete my remarks. As I mentioned, we have been working with retailers and a coalition, including a lot of retailers and others who rely on the sales tax or rely on businesses that have a sales tax. That includes people who build shopping malls and do other types of retail businesses. I acknowledge their help in coming to this particular bill. I thank the National League of Cities and the National Governors' Association, and most particularly, my Governor from Wyoming, Governor Geringer, and the Governor from Utah, Governor Leavitt, for the tremendous hours they have put in together trying to get everybody on the same page. I yield for a question.

Mr. ENZI. I am happy to work with the Senator from Oregon. I have been working also with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to see if we cannot propound some kind of unanimous consent. It needs to be done quickly before States run off the edge and pass some things we might then feel bad about repealing but have to repeal. I am interested in doing that. However, I hope the propounded unanimous consent could deal with this bill, rather than the straight 12-month extension. I have been talking to people on the House side and I think they see some reasonableness in going with the approach I am providing, as well. We need to come up with a propounded unanimous consent that will get us to this form of debate and voting on amendments so this bill will have a majority of cosponsors and can be passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. I have refrained from getting into this discussion about the moratorium on Internet taxes up to this point, but I need to voice some comments because I am one of the people who has been working on this issue for the last 18 months and was a part of the debate we had 18 months ago that put the current moratorium into effect. I thank Senator Graham from Florida, who has been intensely involved. He has been one of the main people who has provided a connection with Congress and State legislators. I thank Senator Ron Wyden, the Senator from Oregon, for his intense interest. I think probably the number of hours the Senator from Oregon and I, and Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Graham have spent in meetings on this issue, which has not been a specific bill, probably exceeds the time spent on any other issue that was not actually a bill, which indicates the intensity of the need there is to resolve the issue nationwide. Particularly since the events of September 11, there has been a drain on resources for cities, towns, counties, and States as they have put more security in place, as they have provided for the difficulties that have happened in their States. Most of them rely on a sales tax to be able to do that. Education is another area heavily funded by sales taxes. Those States that collect sales taxes and rely on sales taxes have been intensely interested that their right to collect sales taxes is not taken away. Getting all of the groups together has been extremely difficult: the recognition that there is an added burden on direct marketers when they do this, that the States need it, that the retailers are at an unfair disadvantage if there is not a sales tax collected. And it is small retail merchants that provide for donations for the year books and the other local activities that would be sorely missed if they were not there. Getting some protection for all of these groups and bringing them together has been a real task. We have been making tremendous progress. There has been some concern that the moratorium runs out Sunday and the Nation will go into a major crisis. That is not the case. The grandfathering dates back to 1998. I suspect nobody is going to undo that particular date. We need a solution. This is not my solution. This is the solution of all of the people I mentioned who have been working on it and will be continuing to work on it to come to some kind of an agreement where, first of all, we extend the moratorium; second, we make sure we protect the States so they can, with some pressure--and this is where the States have to come to the middle, too--simplify their tax system so that direct marketer or that person doing remote sales has some capability of complying. In order to make that easier, one of the things we have built into the bill is a requirement that there be one form, one reporting place, one place to send the check, and a maximum of one audit. There is also a requirement there be reasonable compensation to the person who collects it. Everybody who does direct sales collects sales taxes. They collect it in the State in which they are located, which is where they have a nexus and in other States where they have a nexus. There is an intense interest on their part to see that there is some simplification to the tax system in the States where they have to work.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Voinovich be allowed to follow the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act. I encourage each of my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this bill. With the extension of the current moratorium of the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 expiring soon on October 21, 2001, there are several bills that are currently being discussed in the Senate in order to address this issue. I had to take a look at the Internet sales tax issue for people who might be using legislative vehicles to develop huge loopholes in our current system. We are federally mandating States into a sales tax exemption. We need to preserve the system for those cities, towns, counties, and States that rely on the ability to collect the sales tax they are currently getting. I believe that the current moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet should not be extended without addressing the larger issue of sales and use tax collection on electronic commerce. There are some critical issues here that have to be solved to keep the stability of State and local government, just the stability of it, not to increase sales tax, just protect what is there right now. I believe the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act is a monumental step forward in protecting, yet enhancing, the current system. Certainly, no Senator wants to take steps that will unreasonably burden the development and growth of the Internet. At the same time, we must also be sensitive to issues of basic competitive fairness and the negative effect our action or inaction can have on brick-and-mortar retailers, a critical economic sector and employment force in all American society, especially in rural States like Wyoming. In addition, we must consider the legitimate need of State and local governments to have the flexibility they need to generate resources to adequately fund their programs and operations. As the only accountant in the Senate, I have a unique perspective on the dozens of tax proposals that are introduced in Congress each year. In addition, my service on the State and local levels and my experiences as a small business owner enable me to consider these bills from more than one viewpoint. I understand the importance of protecting and promoting the growth of Internet commerce because of its potential economic benefits. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. In addition, it is estimated that the growth of online businesses will create millions of new jobs nationwide in the coming years. Therefore, I do not support a tax on the use of Internet itself. I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax loophole. Sales taxes go directly to State and local governments and I am very leery of any Federal legislation that bypasses their traditional ability to raise revenue to perform needed services such as school funding, road repair and law enforcement. I will not force States into a huge new exemption. While those who advocate a permanent loophole on the collection of a sales tax over the Internet claim to represent the principles of tax reduction, they are actually advocating a tax increase. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow sales over the Internet to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, revenues to State and local governments will fall and property taxes will have to be increased to offset lost revenue or States who do not have or believe in State income taxes will be forced to start one. Furthermore, State and local revenues and budgets are especially critical now as these governments are responding to protect the security of all of our citizens and businesses. Any action to extend the current moratorium without creating a level playing field would perpetuate a fundamental inequity and ignore a growing problem that will gravely affect the readiness of the nation. After months of hard work, negotiations, and compromise, the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act has been introduced. I would like to commend several of my colleagues for their commitment to finding a solution and working with all parties to find that solution. I know this bill is the solution. The bill makes permanent the existing moratorium on Internet access taxes, but extends the current moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes for an additional four years through December 31, 2005. Throughout the past several years, we have heard that catalog and Internet companies say they are willing to allow and collect sales tax on interstate sales, regardless of traditional or Internet sales, if States will simplify collections to one rate per State sent to one location in that State. I think that is a reasonable request. I have heard the argument that computers make it possible to handle several thousand tax entities, but from an auditing standpoint as well as simplicity for small business, I support one rate per State. I think the States should have some responsibility for redistribution not a business forced to do work for government. Therefore, the bill would put Congress on record as urging States and localities to develop a streamlined sales and use tax system, which would include a single, blended tax rate with which all remote sellers can comply. You need to be aware that States are prohibited from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales if the States have not adopted the simplified sales and use tax system. Further, the bill would authorize States to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax Compact through which members would adopt the streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into such a compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006. The bill also authorizes States to require all other sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales unless Congress has acted to disapprove the compact by law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it. The bill also calls for a sense of the Congress that before the end of the 107th Congress, legislation should be enacted to determine the appropriate factors to be considered in establishing whether nexus exists for State business activity tax purposes. I am introducing this bill today because I do not think there is adequate protection now. It is very important we do not build electronic loopholes on the Internet, an ever-changing Internet, one that is growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology virtually every day. I recognize this body has a constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, I understand the desire of several senators to protect and promote the growth of Internet commerce. Internet commerce is an exciting field. It has a lot of growth potential. The new business will continue to create millions of new jobs in the coming years. The exciting thing about that for Wyomingites is that our merchants do not have to go where the people are. For people in my State, that means their products are no longer confined to a local market. They do not have to rely on expensive catalogs to sell merchandise to the big city folks. They do not have to travel all the way to Asia to display their goods. The customer can come to us on the Internet. It is a remarkable development, and it will push more growth for small manufacturers in rural America, especially in my State. We have seen some of the economic potential in the Internet and will continue this progress. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. It brings information to your fingertips when you want it and how you want it. I am very concerned, however, with any piece of legislation that mandates or restricts State and local governments' ability to meet the needs of its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic loopholes that will take away all of their revenue. The Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act would designate a level playing field for all involved--business, government, and the consumer. The States, and not the Federal Government, should have the right to impose, or not to impose, consumption taxes as they see fit. The reality is that emergency response personnel, law enforcement officials, and other essential services are funded largely by States and local governments, especially through sales taxes. Passing an extension of the current moratorium without taking steps toward a comprehensive solution would leave many States and local communities unable to fund their services. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of S. 1510, the ``Uniting and Strengthening America Act'' or ``USA Act.'' This bill reflects a bipartisan effort to aid law enforcement, immigration, and the intelligence community in investigating, detaining, and apprehending suspected terrorists. This legislation follows lengthy committee inquiry, debate, and revision of legislation Attorney General Ashcroft proposed a few weeks ago and which sparked national debate over whether civil rights would be violated. During the past few weeks, Senate leaders have been working tirelessly with Attorney General Ashcroft in order to create a bill that strengthens our existing laws with respect to apprehending terrorists, but still protects the civil rights of our citizens. This is an important mission for Congress. Everyone in America understands the need for enforcement, immigration and the intelligence community to have the tools necessary to find terrorists, cut-off their financial support, and bring them to Justice. While I am committed to routing out terrorists here and abroad, I am equally committed to making sure the rights of innocent U.S. citizens are not violated. This includes the privacy and property rights our constitution affords and that make this country so great. I believe this bipartisan bill does both. This legislation strikes a balance between protecting our civil rights and assisting Attorney General Ashcroft and others to do their jobs. While the Senate and House may later debate some of the provisions in this legislation, be assured that every member of Congress is united in this mission. We are totally committed to passing anti-terrorism legislation and apprehending the bin Ladens of this world.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support and commend the President's back-to-work relief package. From the workers in New York whose offices now lie in rubble to the workers on the opposite coast who have lost their jobs in a massive layoff, the terrorist attacks of September 11 have had a devastating impact on our Nation's workforce. Just as we must rebuild the structures damaged or destroyed, we must help to rebuild the lives of workers who have been displaced because of the attacks. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training, I am particularly concerned with providing effective and immediate assistance to workers affected by the terrorist attacks. To do so, the President's package must: 1, be targeted to individuals directly impacted by the September 11 attacks; 2, build upon existing programs, not create new ones. That is a major point. We are doing a lot of things well already. We don't need a new Federal bureaucracy to do it; 3, provide State and local flexibility to address needs; 4, enable individuals to return to the workforce as quickly as possible through job training and job search assistance. The President's back-to-work relief package is, indeed, based on these principles. He deserves our unyielding support for a proposal that is based on what works best for workers. To enhance existing assistance programs available to displaced workers, the President's proposal will extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the terrorist attacks. It will provide $3 billion in special national emergency grants to States to help displaced workers maintain health coverage, to supplement their income, and to receive job training. It makes $11 billion available to States to help low-income displaced workers receive health insurance. And, finally, it encourages displaced workers to take advantage of the more than $6 billion in existing Federal programs that provide job search, training, and placement services. While the President's package is targeted to workers directly impacted by the terrorist attack, it is not restricted to employees of the airlines and related industries. That is an important point. There are many workers in other industries who have also lost their jobs as a consequence of the attacks. It is inequitable to deny them relief provided only to employees in certain industries. I am especially pleased to see that the President's proposal will utilize national emergency grants under the Workforce Investment Act to provide additional assistance to those communities and populations hardest hit by the terrorist attacks. I have been a strong supporter of the Workforce Investment Act and the fundamental principles upon which this landmark legislation was based. Under the Workforce Investment act, States and localities have increased flexibility to meet the needs of the local and regional labor markets. Today, in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, it is even more critical that States have the flexibility to effectively respond to the needs of their dislocated workers. States affected by the terrorist attacks will be able to receive national emergency grants. The States may in turn use these funds to help ensure that dislocated workers maintain health insurance coverage, that they receive income support during the recovery period, and they return to the workforce through training and job search assistance. Both the Workforce Investment Act and the President's package recognize that decisions regarding worker assistance should be made by those closest to the problem and, therefore, closest to the solution. State and local governments--not the Federal Government--are best positioned to respond to workforce needs. That is the way our system is set up. Under the President's package, national emergency grants may be used to provide training and job search assistance. In addition, displaced workers are encouraged to take advantage of the $6 billion in existing Federal programs that provide training and placement services. Rather than waste precious time and resources on creating new Federal programs, displaced workers can immediately access one-stop centers and receive job assistance services. In fact, New York, Massachusetts, and Minnesota have already applied for national emergency grants in the wake of the attacks. Finally, the President's proposal is termed a relief package. It is designed to provide supplementary, temporary work to displaced workers during the recovery period after the terrorist attacks. Now is not the time to create widespread new Federal programs and entitlements. Now is the time to address the immediate needs of workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the tragic events of September 11 while utilizing existing programs to help these people return to the workforce as quickly as possible. Ultimately, this approach, which the President has taken, will best serve these workers and the American economy. The question we must all answer is, How do we define success? The answer is, Getting everybody back to work. How do we achieve that? We activate proven, existing, and therefore immediate programs administered by those closest to the people. I trust Mayor Giuliani and I trust Governor Pataki to be responsive, just as I trust the mayor of Boston and the Governor of Minnesota. A lot of that is because these people have already been dealing with these existing programs. We don't need to be creating something new just to throw money at them. In closing, I say to my colleagues, the President's back-to-work relief package is aptly named. It is designed to return to the workforce those who lost their jobs as a result of the events of September 11. The best way to help stimulate our economy is to get these people working again as soon as possible. To recap, I am in opposition to the cloture motion filed. We will vote on it at 1:35. I commend the President for taking a broader look and particularly commend the President for his willingness and desire to use those existing programs and existing people who are already in place, use the talents that have already been built and trained to do it, to provide the necessary recovery we need, without winding up with an additional bureaucracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act. I encourage each of my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this bill. With the extension of the current moratorium of the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 expiring soon on October 21, 2001, there are several bills that are currently being discussed in the Senate in order to address this issue. I had to take a look at the Internet sales tax issue for people who might be using legislative vehicles to develop huge loopholes in our current system. We are federally mandating States into a sales tax exemption. We need to preserve the system for those cities, towns, counties, and States that rely on the ability to collect the sales tax they are currently getting. I believe that the current moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet should not be extended without addressing the larger issue of sales and use tax collection on electronic commerce. There are some critical issues here that have to be solved to keep the stability of State and local government, just the stability of it, not to increase sales tax, just protect what is there right now. I believe the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act is a monumental step forward in protecting, yet enhancing, the current system. Certainly, no Senator wants to take steps that will unreasonably burden the development and growth of the Internet. At the same time, we must also be sensitive to issues of basic competitive fairness and the negative effect our action or inaction can have on brick-and-mortar retailers, a critical economic sector and employment force in all American society, especially in rural States like Wyoming. In addition, we must consider the legitimate need of State and local governments to have the flexibility they need to generate resources to adequately fund their programs and operations. As the only accountant in the Senate, I have a unique perspective on the dozens of tax proposals that are introduced in Congress each year. In addition, my service on the State and local levels and my experiences as a small business owner enable me to consider these bills from more than one viewpoint. I understand the importance of protecting and promoting the growth of Internet commerce because of its potential economic benefits. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. In addition, it is estimated that the growth of online businesses will create millions of new jobs nationwide in the coming years. Therefore, I do not support a tax on the use of Internet itself. I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax loophole. Sales taxes go directly to State and local governments and I am very leery of any Federal legislation that bypasses their traditional ability to raise revenue to perform needed services such as school funding, road repair and law enforcement. I will not force States into a huge new exemption. While those who advocate a permanent loophole on the collection of a sales tax over the Internet claim to represent the principles of tax reduction, they are actually advocating a tax increase. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow sales over the Internet to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, revenues to State and local governments will fall and property taxes will have to be increased to offset lost revenue or States who do not have or believe in State income taxes will be forced to start one. Furthermore, State and local revenues and budgets are especially critical now as these governments are responding to protect the security of all of our citizens and businesses. Any action to extend the current moratorium without creating a level playing field would perpetuate a fundamental inequity and ignore a growing problem that will gravely affect the readiness of the nation. After months of hard work, negotiations, and compromise, the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act has been introduced. I would like to commend several of my colleagues for their commitment to finding a solution and working with all parties to find that solution. I know this bill is the solution. The bill makes permanent the existing moratorium on Internet access taxes, but extends the current moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes for an additional four years through December 31, 2005. Throughout the past several years, we have heard that catalog and Internet companies say they are willing to allow and collect sales tax on interstate sales, regardless of traditional or Internet sales, if States will simplify collections to one rate per State sent to one location in that State. I think that is a reasonable request. I have heard the argument that computers make it possible to handle several thousand tax entities, but from an auditing standpoint as well as simplicity for small business, I support one rate per State. I think the States should have some responsibility for redistribution not a business forced to do work for government. Therefore, the bill would put Congress on record as urging States and localities to develop a streamlined sales and use tax system, which would include a single, blended tax rate with which all remote sellers can comply. You need to be aware that States are prohibited from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales if the States have not adopted the simplified sales and use tax system. Further, the bill would authorize States to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax Compact through which members would adopt the streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into such a compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006. The bill also authorizes States to require all other sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales unless Congress has acted to disapprove the compact by law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it. The bill also calls for a sense of the Congress that before the end of the 107th Congress, legislation should be enacted to determine the appropriate factors to be considered in establishing whether nexus exists for State business activity tax purposes. I am introducing this bill today because I do not think there is adequate protection now. It is very important we do not build electronic loopholes on the Internet, an ever-changing Internet, one that is growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology virtually every day. I recognize this body has a constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, I understand the desire of several senators to protect and promote the growth of Internet commerce. Internet commerce is an exciting field. It has a lot of growth potential. The new business will continue to create millions of new jobs in the coming years. The exciting thing about that for Wyomingites is that our merchants do not have to go where the people are. For people in my State, that means their products are no longer confined to a local market. They do not have to rely on expensive catalogs to sell merchandise to the big city folks. They do not have to travel all the way to Asia to display their goods. The customer can come to us on the Internet. It is a remarkable development, and it will push more growth for small manufacturers in rural America, especially in my State. We have seen some of the economic potential in the Internet and will continue this progress. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. It brings information to your fingertips when you want it and how you want it. I am very concerned, however, with any piece of legislation that mandates or restricts State and local governments' ability to meet the needs of its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic loopholes that will take away all of their revenue. The Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act would designate a level playing field for all involved--business, government, and the consumer. The States, and not the Federal Government, should have the right to impose, or not to impose, consumption taxes as they see fit. The reality is that emergency response personnel, law enforcement officials, and other essential services are funded largely by States and local governments, especially through sales taxes. Passing an extension of the current moratorium without taking steps toward a comprehensive solution would leave many States and local communities unable to fund their services. I urge my colleagues to support it.