Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Steve Barba of Dixville Notch, NH, on being named as the Business and Industry Association Lifetime Achievement Award winner for 2001. The Business and Industry Association Lifetime Achievement Award recognizes business leaders who have demonstrated a commitment to leadership in their profession, local community and the State of New Hampshire. Steve is the president and managing partner of the Balsams Grand Resort Hotel in Dixville Notch. Since 1971, he and his three partners have owned the operating company for the 15,000 acre resort and have restored it to its original greatness. The hotel is a four-star resort which is designated as one of the Historic Hotels of America by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. He has been actively involved as a legendary leader in community, state and national programs and has served organizations including: director of boards for Citizens Bank-New Hampshire, New Hampshire Public Television, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation and Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital. Steve is also a selectman for the town of Dixville. A graduate of Michigan State University, he holds a B.A. and also did a year of graduate study there in English and American literature. Steve has served the citizens of New Hampshire with dedication and charity. I commend him for his success as a leader in the business community and for his countless contributions to the community at large in Dixville and the State. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ralph Frisella of Nashua, NH, for being honored with World War II medals for acts of bravery. Ralph, a veteran of the U.S. Army, served his country with honor during World War II. I admire the many veterans who have served America with courage and devotion. My own father, a naval aviator, was killed in a World War II related incident days before my fourth birthday. As a Vietnam veteran, I admire the heroism of Ralph Frisella. The medals he so bravely earned while serving in the 45th Army, 180th Division in Oran, Algeria, are a tribute to his service to our Nation. He remained with the 180th Division until the end of the war and later served as an MP in Germany. Ralph was active in World War II campaigns including: Sicily, Naples- Foggia, Anzio, Rome-Arno, southern France, Rhineland, Ardennes-Alsace and Central Europe. He served 100 days of combat duty and received military medals including: Bronze Star Medal, Good Conduct Medal, American Campaign Medal, European-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, WWII Victory Medal, Army of Occupation Medal with German Clasp, Combat Infantryman Badge and Honorable Service Lapel Button WWII. I was honored to help Ralph secure the medals he acquired while serving in the U.S. Army during World War II. His courage and devotion to America are to be commended. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Innkeepers Dick and Lesley Marquis of the Rosewood Country Inn of Bradford, NH on being named as Inn of the Year for 2002 by The Complete Guide to Bed & Breakfasts, Inns & Guesthouses in the United States, Canada and Worldwide. I applaud the Rosewood Country Inn of Bradford for also being voted as the Most Romantic Bed & Breakfast/Country Inn by readers of Arrington's Bed & Breakfast Journal receiving top honors among more than 750 completing inns. The Inn is located on 12 hilltop acres in the town of Bradford in the Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee Region of New Hampshire. The Rosewood offers 11 guest suites and was recognized for its sunlit porches, inviting common rooms, fireplaces and whirlpool tubs. With its early Victorian style in a historic setting, the Inn offers visitors an atmosphere of warmth and relaxation. The Inn was founded in 1896, and was originally known as Pleasant View Farm. In the early 1900s, famous celebrities including Jack London, Gloria Swanson, Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplan and the Gish sisters were among visitors who signed the Inn's guest register. In the past, innkeepers Dick and Lesley have won other honors for their property being selected as One of New Hampshire's Eight Most Romantic Inns by Chronicle Books and Inn of the Year by the State of New Hampshire. As a former small business owner, I commend Dick and Lesley for their entrepreneurial excellence and success. The people of New Hampshire and the country continue to enjoy the superior ambiance and hospitality at the Rosewood Inn each year. I congratulate the Rosewood Country Inn of Bradford and Dick and Lesley for their notable achievements in the hospitality industry and wish them continued success in the future. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent them in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Msgr. John Molan of Manchester, NH, for being awarded the Catholic Leadership Award from Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH. Msgr. Molan graduated from Saint Anselm College in Manchester and went on to study at Saint Mary's Seminary in Baltimore, MD, where he received a master's degree in social work. In his vocational career he has served many areas of the church including: director of Catholic Charities, pastor of several parishes, and vicar general of the diocese. A veteran of World War II, he served as chaplain of the New Hampshire National Guard and was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve. As the son of a naval aviator who was killed in a World War II incident and a Vietnam veteran, I applaud Msgr. Molan's selfless dedication to America. Msgr. Molan has served the citizens of New Hampshire with care and concern. I commend Msgr. Molan for being recognized for his outstanding service to the church and community and thank him for making a positive difference in the lives of so many of his brothers and sisters in the State. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Saul Greenspan of Manchester, NH, on being named as the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire's Lifetime Achievement Award winner for 2001. The Business and Industry Association Lifetime Achievement Award recognizes business leaders who have demonstrated a commitment to leadership in their profession, local community and the State of New Hampshire. Saul is the former owner and founder of the Waumbec Mills, Inc. in Manchester, NH. He is a former director of Merchants National Bank, First New Hampshire Banks and past-president of the Business and Industry Association. He has been an active contributor to community programs in New Hampshire including: Manchester Community Chest, now known as the Greater Manchester United Way, Jewish Community Center, Temple Adath Yeshurun, Colby-Sawyer College, Northern Textile Association, Manchester Industrial Council and the Service Corps of Retired Executives. He also established and serves as the president of the Greenspan Foundation, a program which provides annual grants to the arts, higher education, youth services and religious organizations. A graduate of Columbia College, he is married to Ethel DeHaan Greenspan. Saul and his wife have two daughters, Barbara Greenspan Jacobson and Jill Greenspan Schiffman. Saul Greenspan has served the citizens of New Hampshire with dedication and charity. As a former small business owner, I commend him for his success as a leader in the business community and for his generosity to the charitable organizations of the State. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that the Johnson amendment be set aside for the purpose of offering an additional amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I did not realize there were Members who wished to speak in opposition to the Johnson amendment, so I will withdraw my request at this time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am amenable to that. I know Senator Allen, Senator Torricelli, Senator Dorgan--I do not know of anyone else here right now who wishes to speak on either side of the amendment.N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is acceptable to this Senator.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Torricelli, Graham, Allen, Ensign, and Helms be added as original cosponsors of my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I don't believe I will use the 5 minutes I have asked for. As some have said, this issue has been debated in the past. Everyone is familiar with it. It is not necessary to take a lot of the Senate's time. Given the fact we are trying to finish the Senate's business, I will be considerate of that. I simply say in a few words what the gist of this amendment is. The underlying farm bill contains language that strikes the current statutory restriction against private financing of food and medicine sales to Cuba. The administration opposes that language, I think with good reason. My amendment conditions--it does not substitute the language--the financing of food and medicine sales to Cuba on the President certifying to Congress that Cuba is not a state sponsor of international terrorism. That is all. It conditions it; it does not substitute it. I would have liked to have substituted it. However, I came in with a milder version to try to gain support in what I think would be the fairer thing to do. We would condition the financing of food and medicine sales to Cuba on the President certifying to Congress that Cuba is not a state sponsor of international terrorism. I don't know if my colleagues have been following very closely what is happening in Central America, but there is a lot of terrorist activity in Central and South America with Cuba and other nations. Our President has declared war on terrorism. I remind my colleagues of the exact language that President Bush used: Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. And from this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Now, surely if Cuba--and I emphasize the word ``if''--if Cuba is in any way harboring terrorists, supporting terrorism, participating in any way, helping the international terrorist community, why should we be providing anything to them to help do that? If Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism, the question should be: Should we allow for private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba? I don't think we should be making a profit while we are supporting international terrorism. I don't think that is what my colleagues would want to see happen. We shouldn't even be trading with Cuba, in my view, if they harbor terrorists. That hardly goes back and supports what the President said when he said: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists, and any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. If a country is harboring terrorists, the President said we will go after them one way or the other. It is hardly going after them if we trade with them and make a profit while doing so. I think the answer is no, no we should not allow private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba. And no, if Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism, we should not be trading with them. It is that simple. That is the amendment before the Senate. I don't consider this amendment to be a referendum on U.S. policy toward Cuba. I don't even consider this to be an amendment on a referendum on trade policy. I simply say this amendment is a referendum on nations that support and sponsor international terrorism. I remind my colleagues that the State Department lists the following seven States, as of 1999, as state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and the Sudan. Cuba is with pretty heavy company. Let me repeat the countries in their company out of all the nations in the world: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan join with Cuba as seven states listed as state sponsors of terrorism. My amendment does not say they cannot trade; it doesn't say you can. It says let the President certify it, and we will be fine. I rest my case and I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, there are at least four Senators who wish to speak in favor of the amendment. I can list them if the Senator would like. That is my only concern with a time agreement. I am only going to need 3, 4 minutes maximum, but I cannot speak for other Senators as to how long they would want to speak. Maybe we will know in a few minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Forty-five minutes may be reasonable.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to engage the majority leader in a colloquy. As the majority leader knows, I have been working for nearly two years on legislation to deal with the numerous problems associated with the gasoline additive MTBE. The use of MTBE as a fuel additive grew tremendously starting with the Clean Air Act's reformulated gasoline program that was implemented in 1995. Today, MTBE makes up approximately 3 percent of the total national fuel market. Unfortunately, when leaked or spilled into the environment, MTBE can cause serious drinking water quality problems. MTBE moves quickly through land and water without breaking down. Small amounts of MTBE can render water supplies undrinkable. This contamination is persistent throughout the nation, and New Hampshire is certainly a State that has been hard hit. According to State officials, up to 40,000 private wells may be contaminated with MTBE. Up to 8,000 of those wells may have MTBE contamination over the State health standards. Areas especially hard hit include both rural and urban areas. In the past few years I have visited, as well as received many calls and letters from, a number of the families whose wells are contaminated and they are extremely frustrated. When I was the chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, I held a field hearing in Salem, NH on this issue. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to clean up this contamination and ban the further use of MTBE. The bill was reported out of the EPW Committee, however, circumstances prevented the full Senate from considering that bill. Again this year, I introduced MTBE legislation, and once again the EPW Committee reported it out with a strong bipartisan vote. S. 950 will provide for the clean up of MTBE contamination, ban the additive, and ensure that environmental benefits of the clean gasoline program will be maintained. This is a hardship in many communities, and it will continue to escalate unless it is dealt with soon. No American should have to be concerned with the water they drink.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Because this is such a vital issue to New Hampshire and the nation, it is my intention to do all within my power to see that the Senate acts on this matter. I appreciate all of the efforts of the majority leader to work with me in bringing this bill to the floor and would hope that the Senate will consider S. 950 in the near future. Will the majority leader provide me an assurance that this will happen?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the transportation appropriations conference report. First, I wish to commend the Appropriations Committee members for their determination to protect our highways from unsafe Mexican trucks. I am not eager for trucks to freely cross from Mexico into the United States, for many reasons, but I am pleased that these trucks will at least be required to pass a safety compliance review. The remainder of my comments have to do with the portion of the conference report that funds the Federal-aid highway program. As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, with authorizing jurisdiction over the highway program, I am pleased with the overall funding level for Federal-aid highways. As my colleagues will recall, one of the major accomplishments of TEA-21, passed by Congress in 1998, was that for the first time, gas tax revenues into the Highway Trust Funds were guaranteed to be promptly returned to the States for transportation spending. This guarantee is accomplished with a provision in TEA-21 called Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA as it is known. RABA calculations compare actual gas tax receipts to our 1998 estimates, and guaranteed funding will go up or down depending on whether we have more or less revenue in the Highway Trust Fund than TEA-21 anticipated. Reflecting several years of a strong economy, gas tax receipts have been billions of dollars more than we anticipated in 1998. This year, as guaranteed by TEA-21, the Federal-aid highway program is funded at almost $33 billion ($32.954 billion); an increase of about $1.2 billion over last year; which includes $4.5 billion from RABA funds. As I said, I am pleased with the success of these funding guarantees. But I am concerned about the diversion of over $1.5 billion to project earmarks instead of being distributed fairly under formulas developed in TEA-21. There are 590 project earmarks from the Highway Trust Fund, and 55 more highway projects taken from the general fund. I want to alert my colleagues to such extensive earmarking contained in this appropriations report. This earmarking is mostly within discretionary programs created in TEA-21 and mostly funded with the RABA funds. Almost a billion dollars in RABA funds are diverted away from the fair distribution that we agreed to in TEA-21, and are used for earmarks in this conference report. This money does not get distributed evenly as authorized in TEA-21, but there are winners and losers. Some States get a lot of this money for projects, some get very little. This process completely distorts the funding formulas we agreed to in TEA-21. It also distorts the discretionary programs we created in TEA-21 for projects that meet specified criteria. For instance, one pilot program we created to fund local projects that link transportation and community needs, for instance, was authorized in TEA-21 at $25 million per year. This year, that program has become the catch-all for project earmarks, with a total of 219 projects at a cost of $276 million. This is incredible that a small discretionary program has grown to an earmarking account at over 10 times the authorized amount. The Appropriations Committee began earmarking these TEA-21 accounts a few years ago, over strong objections from the authorizing committees, and the practice has grown exponentially each year. Indeed, the Appropriations Committee has begun the practice of soliciting project requests, creating a terrible dilemma where the number of projects that Members submit far exceed any authorized amounts. And now Members have no choice but to compete for these discretionary funds in the appropriations process. I admit to requesting projects for my State that received funding only because the pot of money grew so large, again from $25 million to $276 million. The Appropriations Committee has gone further now than in recent years toward making so many transportation project funding decisions. I believe strongly that State and local agencies are responsible for transportation planning and funding decisions. I much prefer to send Highway Trust Fund dollars back to the States and I do not think Congress should pick and choose projects. Where any fault for this situation rests with the framework in TEA- 21, we will address it in the reauthorization of TEA-21. Next year the Environment and Public Works Committee will begin hearings on reauthorization, and I know that there is a lot of concern about this earmarking process. I will vote in favor of this conference report for the good it contains, but I am compelled to register my strong objections to the hundreds of highway projects that do not belong in an appropriations bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, the Senate passed an amendment by myself and Senator Conrad Burns of Montana to allow for armed pilots as the first line of deterrence and the last line of defense for cockpit security. The first line of deterrence because terrorists will know that armed pilots will be able to defend the cockpit and defend the aircraft from a hijacking. The last line of defense, because, when all else fails, including the armed air marshals and the reinforced cockpit door, an armed pilot will be in the cockpit to defend the cockpit from terrorist hijackers. The pilots support this amendment. The Bob Smith/Conrad Burns amendment had the endorsement of the Airline Pilots Association and the Allied Pilots Association. In addition, The National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America supported the amendment. And most importantly the American people supported our efforts. According to a draft provided to myself, section 125 of this conference report, titled flight deck security provides that the pilot of a passenger aircraft is authorized to carry a firearm if four conditions are met. First, ``the Undersecretary of Transportation for Transportation Security approves.'' The will of the Congress is clear that the Department of Transportation should approve a reasonable program to arm pilots. Second, ``the air carrier approves.'' The air carriers should not use this provision as a veto to prevent properly trained pilots from using firearms to protect themselves and the aircraft from terrorism, that would be a mistake and would adversely affect air safety. Third, ``the firearm is approved by the Under Secretary.'' It should be clear from this language that the Under Secretary of Transportation should approve a firearm, not a stun gun, not a taser, a firearm with approved ammunition that would not compromise the integrity of the aircraft. The final provision of this section provides that ``the pilot has received proper training for the use of the firearm, as determined by the Secretary.'' The Smith/Burns amendment provided that the agency ``shall establish a voluntary program to train'' and ``make available appropriate training'' for pilots. I hope the Department of Transportation will utilize the many private organizations that provide excellent training in the proper use of a firearm. My home State of New Hampshire has the Manchester International Airport and I know the passengers and pilots of New Hampshire are listening to this debate today. On September 27, 2001, I met with New Hampshire pilots from United Airlines, Northwest Airlines, American Airlines, and Continental Airlines. Those pilots reinforced my belief that a firearm is appropriate to protect a commercial aircraft from terrorism. Airline pilots are crying out for guns to protect themselves, the plane and the passengers. The Department of Transportation and the air carriers must be reasonable about this new law or Congress will speak again on the issue of armed pilots. This legislation is a good first step and it is my hope and desire that the Department of Transportation will work with the air carriers to provide pilots with training to possess a firearm in the cockpit of commercial aircraft. Please remember that we arm our Capitol Police with firearms, we arm our FBI and DEA with firearms, we arm our Air Marshals with firearms. We also need to arm our commercial pilots with firearms. Armed pilots are a first line of deterrence and the last line of defense against terrorist hijackers. We trust our commercial pilots to fly commercial aircraft, please give our pilots the tools to protect the cockpit of these aircraft from any future act of terrorism.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I inquire of the managers if I may have 5 or 6 minutes to raise a point.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I thank my colleague for the 5 minutes. I simply want to use this time to raise a point that I think should concern all of us in the Senate in terms of procedures. I understand that the Parliamentarian would rule against me and so, therefore, I will not offer it. I cannot because of the unanimous consent agreement, but I raise this point--and I hope the Parliamentarian will pay attention--because I believe this is a serious matter. There was language in both the House and Senate bills that dealt with taxpayer dollars not being used to interfere in any pending lawsuits with some of the survivors of the Bataan Death March. It was a controversial issue, but both the House and the Senate agreed verbatim with the language. Not one word, no date, no comma, no letter, nothing, nothing misspelled, no changes in spelling; it was verbatim. The language was exactly the same. Under rule 28.2, it states: Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. If new matter is inserted in the report or if matter which was agreed to by both Houses is stricken from the bill, a point of order may be made against the report, and if the point of order is sustained, the report is rejected or shall be recommitted to the committee of conference if the House of Representatives has not already acted thereon. This is very complicated and it is parliamentary language. It is difficult to understand. In essence, what has happened here is the House and the Senate, as prescribed by rule 28.2, had identical language. And because under the rules you substituted the Senate bill for the House bill, you have now used that as a technicality to rule against me and to rule against this provision. What happens is, the House and the Senate agree on something. You go into conference. Nobody disagrees. But it comes out. Mysteriously, it is taken out by somebody in the conference committee, of which the rest of us are not privy. It violates the rules. And if it does not violate the rule, it violates the spirit and intent of it, clearly. This is very troubling. It is not just this issue. It could be any issue down the road where somebody has worked hard on both sides, the House and Senate, to put in the language. Then it is taken out in conference in violation directly of rule 28.2. It clearly violates it. When you say you can substitute a Senate bill for the House bill to get around that, that means any provision to which we agree can be held, if you want to apply that standard. That is simply wrong. I would just say to the Parliamentarians that we ought to clarify this. If this is what we are going to do, then throw out rule 28.2 and say it is irrelevant. You are throwing it out because you are using this substitute which is a gimmick to take out language that somebody just decided they didn't like. Again, the language is the language. You have a bunch of POWs now who are going to get screwed by this, to put it bluntly. That is not the issue as much as it is who is next and how many times does this have to happen before we correct it and do the right thing. I am not picking on this particular bill or the two managers here. The point is, it happens to be something I was involved in and I know about it. If I had had the chance, I would have made the Parliamentarian rule. But I didn't get down here in time before the unanimous consent. I think you should rule and we can prove that it is an incorrect ruling. You have to decide. I hope we will take 28.2 out, if that is what we are going to do. My preference is that it would stay in and you would stop the interpretation, because if you can substitute a Senate substitute for the House, how then can you have a conference? What is the purpose of a conference if you can say, I am going to substitute the Senate version for the House version, take the House version and throw it out the window? That is where it goes, right out. There is no conference. You have now substituted bill A for bill B, and there is no conference. And anything that you have in here, whatever you have in this book, in your report, is no good. The language is irrelevant because you have now said you can substitute one bill for another. It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It is what makes the American people sick of what we do here, that they see stuff passed. They see it in both Houses. They see it go into conference, identical language. At least you could have changed the date and made it legal. Instead, you took verbatim language and threw it out. It is wrong. And I want to make that point. I am very sorry it happened.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise as an opponent to the amendment and yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment because e-commerce is at the very heart of our economy. It brings billions of dollars in revenues, provides huge surpluses to local, State, and Federal coffers throughout the country. Why, particularly in an economic slowdown, would we want to saddle an industry with huge new tax increases and heavy bureaucratic and regulatory burdens? It does not make sense. The National Bureau of Economic Research concludes that imposing these multibillion dollar tax increases and government burdens would result in a 30 percent reduction in purchases over the Internet. Think of what that would do to the economy. It would have a devastating effect. For the first time in history, government bureaucrats in one State will have the power to tax the people in another State. That is not right. The hours and capital required to comply with the Tax Code from the IRS and State and local taxing agencies are going to be overwhelming under this amendment. Not only would businessowners be under the glass with the usual suspects, but now they are going to be open to thousands of bureaucratic agencies looking into their business to get a cut. I can assure you if a State or local official spends money to come across the country to audit you, he is going back with some money. In New Hampshire, we don't have a sales tax, and I believe it is a regressive tax that disproportionately affects the poor and working class. It is a State's decision as to whether they want to impose the tax. Under this legislation, New Hampshire residents would be forced to pay these taxes to businesses all across the country. Due to the increased costs of paying these out-of-State taxes, and the flood of audits, our residents would pay substantially higher prices for goods and services. So allowing State and local governments the power to target taxpayers outside their own State, where those people have nothing to say at the ballot box, would set a horrible precedent. Frankly, I believe it is unconstitutional. States would then be able to use this new sword to target businesses and States that were competing with their own. Of course, with local businesses and consumers in an uproar, States would have to retaliate. Then we come to lawsuits. At some point, the Federal Government is going to step in and be called to set regulations and taxing levels, and here we go on down the road where the Government sets the sales tax rate. They would then have the venue they needed to have a national sales tax. Some have argued for a national sales tax, but this would be on top of the income tax. If you don't like the income tax, you are not going to be too happy about having a sales tax on top of it. This is a multibillion-dollar increase, a regulatory monster, and it must be stopped. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Enzi amendment and support Main Street and freedom.