Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Before he leaves the floor, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the unanimous consent request that he made that ensured I would have the opportunity to speak now and also to thank him for all that I have learned from him during my first years in the Senate. It is one thing to take out a book that describes some of the procedures and the rules of the Senate, but it seems to me that there is no better way to learn about the Senate and the very high standards that are so important here than to simply watch the Senator from West Virginia for a few hours on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am joined by my Oregon colleague, Senator Smith, in offering an amendment to S. 2513. My amendment will provide the critical final step to enable Deschutes County, Oregon, in the completion of more than three years of intense work that they have done to find an effective way to protect their groundwater and wetlands from inappropriate residential development. Deschutes County has completed several years collaborative work to resolve a number of extraordinarily difficult land use problems in that county. In particular, the County faces the prospect of development of more than 13,000 subdivided lots in the vicinity of the Deschutes River in the southern half of the county. More than half of these lots have not yet been developed, and the county now knows that if it does not prevent the further development of these lands, they are going to have major, intractable pollution of the groundwater and of the Deschutes River. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality tells us that at present rates of growth, this area faces serious ground water quality problems over the next decade. Further, these lands constitute the most important wildlife and wetlands habitat in the area. After several years of working with federal and state agencies and local citizens, under the authority of Oregon's Regional Problem Solving initiative, the County has come up with a plan to use incentives to shift development from these sensitive lands, over on to Bureau of Land Management lands that are not nearly so sensitive. Under this plan, the County will sell parcels of this land to prospective residential developers. However, before a developer may acquire a tract, the developer must have purchased ``development rights'' to lands in environmentally sensitive areas. Once these rights are acquired, the land will be rezoned so as to prevent any future development in the undesirable area. In fact, the BLM lands have already been logged. The BLM lands are easily served by a wastewater collection system and have other features that make the location far more appropriate for development. Local BLM officials have been deeply involved in this effort and tell us that if it fails, the damage to the natural environment of the area will be substantial, and far more expensive to deal with later. I particularly want to thank Senator Smith, Senator Bumpers, and Chairman Murkowski for working with me at this late date to work out this provision. I want to express my deep appreciation to Governor John Kitzhaber, whose Regional Problem Solving initiative paved the way for this effort. And finally, I want to thank the staff at the Bureau of Land Management here in Washington, in Portland, and at the Prineville District for approaching this matter from the distinct perspective of the greater benefit to the environment that this legislation will achieve. I also note the very active participation of Deschutes County Commissioner Linda Swearingen, Assistant County Attorney Bruce White, and Community Development Director George Read. They have provided critical help to get this measure approved, and certainly it is their vision for the future of Deschutes County that has gotten us where we are today.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Linda Erwin of Portland, Oregon, for her career as both a gifted medical professional and as a tireless and dedicated educator. As one of the first healthcare professionals in the Pacific Northwest to recognize that gun violence is a public health issue, Dr. Erwin has just been awarded the National Crime Prevention Council's Ameritech Award of Excellence in Crime Prevention. She is one of only seven people throughout the Nation to receive this honor. Dr. Erwin is currently the Assistant Director of Trauma Services at Legacy Emanuel Hospital, and it was through her experiences as a trauma surgeon that she first became aware of the need for increased education about violence--especially gun violence. Dr. Erwin has taken advantage of her position, education, and talents to reach beyond the trauma room to educate young people throughout the Pacific Northwest. While working in England for two years, Dr. Erwin treated a total of two patients for gunshot wounds. Upon returning to Portland, she was struck by the high numbers of gunshot wound patients being treated each year at Emanuel Hospital. After speaking with victims and their families and friends, she realized that most young people did not recognize or understand the consequences of their risky behavior. Since then, Dr. Erwin has worked as a leading advocate for gun violence prevention, intervention and education. One of the keys to Dr. Erwin's success has been her ability to create partnerships. Many of the programs that she has initiated bring together and combine the efforts of the medical, legal, law enforcement, and education communities as well as non-profit organizations and committed volunteers. Dr. Erwin has successfully spread her message throughout the Portland community with such programs as ``Save Our Youth,'' ``Safe Schools Safe Lives,'' ``Firearms as a Public Health Crisis'' and ``American Epidemic Programs.'' She has also lectured throughout the Pacific Northwest, taking her educational presentations to peer and youth groups throughout the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Dr. Linda Erwin is an outstanding example of a professional who has given her time, resources, and knowledge to the community for the betterment of all. For these reasons, Dr. Erwin has received Ameritech's Award of Excellence in Crime Prevention. I would like to thank her on behalf of all those whose lives she lives she has touched.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. We are anxious to be responsive to the Senator from Florida, but we are having trouble locating this. Why don't we do this: Continue, if you will, with your address and we will try to get the page numbers right.

Mr. WYDEN. We agreed to take that paragraph out yesterday.

Mr. WYDEN. If that is all I am yielding for.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I think this may well be a historic day. What the U.S. Senate is doing is beginning to write the ground rules for the digital economy. As we have seen just in the last hour again, it is going to be a tough job. We have had just in the last hour another set of questions that have come up with respect just to the terminology that is used in this new field. For example, some States call an Internet access tax a tax on on-line services. What we have done now as a result of the agreement among the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Florida and myself, is we have said that we are going to treat those terms the same way when, in fact, they have the same effect. I think that this exercise, while certainly laborious and difficult, is just an indication of the kind of challenges we have to overcome. I thank particularly the Senator from Florida. He feels very strongly about this issue and has made the case again and again to me that it is important to do this job right, and I share his view. I thank him for his courtesies. The Senator from North Dakota and I have been debating this legislation now for a year and a half, probably at a much higher decibel level than either of us would have liked. The chairman of the committee, Chairman McCain, and I have been friends for almost 20 years now. For this freshman Senator--not even a full freshman, an arrival in a special election--to have a chance to team up on this important piece of legislation is a great thrill. I thank him and his staff for all of their courtesies. Before I make any final comments, I want to thank Ms. Carole Grunberg of our office who again and again, when this legislation simply did not look like it could go forward, persisted. And she, along with Senator Dorgan's staff and Senator McCain's staff, has helped to get us to this exciting day. I am particularly pleased, Mr. President--I will wrap up with this-- for the benefits that this legislation is going to have for people without a lot of political power in America. I think about the 100,000 home-based businesses I have in my State. I think about the disabled folks who are starting little businesses in their homes. For them, the Internet is the great equalizer. It allows people who think of themselves as the little guy to basically be able to compete in the global economy with the big guys. Unless we come up with some ways to make uniform some of these definitions and terms, which is what we have been trying to do in the last hour--and we have made some real headway and reached a success-- those little guys are going to find it hard to compete. So I look forward to continuing the discussions with our colleagues as we look to other questions with respect to the Internet. This, it seems to me, is just the beginning of the discussion rather than the end. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues now to support this modified amendment, to support the bill, and I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I urge the Senate suspend the rules and pass this important amendment. First, let's be clear what happens if this amendment is passed. The most important thing is that the grandfather on Internet tax provision that was so central to the States is preserved and preserved completely. Second, there is a separate section to ensure that all other existing taxes are preserved, and that there is another provision that would ensure that all ongoing liabilities--the matter the Senator from Florida says is important to the State of Connecticut--is also preserved. After we filed this amendment last night, we again reached out to all sides to try to address concerns. I have done this now for a year and a half. The original bill that came out of the Commerce Committee, by the time it came to the floor, had more than 30 major changes. In our efforts here now to be reasonable, we have made at least another 20 changes to try to accommodate the Senator from Florida and others. In fact, the definition of a discriminatory tax--which is what this is all about--is essentially that which was used in the House, and it was agreeable to the Governors and the States when it was debated there in the House. The reason that the Senator from Arizona and I have focused on this issue is that this definition of discrimination is essential to ensure technological neutrality. What this definition does is straightforward. It ensures that the new technology and the Internet is not discriminated against. It makes sure that a web site is treated like a catalog; catalogs aren't taxed. We don't want web sites to be singled out for selective and discriminatory treatment. The provision also makes sure that Internet service providers are, in effect, treated like the mail. The mail isn't taxed when a product is shipped to your home from a catalog merchant. Similarly, the Internet service provider should not be taxed merely for being the carriers or transmitters of information. In effect, Senator Coats recognized this in his amendment that was adopted yesterday. So what we have done is, yesterday, we have worked with the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Enzi, and others, to address this discriminatory tax question in a way that we thought would be agreeable to the States. Overnight, we tightened up the language to deal with the grandfathering question. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, made some important and, I thought, useful suggestions. We incorporated those this morning to make sure that when we talk about the grandfathering provision, as it relates to South Dakota and North Dakota, the grandfather provision would tightly protect those two States. We have done that. This Senator finds now that if we do not prevail on this point and the bill goes down, all of these efforts now for a year and a half are going to leave us in a situation where I think we will see, with respect to the Internet and the digital economy, the same problems develop that cropped up with respect to mail order and catalogs. We have had a number of people at the State and local level saying, you know, with respect to the mail-order and catalog issue, we wish we had done what you are bringing about with respect to the Internet. We know that we have to have sensible policies so we can protect some of the existing sources of revenue for the States. Some call it the ``old economy''; I don't. I think they are extremely important to the States. We have to respect those, while at the same time writing the ground rules for the digital economy--the economy where the Internet is going to be the infrastructure and when every few months takes us to exciting new fields and increases dramatically in revenue. So I hope our colleagues will not cause all of the other important work that has been done here to go down. That is Senator Dodd's legislation and the important work done by Senator Bryan. There is a host of good measures that we agreed to accept as part of this legislation in an effort to be bipartisan and to accommodate our colleagues. But, once again, the goalposts are moving. The definition of discriminatory tax that came up in the House is essentially what we are using. The Governors and the States found that acceptable. And then, after taking that kind of approach, even last night, we moved again, at the request of colleagues--and we thought they were reasonable requests--to tighten up the grandfathering provision. Now is the time to make sure that we do not gut this bill, the definition of a moratorium, and particularly don't gut a concept that we think is acceptable to our colleagues, and that is the concept of technological neutrality. When you vote for the McCain-Wyden amendment to suspend the rules and pass this, you will be voting for a solid grandfather provision that ensures that all existing taxes are preserved. You will be voting to protect ongoing liabilities, which is what the Senator from Florida said he is concerned about, along with the Senator from Connecticut, and others. You will be voting to make sure, in a separate section, that all other existing taxes other than Internet taxes are preserved, and you will be voting for the principle of technological neutrality. I think it would be a great mistake to gut this legislation now after all this progress has been made. I represent a State with 100,000 small businesses. These businesses are a big part of the economic future that we all want for our constituents. They cannot afford a crazy quilt of taxes that would be applied by a good chunk of the Nation's 30,000 taxing jurisdictions, based on what we have seen during this debate. Let's do this job right. Let's do it in a thoughtful and uniform way. I urge our colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment Senator McCain and I have offered. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, online consumer purchases are poised to explode to more than $300 billion early in the next Century. But the goldrush in cyberbuying is likely to carry along with it a boom in cyberfraud. Congress can help head-off this cybercrime by extending our current telemarketing laws to encompass fraud on the Net. In response to the staggering $40 billion consumers lose in telephone fraud each year, Congress earlier this summer passed the 1998 Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act. I strongly supported that effort. The new law builds upon the four federal laws enacted since the early 1990s that deal directly with telemarketing fraud. The 1998 law stiffens penalties for telemarketing fraud by toughening the sentencing guidelines--especially for crimes against the elderly, requires criminal forfeiture to ensure the booty of telemarketing crime is not used to commit further fraud, mandates victim restitution to ensure victims are the first ones compensated, adds conspiracy language to the list of telemarketing fraud penalties so that prosecutors can find the masterminds behind the boiler rooms, and will help law enforcement zero in on quick-strike fraud operations by giving them the authority to move more quickly against suspected fraud. The 1998 law is a good step forward but it's not enough to deal with today's digital economy. As more Americans go online, cyberscams are bound to proliferate. The Congressional crackdown on telemarketing fraud will only encourage cyberscammers to migrate to the Net unless the law gets there first. That is the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today. The Telemarketing Fraud and Seniors Protection Act simply extends current law against telemarketing fraud to include the same crimes committed over the Internet. The approach expands the existing law applicable to mail, telephone, wire, and television fraud to fraud over the Internet, and its enforcement would follow the same division of labor there is today between the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. The bill would apply the same tough penalties that Congress enacted earlier this year to cyberscams. The growth of Internet telephony makes it more attractive for cyberscammers to set up shop offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. law. My bill would address this problem by allowing law enforcement to freeze the assets and deny entry to the United States of those convicted of cyberfraud. The bill takes special aim against those attempt to defraud one of our most vulnerable groups--our senior citizens. Seniors are the target for more than 50 percent of telemarketing fraud. Although telemarketers convicted of fraud face stiff penalties--a minimum of 5-10 years in jail and restitution payments to their victims, we also need to better educate and inform senior citizens on how to avoid becoming victims of telemarketing fraud in the first place, and how to assist law enforcement in catching the perpetrators. The legislation would also authorize the Administration on Aging, through its network of area agencies of aging, to conduct an outreach program to senior citizens on telemarketing fraud. Seniors would be advised against providing their credit card number, bank account or other personal information unless they had initiated the call unsolicited. They would also be informed of their consumer protection rights and any toll-free numbers and other resources to report suspected illegal telemarketing. Mr. President, the Federal Trade Commission is off to a good start against cyberscammers. Some of the operations the FTC has targeted are not companies at all, but merely websites that promise consumers everything from huge new consulting contracts to the elimination of bad credit reports. They may use scare tactics to frighten consumers into sending important personal financial information and hundreds of dollars for services the consumer will never see, or attempt to lure consumers with the promise of help them cash in on the Internet explosion. The FTC also has a strong operation going against junk e- mailers. My legislation will complement and strengthen the FTC's effort to target telemarketing fraud over the Internet and especially when such fraud is aimed at seniors. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, online consumer purchases are poised to explode to more than $300 billion early in the next Century. But the goldrush in cyberbuying is likely to carry along with it a boom in cyberfraud. Congress can help head-off this cybercrime by extending our current telemarketing laws to encompass fraud on the Net. In response to the staggering $40 billion consumers lose in telephone fraud each year, Congress earlier this summer passed the 1998 Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act. I strongly supported that effort. The new law builds upon the four federal laws enacted since the early 1990s that deal directly with telemarketing fraud. The 1998 law stiffens penalties for telemarketing fraud by toughening the sentencing guidelines--especially for crimes against the elderly, requires criminal forfeiture to ensure the booty of telemarketing crime is not used to commit further fraud, mandates victim restitution to ensure victims are the first ones compensated, adds conspiracy language to the list of telemarketing fraud penalties so that prosecutors can find the masterminds behind the boiler rooms, and will help law enforcement zero in on quick-strike fraud operations by giving them the authority to move more quickly against suspected fraud. The 1998 law is a good step forward but it's not enough to deal with today's digital economy. As more Americans go online, cyberscams are bound to proliferate. The Congressional crackdown on telemarketing fraud will only encourage cyberscammers to migrate to the Net unless the law gets there first. That is the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today. The Telemarketing Fraud and Seniors Protection Act simply extends current law against telemarketing fraud to include the same crimes committed over the Internet. The approach expands the existing law applicable to mail, telephone, wire, and television fraud to fraud over the Internet, and its enforcement would follow the same division of labor there is today between the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. The bill would apply the same tough penalties that Congress enacted earlier this year to cyberscams. The growth of Internet telephony makes it more attractive for cyberscammers to set up shop offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. law. My bill would address this problem by allowing law enforcement to freeze the assets and deny entry to the United States of those convicted of cyberfraud. The bill takes special aim against those attempt to defraud one of our most vulnerable groups--our senior citizens. Seniors are the target for more than 50 percent of telemarketing fraud. Although telemarketers convicted of fraud face stiff penalties--a minimum of 5-10 years in jail and restitution payments to their victims, we also need to better educate and inform senior citizens on how to avoid becoming victims of telemarketing fraud in the first place, and how to assist law enforcement in catching the perpetrators. The legislation would also authorize the Administration on Aging, through its network of area agencies of aging, to conduct an outreach program to senior citizens on telemarketing fraud. Seniors would be advised against providing their credit card number, bank account or other personal information unless they had initiated the call unsolicited. They would also be informed of their consumer protection rights and any toll-free numbers and other resources to report suspected illegal telemarketing. Mr. President, the Federal Trade Commission is off to a good start against cyberscammers. Some of the operations the FTC has targeted are not companies at all, but merely websites that promise consumers everything from huge new consulting contracts to the elimination of bad credit reports. They may use scare tactics to frighten consumers into sending important personal financial information and hundreds of dollars for services the consumer will never see, or attempt to lure consumers with the promise of help them cash in on the Internet explosion. The FTC also has a strong operation going against junk e- mailers. My legislation will complement and strengthen the FTC's effort to target telemarketing fraud over the Internet and especially when such fraud is aimed at seniors. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first, let me say that I strongly support the Gregg amendment. Let me say to the Senator from Arkansas, I think his amendment is in the wrong place. I think it is supposed to go at page 25. But if we could work with him, we want to make sure that there is fair consideration of his amendment. Mr. President, let me also say that the whole point of the Internet Tax Freedom Act is to focus on electronic commerce. We have had, since the beginning of this discussion, efforts to bring into this debate a variety of other kinds of subjects, but it seems to me at a time when we have 30,000 taxing jurisdictions, many of which have varied and sundry ideas with respect to electronic commerce and the Internet, what we ought to do is stick to the subject at hand, and that is calling a brief time-out to look at these issues, a time-out in which the Internet would be treated like everything else, by the way. At various points in this debate we have heard about how we are establishing a tax haven for the Internet. That is simply wrong. During the moratorium, sales on the Internet would get treated just like other sales. It is very important now, with the extraordinary growth of the Internet, as our colleagues have noted, that we do this job right, which requires that we go forward with language such as that offered by the Senator from New Hampshire to ensure that we focus on electronic commerce. By doing that, we also increase the prospects for making sure that at the end of our work we have a policy that guarantees technological neutrality. We don't have that today in America. We have parts of the country, for example, where you get the newspaper through traditional mail, and you pay no tax on it. But if you read that very same newspaper on line, you pay a tax. That is not technologically neutral. That is what our legislation is all about. The Internet should not get a preference, nor should the Internet be discriminated against. It seems to me that by adopting the Gregg amendment we will ensure that the focus is on electronic commerce, No. 1; No. 2, we will have a chance to look at the very complicated and technical questions dealing with what is close to 30,000 taxing jurisdictions, and I urge my colleagues to support the original Gregg amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I object on behalf of Senators on this side of the aisle.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as you know, I believe that the Senate custom of placing holds on legislation should be practiced in public. In that spirit, I rise today to remove the hold I placed on H.R. 2610, a bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I do not object to Senate consideration of this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief, I say to the chairman and colleagues. The hour is late. All we seek to do is to have technological neutrality. We are not going to tax catalogs. We also don't want to tax web sites. That is all this is about--preventing that kind of discriminatory tax. I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I say to my friend from Florida, what you described is your desire--and I know it is sincere--to overturn the Quill decision. What we are saying in this bill is that we are trying to deal with a different set of economic issues, and if we don't deal with these questions of Internet policy now, I and the Senator from Arizona submit that we will be dealing, just as we are now with the mail-order questions, with these issues with respect to the Internet. Let us try to get out in front of these issues facing the digital economy rather than duplicating the mistakes we made with respect to mail-order and catalog sales. I thank the Senator for the time.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have 1 additional minute. I want to engage him in a question.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I am not up on Florida's policy, but we do not do anything different with respect to the Internet than we do in any other area. The hearing record in the Commerce Committee--I will be glad to share it because I cited many of those examples--and the Finance Committee makes it very clear that the Internet gets no preference, the Internet suffers no discrimination, and that is the point of the bill.

Mr. WYDEN. Certainly that would be the case if it was done instate where you had a current policy with respect to sales tax. But if it applies to other States, if other States have a particular tax policy, if they do business involving the Internet, we apply exactly the same rule.

Mr. WYDEN. If the Senator will yield for an answer, if that is current policy in that State. I know that the Senator from Florida is very anxious to resolve mail-order and catalog sales tax questions. The bill does not resolve that.

Mr. WYDEN. I will be happy to.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Without the amendment that the Senator from Arizona and I are offering, all of those legislatures that I mentioned specifically, which we talked about initially more than an hour ago, are going to have to act immediately in order to carry out the spirit of this commission. I can't believe that is what the Senate wants, and I am very hopeful that the Senators will join groups like the National Retail Federation, the Information Industry Association, the Home Business Association, and scores of other small business groups supporting the amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. I believe I have the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the McCain-Wyden amendment is, of course, a compromise. The bill that came out of the Senate Commerce Committee was a 6-year bill. The bill that came out of the Finance Committee was a 2- year bill. So there was an effort to bring the parties together around 4 years. But that is not what is really important. What is really important is the timetable that is going to be essential to do this job right. Mr. President, 18 months after the date of enactment, the commission is going to make its recommendations--May of 2000. The moratorium under the finance bill ends in October of 2000. That means that there is less than 6 months to act on the recommendation before the timeout would end. Some States, a number, have legislatures that are not meeting in the year 2000. I am sure my friend and colleague, Senator Graham, would be interested in knowing that Arkansas, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, North Dakota, and Vermont all have legislatures that do not meet every year. So we are going to have a situation, it seems to me, where there will be essentially no time in order for a legislature to thoughtfully look at these issues. The Senator from Florida says that Chairman McCain and I are ramming this bill through the U.S. Senate. We have worked on it, now, for 18 months. We have made more than 30 separate changes in an effort to try to address the concerns of the Senator from Florida. There has been discussion about how this would create a tax haven on the Internet. Let us be very clear about what happens during the moratorium. If a person walks into a store and purchases a sweater in a jurisdiction where there is a 5 percent sales tax, if they order that sweater over the Internet, they pay exactly the same tax, exactly the same fee-- technological neutrality. The Senator from Florida says that the apocalypse is at hand because there is going to be a huge reduction in revenue at the State level. When we began this bill with legislation that was much more encompassing than the one we are considering now, the Congressional Budget Office could not even initially score it. It then came back with a projection of less than $30 million. Nothing is being preempted here. The States and localities are allowed to treat the Internet just as they would treat anything else. At the end of the day, the kinds of people who will benefit from this are the senior citizens in Florida, for example, the home-based businesses in Oregon, people who are trying to use the Internet as a way to advance the chance to build a small business and particularly see the Internet as a great equalizer. They are not going to be in a position, those home-based businesses, to compete with the corporate giants. But if we create across this country a crazy quilt of State and local taxes where each jurisdiction goes off and does its own thing, it is going to be very difficult for those entrepreneurs, senior citizens, handicapped and disabled people to go out and hire the accountants and lawyers that would be necessary to carry out the vision of the Senator from Florida of the Internet. What we need to do is come up with some sensible policies, and it is going to take some time. If somebody from Florida, for example, orders Harry and David's fruit in Medford, OR, using America Online in Virginia, pays for it with a bank card in California, and ships it to their cousin in New York, we are talking about a completely different kind of commerce than we have seen in the past. Let us take the time to do it right. Without the amendment that the Senator from Arizona and I are offering-- Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.