Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. That is correct.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since we have more time, I believe, remaining on this side, the side of the proponents of the amendment, I yield such time as he may consume--the remainder of that time--to Senator Dorgan, who has been very much involved and a leader in this process for several years.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time. This commission on overseas bases is a Global Posture Review. It is not a closure or realignment process. It is a review of requirements that should then inform an overseas base process. But it is not a base closure. This commission which reports in December guarantees that nothing will happen. I want to make sure everybody understands that. We are trying to get an overseas realignment and base closure process. Secondly, I am shocked with all this talk about the key factor here is the lobbyists: We don't want our communities or States to keep these lobbyists who are going to be working to try to keep the commission from closing this base or that base. I really can't really believe that has been the argument. I have an answer to that. Take them off the payroll. I know how it has been working. Some of these people have been paid for 4 years, and there has not been a BRAC process underway. That is why we are here. We are here as representatives of the people. We do not need these people on the payroll. Surely, that is not the best argument. I guarantee this: Some of the communities, some of the bases, some of the people will say this will give us 2 more years, at least, on life. We will take those 2 years. The very idea of ``shoot me and get it over with'' when, as a matter of fact, some of these bases are really needed--CBO has said there is not excess capacity. My last point is, if we are going to have a base-closure process, target the excess bases; do not target every base in America. I urge we adopt this amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, has all time expired?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have an additional 30 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. Thirty seconds, to wrap up this debate.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to emphasize again, think about what we are doing. Think about the time. Think about how much has happened in the last 2 years. Think of the troops, the Reserve and Guard forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about the families, the mothers, and communities already very much concerned about the future of our military men and women, where they are going to be, and now add this to it. I think the timing is wrong. To say we are not going to even identify what bases will be subject to this review is not the way to go. I say again, think about these issues. I do not think we have any guarantee overseas bases will be realigned. I have evidence to indicate they will have the same numbers overseas in 2025. We have heard a lot of talk about realignment overseas and restructuring. It has not happened. This will make sure we first have overseas bases realigned and a new structure and then the domestic bases. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 2 p.m., to hold a Nomination hearing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18th, at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to evaluate implications of a recent change in reporting of small business contracts by the Department of Energy. This change has the effect of increasing the number of small business contracts issued directly by the Department and decreasing the number of contracts issued by the Department's Management and operating contractors.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on ``Iraq's Transition--The Way Ahead.''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 10 a.m., on ``Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226. Panel I: McGregor W. Scott, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of California, Sacramento, CA; and John E. Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: William Green, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, CA; Jonathan Blum, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Yum! Brands Inc., Louisville, KY; and Dr. Stuart Zola, Director, Yerkes Primate Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, May 18, 2004, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m., in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., on FAA Oversight.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this month DuPont Chemical and the people of the Mississippi Gulf Coast region together celebrate the 25th anniversary of the DuPont Chemical Plant in DeLisle, MS. DuPont began manufacturing in DeLisle in 1979 and in 1991 underwent an expansion. The plant now employs over 1,000 people who are residents of both Mississippi and Louisiana. These employees are the No. 1 reason the plant has achieved some very impressive production rates. In fact, its high productivity levels have made the DuPont DeLisle plant the second largest titanium dioxide producing plant in the world. This is truly cause for the plant's employees, management and all local residents to be proud. The plant's success over the past 25 years is directly attributable to the partnership between DuPont DeLisle and the city of DeLisle, the Mississippi gulf coast region, and the State of Mississippi. The local community and State maintain a strong interest in supporting the plant and ensuring its continued success, while the plant and its employees work to give back to and improve the local community. For example, over the years DuPont DeLisle and its employees have worked in cooperation with the Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College to offer extensive on-site operator training in electrical, machine shop, and computer skills. In addition, employees have conducted American Red Cross blood drives and United Way campaigns, donated equipment to local schools and fire departments, and participated in State and local organizations that are focused on improving Mississippi's workforce. In addition to their work in the community, the plant's employees have strived to make it the best. As a result, the plant today is the top performer in its business group organization. DuPont DeLisle also work 4 times more safely than comparable industrial plants in the chemical industry using OSHA measurements. In fact, in October 2003, DuPont DeLisle employees exceeded their previous all-time safety record and early this year completed a full year without a single injury requiring medical treatment. These are truly significant accomplishments by employees who are obviously dedicated and committed to their employees' safety. As one can see, DuPont in DeLisle has been good for the Mississippi economy by creating and sustaining high paying technical jobs. For the past 25 years, Mississippi has been proud to call itself home to this plant and we look forward to our continued partnership for the next 25 years. Congratulations to DuPont DeLisle and its local and State partners on this most noteworthy anniversary.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Texas in thanking the Senator from Utah for the leadership and information he has been providing about what is happening with the economy, and helping us to understand all the data. As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, he has been the most aggressive chairman I have seen in recent years. He is doing a fantastic job. I would describe this economic recovery we are going through now as the ``just say it ain't so recovery.'' When I listen to many of the speeches around Washington--and even out across the country in some areas--I sometimes get the feeling some people think that if you just keep saying the economy is not good, maybe it won't be. Only in Washington do you have that sort of perverse thinking, that too much good news about the economy is either not true or it is unhelpful. Many people try to look at the stock market to assess whether the economy is doing well. Well, in the long term this may be true, but at some points in time, I think it is a reverse indicator of what is going on in the economy. Sometimes, bad news in the stock market is really good news. We saw that just yesterday. Because the economy is growing, because jobs are being created, because orders are going up, because manufacturing is going up, the stock market said: Wait a minute now. Maybe the economy is beginning to get a little too hot, and maybe the Federal Reserve System is going to have to raise the historically low interest rates a little bit. Oh, this must be bad news, so let's sell now. So when the stock market reacts like that, you can bet good things are happening in the economy. The list of good economic news is very long and is growing. I think a lot of credit should go to the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan. He has been careful in his language. Low interest rates have been fantastic for automobile sales and housing starts. The American dream is now available to more Americans than at any time in the history of this country. Americans have access to a variety of choices in homes. More and more people are owning their own home. Of course, a lot of the credit for this should go to the availability of quality housing, a good area of the economy. Home building is done by a lot of really good people who are very capable. But you have to acknowledge that low interest rates have really helped the housing sector. I think credit should also go to the President for his leadership, and to the Congress. The President knew when he was sworn in that January in 2001, that we were already in a recession. We were already in one, it did not start then. The President came to the Congress and said: We have to do some things to encourage the economy to grow. One of the best ways to do that is to carefully cut taxes. We needed tax cuts that put money in the pockets of working Americans, and incentives for business and industry to create jobs. The Congress heard the President and passed tax cut legislation. We did it in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Now, Mr. President, we are getting the benefit--the tremendous benefit--of those tax cuts because they boosted the economy when we needed it most. Just look at the numbers. If you have doubts about what is happening in the economy, look at the numbers published by the experts, not as cited by a Member of Congress. For instance, with respect to jobs, the administration announced on May 7 that 288,000 net new jobs were created in April; and 308,000 were created the month before--over a half million jobs in 2 months. Since last August, an estimated 1.1 million jobs have been created. I think it is probably more like 1.3 million jobs when you take into account the Household Survey. But either way, that is a significant increase. The national unemployment rate has edged down to 5.6 percent. I remember years ago, when I first came to Washington--I admit that was a long time ago, 30 or so years ago--6-percent unemployment was considered ``full employment.'' Well, my attitude is, any unemployment is unacceptably high. But it is now down to 5.6 percent, falling .7 percentage points, from a peak of 6.3 percent in June of 2003. I believe it is going to continue to go in that direction, partly because manufacturing employment increased 21,000 jobs in April. The February and March job numbers were also corrected upward. So, manufacturing employment has risen for 3 consecutive months. One of the most interesting statistics I have come across is that we have more Americans employed now than at any time in history. More Americans are working today than at any time in history. Is it enough? No. We want more, and we want better paying jobs with greater opportunities. But still, you have to say, the fact that more Americans are working than ever before is a very impressive statistic. Weekly unemployment claims have fallen to their lowest level since the year 2000. The economy grew at a strong annual pace of 4.2 percent during the first quarter of 2004. I think, when the assessment is done, it will be adjusted upward to 4.5 percent. That is very strong growth. Most of the countries of the world would be delighted to have even half of that kind of growth. Household spending continues to be strong. Retail sales are up. Consumer confidence is at the highest level in 3 months, and rising. In March, new housing construction surged to levels near those of December 2003, when we had the highest levels in almost 20 years. American companies are, across the board, reporting historic levels of growth. Productivity levels are up. So the administration's policies have been working, and we are making great progress. Every economic statistic now is moving in a positive direction. Now, we also need to pay attention to making sure inflation does not creep in, while keeping interest rates as low as possible. The downturn in the economy, our response to 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and additional expenditures for homeland security have contributed to deficits, but even that projection has fallen. Last year, we were told that the current fiscal year deficit would be more than $500 billion. Now it looks like it will be down to $417 billion. I think it may end up below that because the economy is growing. This is good news, but we have to continue to address the budget deficit problem. I think we are going to have to make some tough choices in the next couple of years to get the deficit back down to where it can be eliminated. I think deficits do matter. They will affect interest rates over a period of years if we ignore them. One other thing. You might say, well, all right, that is good, but what have you done for me lately? What are you going to do to add to the growth we are trying to achieve? The Senate is doing it today. After fits and starts, four different attempts, we are going to get an international tax bill today. Hallelujah, a bill; an important bill, finally, after 3 years of ignoring the problem of increasing European tariffs on American exports. Mr. President, this bill will create jobs and address the problem of the WTO ruling. It includes incentives for manufacturing jobs and manufacturing tax credits, and incentives to grow the energy sector of the economy. This is a jobs growth bill. I am glad we are going to get it done. I commend all of those Senators who were involved, including Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and his ranking member, Senator Baucus from Montana. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I wish to respond this afternoon to some of the statements that have been said, and also to rise in opposition to the Harkin amendment. First, I wish to join in what the Senator from Alabama was saying about the outstanding leadership of our Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. If there has ever been an American success story, she is it. She is a minority woman who has been in several very critical leadership positions, has always done a wonderful job, and she is showing real courage as Secretary of Labor. Anybody who would suggest she would be advocating positions or rules that would be antiwomen, I don't think there is any possibility that would be something she would do. I have a knowledge of her and a faith in the leadership she is providing. She is trying to change rules that have not been touched in 50 years. Whatever they were 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, one would think they probably need some reconsideration and updating. That is what she is trying to do. As far as being concerned about the low income and entry level of working Americans, I feel a real concern for that. My dad was a shipyard worker, a pipefitter, a union member. My mother taught school. She subsequently kept books because she could not make enough money teaching school. My son employs a lot of entry level, low-income, unwed mothers, and he worries about his need for insurance coverage. I do not step aside for anybody as far as coming from a low-income, middle-income background. I want to make sure we do right by the low- income people and the entry level people. In that connection, in talking about the economy and what is happening, I remind all Americans and my colleagues the economy is not perfect. The economy would never be as good as we would like for it to be. We would like it to be growing at 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 percent GDP and hope we can make that happen. I believe we in America can always make the pie bigger. We do not have to make the slices smaller. We can challenge every American to think about what the opportunities are that are being offered and try to take a part of the American dream. And we are moving in that direction. Productivity is up. The point was made maybe it is going to the bottom line, the profit. I figured out if Litton Industries did not have a profit, my dad probably would not have had a job doing pipefitting in that shipyard. Jobless claims are down, housing starts are at an all-time high, and the American dream of owning your own home is doing fantastically. I met last week with homebuilders from my home State. They are doing great. They are providing good quality, affordable housing like never before, probably because interest rates are low, historically low, and have been so. The markets are up. When I hear, woe is me, the economy is not good--it is not perfect, but there are a lot of indicators going in the right direction. Then when I hear our workers in America work more than people in France, are we now trying to imitate France? Pretty soon they will be down to working maybe 25 hours a week, and they have huge economic problems because they have not been able to bring themselves to address the difficulties they are getting into with all their pensions and all the stuff they are committed to they are not going to be able to pay for. I do not want to follow France's example, for Heaven's sake. So what do we have in this particular instance? Again, we are trying to update the rules on overtime. It looks to me as though for low-income workers, they are going to be the beneficiaries. The Department estimates that few, if any, workers between $23,660 and $100,000 would lose their overtime. As a matter of fact, 1.3 million salaried workers who earn less than $23,660 would get the overtime, and they would not need to go to court or to try to deal with the difficulties of the vague language. They are going to clarify when these workers would be eligible for overtime. Certainly, people who are making $23,000 or $24,000 ought to get overtime when they work extra hours. I think we ought to be commending the Secretary of Labor. She listened to us. She heard our complaints. Where there were weaknesses that were pointed out, they went back and tried to address those. These are not the same rules we were debating a year ago. They went back and raised the level that would be applied. The salaried level was $65,000. In the final version of rules, it is up to $100,000. There are new provisions in the rules that specify certain classes of employees also, such as police officers and firefighters, as automatically eligible for overtime pay. Do we not want to make that clear? Do we not want to specify that firefighters and police officers would be entitled to get overtime pay? It also declares that licensed practical nurses and certain veterans would be eligible for overtime pay. So there is a clarification with regard to the nurses. When one looks at what has happened, what they are trying to accomplish is to bring the rules up to date with the realities of employment today, and this is the first time we have done it in 50 years. As a matter of fact, low-income workers have certainty that they are going to get overtime. Specific groups such as firefighters, policemen, veterans, and licensed practical nurses will be guaranteed that they will get this overtime pay. Now there are certain categories of people I am sure are defined in these rules who are executive or administrative in position. They may make over $100,000, $120,000, or $130,000 a year. They may have to work overtime. How many people in our offices work overtime? How many overtime hours do we work, 50, 60, 70, 80? We understand when we run for the Senate that we are not going to get overtime pay. I am not advocating that. That is my point. I do not expect it, and I work 70, 80 hours a week because of the opportunities, the way of honor and because of the understanding of what we would be paid. I think these rules are the right thing to do. There is clarity about the fact that more people would be covered. I do not know how many people might actually have some risk of not getting overtime, but it would be in the higher brackets. The number is probably 107,000 workers earning more than this $100,000 might lose their overtime pay. This effort has shifted the emphasis to the low-income people who have not been certain that they could get overtime. We should be commending the Secretary of Labor, not trying to pass the Harkin amendment that would block these changes. I fear once again what we have is people wanting more. They are not satisfied that this is good enough. Good, maybe, yes, that maybe it is fine if it applies to first responders, nurses, blue collar workers, cooks, paralegals, public service inspectors, union contracts, and veterans. That is all good, but we want more. We are going to defeat the good in pursuit of the perfect. It will not happen. I urge my colleagues to vote against this Harkin amendment. Let us put these rules in place. It will not be the last pass at this. We are going to find that there are some weaknesses, or we should have maybe considered another group. The rules will be changed again. I had to take a little time to talk about the facts with regard to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, to talk about the economy and talk about how these rules have been modified. They have moved in the right direction, and we should allow them to go into place and continue to work to make sure they are applied properly. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3082, which is my amendment to the McCain underlying amendment.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in order to explain exactly what is involved, it is quite simple. The amendment would extend the 1998 grandfather coverage in the bill from 3 years to 4 years. I support ending this grandfather provision for States that had already enacted some Internet tax by 1998. I support phasing that out. I would like to have this issue dealt with in a broad, comprehensive way. I hope the Commerce Committee will do that in the next year or two. I felt that 3 years was enough of an extension of that grandfather clause. But I have talked to a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle who say that in the interest of fairness you have the grandfather clause phased out in 3 years, and this bill is for 4 years. Wouldn't it be fairer, and we would be more supportive of it, if we could get these two provisions in the same position? For that reason, I filed an amendment yesterday just before 1 o'clock. I have discussed this with Senator Stevens, Senator McCain, and Senator Wyden. Members on both sides are aware of what this amendment is. Senator Sununu had some reservations about it but understands what we have done. We are prepared to go forward with this amendment now. I am willing to do it because I think it is so important that we have Senators who feel good about this legislation and believe it is fair so we can get a bill, get it now, and deal with this moratorium after these many months of laboring to do the right thing. That is basically what this is all about. I hope my colleagues will support it and it can be accepted, hopefully, on a voice vote.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this appears to be a moment where we are waiting for other Senators to be contacted to further work on amendments that may or may not be offered. I want to take this opportunity to say something positive about this institution which has been having difficulties lately. This bill shows what you can do when Senators will work together on a very difficult issue. Senators prefer not to vote on this issue. We have friends on both sides--all of us. We have heard from our Governors, mayors, and from the industry. We have heard from all different points of view. But with the tenacity and persistence of Senator Allen, Senator Wyden, the chairman of the committee, and the manager on the Democratic side--they have some feel for what this institution can do and should do. I think they all deserve a lot of credit. We may actually get something done. This is something that needs to be done and something of which we can all be proud. I was talking to Senator Daschle earlier today repeating my oft- stated opinion that when you govern and when you produce results, everybody wins regardless of party. That is what we are really here for. I say to those who are on the other side of this issue--former Governors, of course, led by Senator Alexander, Senator Carper, and Senator Voinovich--they have been eloquent in their presentations. They have made us all uncomfortable with the points they made while submitting their arguments. They have been dogged, but they have also been reasonable. If we get this bill completed today, the people on all sides can feel good about how it was done. I commend all concerned. It makes me feel good for a change about what we are doing. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3104 to Amendment No. 3048

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I was not aware, and I do not believe the manager of the legislation who is temporarily off the floor was aware, this amendment would be offered at this time. He will return shortly. I am sure there are going to be some discussions about the amendment and the appropriate way for us to deal with it. I understand the importance of this amendment that has been offered by Senator Daschle to a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle. I agree we should have a national energy policy. We have been talking about it for at least 3 years or longer. Yet here we stand today with no national energy policy. We do not have legislation on the books that gives incentives for more production of oil and gas to relieve some of the regulatory problems that delay or make it almost impossible to have nuclear plants, hydropower, conservation, alternative fuels, ethanol-- the whole package. Yet last year, the Senate passed energy legislation. The House passed it. We had a conference. Problems developed in the conference, and we have not been able, unfortunately, to move the energy legislation through the Senate because we have not been able to get 60 votes, even though we had, I think, 57 or 58 who voted for the bill. I still think we should find a way to get this legislation through a conference or through to completion and send it to the President. If we do not, a pox on all our houses because problems are here. They are going to stay, and they are going to get worse. We are not going to conserve. We are not going to produce. We are not going to do anything. We are at the mercy, then, of countries all over the world to provide the oil for over 50 percent of our energy needs in this country. This is dangerous. We need a national energy policy because of economic security and national security. So I agree we need to do this. I do not agree with all the features in it. I did not like some of the provisions added at the end in the conference. I have my reservations about some of the renewable fuels. I have reservations about a lot of it, but I voted for it, and I am prepared to vote for it again in its current form with warts or with another problem. We should deal with this problem. There is one way we will not deal with it comprehensively or deal with it at all, probably, and that is to pick it apart, pick all the meat off the bones of this national energy policy legislation. Piece by piece we will devour this good legislation, for example by putting a piece of it on the FSC/ETI jobs growth bill. If we put tax policies there, put ethanol here, or put it somewhere else, and start picking it apart piece by piece, what will happen is we will probably not get a comprehensive bill, and we probably will not even get the pieces. This is not wise. I do not have the impression that it has been indicated by our leadership that we are not going to do an energy bill. I think it is on the agenda to be considered further, and it should be considered further. We should work in a bipartisan and a bicameral way to get this legislation done. For that reason, I think it is a huge mistake to come pull out this one piece a lot of people do like and stick it on this legislation, because it is one of the engines that could possibly pull us to a national energy policy. We will have discussion over the next few minutes about the way we would like to deal with it. But I personally do not think we should be adding this nongermane amendment, a critical part of the Energy bill, on this bill. I would also like to say briefly that I think we have a good compromise package which Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, has developed. He has worked over a long period of time with both the proponents and opponents to see if we could find compromise language on this Internet tax issue that was acceptable to get the job done. It has not been easy because neither side wants to give. The proponents do not want even a 4-year moratorium. They want a permanent moratorium on Internet access taxes. I have in the past been inclined to be in that camp. However, I have listened to Senator Alexander and Senator Voinovich. I have heard from the Governor of my own State, and there is an argument on the other side, there is no question about this. We need to deal with this whole issue in a comprehensive way. The Commerce Committee needs some time and it will not be easy. I went through the legislative process for telecommunications reform that we passed in 1996. We worked on it for 2 years. It was very laborious and it had the possibility of just falling apart right up until the end. It will probably take us a couple of years to get further comprehensive telecommunications reform done. In the meantime, we should have in place a moratorium on taxing the Internet. In fact, I believe there is an overwhelming majority that agrees. We saw the vote yesterday. I know that was not a vote on the substance, but anytime around here of late that there is a vote of 74 to 11 to go to the substance of a bill, that is pretty strong. I believe most Senators want to get this moratorium in place. Could we tinker with it here or there? Surely, and there will be legitimate amendments that we should consider. We are on the legislation now. We can begin the amendment process. We have had a relevant amendment. Senator Alexander, the opponents, were reasonable and have allowed us to do this. They are going to have some really good and tough amendments that we are going to have to deal with, and that is the way the legislative process is supposed to work, I think. To have voted against proceeding to this bill at all would have been it. The year would have been over if we could not get on the substance of a bill of this nature with such a strong majority being in favor of getting results. So the 4-year moratorium that is in this proposal that makes Internet access 100-percent tax free, while taking care to narrow the definition of Internet access to ensure that traditional telephone service is not included and while excluding voice over Internet protocol, is the right way to go. The Commerce Committee is already beginning to have hearings on comprehensive telecom legislation, and that will be the appropriate place to address matters such as voice over Internet protocol. Senator Sununu has introduced legislation on VOIP, or voice over Internet protocol. We should not address that until we know exactly what we are doing. Certainly, we should not be saying that taxes are going to begin to be assessed in this area until we have thought it through. The compromise does grandfather States that taxed Internet access prior to the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act, and there are some 10 or 11 States that are in that category. This legislation would extend that grandfather status for 3 more years. For a 2-year period, it grandfathers the States that currently tax Internet access but were not protected under the 1998 grandfather clause. So that is an oversimplification, but basically the rest of the bill just incorporates the common components between the two bills that were pending, the Alexander bill and the Allen bill. We should go forward with this legislation. We should get the job done. What is happening once again is that while we have had one amendment that is germane to the substance, we now have an energy amendment being offered to the Internet tax moratorium. We hear there will be other nongermane amendments. This is the Senate. That is the way we do business, but we have work to do. We all agree this is something we want to do in a bipartisan way. My colleagues should take their shot or take their shots but make them count, and let's not get hung up on this legislation and drag it out with nongermane killer or poison amendments, because it will wind up killing or doing great damage to what I think is a reasonable compromise. Again, I understand the Senate rules very well. My colleagues can offer anything on any subject at any time, unless there is agreement to the contrary. So Senators on both sides can dump their outbasket on this bill, but that would be a mistake. I do not believe the leadership on either side wants that to happen. The best thing that could happen is for the Senators to get this off of our agenda right now. Let's get it off our backs. My colleagues would like to be able to vote both ways, or not be able to vote at all. We cannot do that because the moratorium has already ended and there are a lot of innovative people out there thinking of ways to tax Internet access. Before my colleagues vote to allow a tax on the Internet, they should check with their children. If my colleagues have teenagers or kids in college, they will tear their head off. They do not want this interconnection to the Internet to be taxed, and if we were to go around and ask Senators if they want that, no, we do not want that. Let's vote on this issue. Let's deal with the substantive amendments and the germane amendments, if my colleagues want to offer a couple of relevant amendments. I plead with the Senate, do not make this a punching bag because, if we do, we are going to show once again that we are incompetent to produce anything. We did a pension bill. We saw we could do it. It still may not be perfect, but we got it done. This is one of those issues that is bipartisan. We need to get it done, and we need to get it done this week. I hope my colleagues will join in finding a way to make that happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.