Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act

INTERNET TAX NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to join the comments of the Senator from Michigan. It is, I am sure, painful and distracting for the administration to receive inquiries from Congress. It sure would be a lot easier if Congress wasn't around to mess up their work. I mean, we ask all these hard questions about what they are doing with the taxpayers' dollars. What are you doing to make America a safer place? I am sure if they did not have to answer those questions and be held accountable, they would have a lot more time to do other things.

I think the reason for the questions gets down to a basic document called the Constitution. If I remember correctly from early lessons, we do have three coequal branches of Government and a system of checks and balances. This administration has decided that particular part of the Constitution is going to be ignored.

Frankly, I don't think that serves our Nation very well. Whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, the fact is they have to be held accountable. The way they are held accountable is not only through an election, but through the operations of Congress which appropriates moneys, passes laws, and asks hard questions.

Now we see the official policy of this administration is to say we are only going to answer Republican-approved questions. That, to me, is a sad commentary on this administration which has, frankly, written a record of concealment in the years they have been here.

You recall the lawsuit that was involved when we drew up the Energy bill. We asked the Vice President of the United States, who was one of the designers of the administration's Energy bill, which special interest groups were sitting in the room when they wrote the bill. He said to Congress: It is none of your business. We don't have to tell you. We brought a suit against the administration asking for that information and we were unsuccessful.

Today we know there were special interest groups present. We just don't know who they were. If you look at the bill, you can see who they likely were. They are the ones that were rewarded-oil companies and major energy companies. They are the ones who did very well with this Energy bill.

When the Senator from Michigan raises this question as to what this new administration policy means, I think she really hits the nail on the head. Congress has an important constitutional role of oversight on this administration and any administration, and for this administration to decide that certain Senators and Congressmen cannot ask questions that will be answered, I think is going to set us back.

I had the same experience with the Department of Justice. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who served in this Senate for years and asked many questions of previous administrations, really loathes to answer any questions that come particularly from Democratic Senators. That has caused a lot of, I guess, concern because some of us believe there are important questions that need to be asked and answered.

The PATRIOT Act, for example, was a new delegation of authority 2 years ago to the Government. It gave the Government more power than they had before, power that comes close to, if it doesn't, infringing on our rights and liberties. We asked some questions: How is this Department of Justice using the PATRIOT Act? Unfortunately, the Attorney General has not been responsive. One might say: Well, he comes to Congress, doesn't he? He submits himself to questions? If we look at the record, we will see this Attorney General's record of coming to Congress and being held accountable is a record that shows he doesn't care to do that either.

They don't answer written inquiries, and the Attorney General does not appear personally. Frankly, that leads to mistrust, and it doesn't speak well of a democracy where that is the hallmark of their policy.

It strikes me Congress has some important responsibilities here, and one of them is reflected in the issue raised by the Senator from Michigan. Another one is reflected in this so-called 30-hour debate, this one-sided debate which is to take place next week. It appears the Republican majority in the Senate, 51, believe they have been treated unfairly because the President has only had 168 of his judicial nominees approved while 4 have been held up. That is right, the score is 168 to 4, and they are arguing that is unfair, so unfair we need to tie up the Senate, we need to stop consideration of appropriations bills, we need to stop any consideration of bills that might help the men and women in uniform who are fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't have time for that, but we have to spend 30 straight hours in a one-sided debate on the Republican side arguing that holding up 4 judges out of 172-4 out of 172-is somehow unconstitutional or unfair or unjust.

It goes to the heart of this same document, our Constitution, which says the Senate is not a rubberstamp. The Senate has the power to not just consent to judges, but to advise and consent, and that advise-and-consent role includes asking hard questions of judicial nominees.

The four who have been held up so far from the Bush White House, I think, represent the most extreme of his nominees. But there are many others who have been approved who have philosophies entirely consistent with the President and his administration.

Make no mistake, out of the 168 nominees who have gone through this Senate, a record number for any President, 168 have been approved. Of those, we will find many conservative Republicans with views much different than my own. We accept that. But for these 4, we think they have crossed a line, a line which really calls on us in our capacity as Senators with responsibility of the advise-and-consent clause to say at some point we have to say no for 4 judges out of 172.

I might add on this bill that is before us, at a later moment I will be offering an amendment. It is an amendment which really doesn't appear to have much to do with the Internet tax question, but it is an amendment I am going to continue to offer on every available bill until the Senate goes on record and passes it again and enacts it into law. It is an amendment which passed this Senate about 2 weeks ago by a vote of 96 to 3. It is an amendment which says Federal employees who are members of our National Guard and Reserve units who are activated will have their Federal salaries protected while they are serving our country.

This is exactly what happens to State employees in dozens of States and city and county employees across America where their units of government have said: If you go off to serve our Nation in the Guard and Reserve, we will stand behind you. We will make up the difference in your salary. We will protect your families' income while you are serving our Nation and risking your lives.

Sadly, the same standard is not applied to Federal employees. Here we are with 10 percent of the Guard and Reserve in Federal employment-120,000 of those who are in the Guard and Reserve are in Federal employment; 23,000 have been activated, and we do not make up the difference in their salaries while overseas.

For some, there is no difference, but for some there is a big disparity. I offered this amendment on the floor, and it was adopted 96 to 3.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I, of course, thank the Senator from Oregon. I appreciate the hard work of the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Arizona, and the Senator from Oregon on this important legislation.

I mentioned earlier the reservist pay amendment which I will be offering at some point on this legislation, but there is another amendment which I will be offering which I would like to alert the sponsors of so it comes as no surprise. It is our understanding that if there is a tax moratorium on Internet operations, which I would support with carefully defined circumstances, it will result in a substantial savings to telecommunications companies across the United States. I am going to be offering an amendment during the course of consideration of this bill which says that the savings to these companies shall be passed on to the consumers in America.

It strikes me that at a point in time when we are in a recession, when families are struggling, some facing unemployment, others trying to make ends meet, that if we are going to relieve this industry of substantial taxation, millions if not billions of dollars over time, the savings ought to go to families, the customers. I think that would be a good move on our part.

So if we want to talk about invigorating the economy, then why not reduce the telephone bill or the tax bill that a family faces on a monthly basis?

Mr. REID. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the Senator for Nevada, without yielding the floor.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend from Illinois, in relation to the amendment that is pending, I asked the White House by letter to give me the breakdown of the cost of all of these trips they take around the country campaigning for people. Who pays for that? Is it paid for by the taxpayers of this country? Is it paid for by the Republican National Committee? The President is a rich man. Does he pay for it personally?

It has been months and I have had no response. I think I am entitled to an answer to that most important question. People are concerned about that. The President goes to his ranch, he goes off on day trips campaigning only.

Would the Senator agree with me that that is the direction of this amendment, and that I am entitled, as a Member of the Senate, to an answer to the question as to who is paying for these junkets around the country?

Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, I say to the Senator from Nevada that is a perfect illustration as to why the Stabenow amendment should be enacted, because what Senator Stabenow is trying to achieve is the right of the Senator from Nevada and any Senator, Democrat or Republican, to ask legitimate questions about the expenditure of public funds. If we decide that is going too far and perhaps inconveniencing the administration by forcing them to be held accountable, then we might as well pack up and go home.

As they say, if we are here in order to total up years for retirement, it is a pretty easy job; but if we want to come here and go to work to try to achieve good for this country and make certain that people who are misusing public resources are, in fact, held accountable for it, then it is hard work.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. REID. How many people live in the State of Illinois?

Mr. DURBIN. About 12½ million.

Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Illinois, I spoke through the Chair to the distinguished junior Senator from Michigan about the State of Michigan. There are 9 million people in Michigan, two Democratic Senators. Under the rule that we have just learned about that the White House is not going to answer questions of Democrats, 9 million people who live in the State of Michigan in effect cannot have their Senators asking questions of the White House.

The Senator from Illinois, who represents 12½ million people, there is a Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator who has announced his retirement, who is not going to run for reelection-the Senator who has announced his retirement and in effect is a lame duck, fine man that he is, can have his questions answered, but the Senator who was just reelected representing 12½ million people cannot have his questions answered. Does that seem fair?

Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Nevada, it not only does not seem fair, it raises another question in my mind. Why would we on the Democratic side of the aisle approve any executive appointment of someone who is going in the executive branch and from that point forward will never speak to us again? Now, if we are being asked by this administration to approve people to hold offices within this administration who have not answered all the questions in committee and having been approved on the Senate floor will from that point forward never communicate with us again, then, frankly, I think we are derelict in our responsibility.

So I say to the administration, think this through. If they are saying that the people we appoint in the Senate are not going to answer the questions propounded by Democratic Senators, then, frankly, I think it is untoward of them to suggest that we should just approve all of these appointments.

I think it is fair game for the President to fill vacancies, and I have supported the overwhelming majority of the President's requests. But if the policy is once approved by the Senate, these executive appointments, these people working in these agencies, will refuse to take telephone calls or answer letters of inquiry from Members of the Senate, refuse to be held accountable for their actions as public officials, then I think we are derelict in our responsibility to the people we represent.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask my friend from Illinois, who serves with me on the Appropriations Committee-who served on a number of committees in the other body before he was in the Senate-who has as much knowledge of procedure as anyone having served in the other body and served in this body, it has been my experience in over a quarter of a century on the Appropriations Committee, through six administrations-President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, former President Bush, President Clinton-that both Republicans and Democrats were able to ask questions and expect answers from the executive branch.

Further, it was my experience that throughout all of these administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, there was not a restriction made because we were required to ask these questions. Is that the experience of the distinguished Senator from Illinois? Has the Senator had the same experience in both bodies-I am speaking now of appropriations but, of course, a lot of other committees are involved-if we asked questions about where the money went, we received the answers irrespective of whether one was a Republican or Democratic?

Mr. DURBIN. In reply, I say the Senator from Vermont is absolutely correct. Allow me to use another illustration. Just last weekend, there was the downing of the Chinook helicopter in Iraq with 15 of our soldiers killed initially and another soldier who has died just last night, I understand, so 16 soldiers died and 20 more were seriously injured. The pilot of that helicopter was from my home State. It was a National Guard helicopter.

After that occurred, unsolicited I received communications from reliable military sources that suggested that the Guard helicopters in activated units were not adequately equipped and prepared to deal with shoulder-fired missiles. This is as serious a question as can be given to any Member of the Senate. Naturally, the families-the servicemen first and their families-wanted to know the answer. So what I did was to write a letter directly to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, saying please look into this immediately; see if the National Guard units that have been activated are sufficiently protected with equipment.

During the course of asking this question, more communications came my way. Now we have received a lot of communications suggesting that families all around Illinois, and even around the country, are telling us about deficiencies in the equipment available to our servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and particularly to activated guardsmen and reserves.

Consider that just yesterday, the President signed an $87 billion appropriation for the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan which, as I understand it, about $67 billion was for our men and women in uniform, which I supported. As much as I disagree with the President's foreign policy, I am not going to shortchange our men and women in uniform for the resources they need to be successful in their mission and come home safely.

Having done that, having given the appropriation to the administration, now we have families and servicemen coming to me, as the Senator from Illinois, saying they do not think the money is being spent properly. I have a responsibility to their families and to my State to ask the hard questions of the administration. Are you doing all that you can to protect our servicemen? Frankly, I think that is why I was elected. If I am not given a chance to even ask that question or to have my inquiry answered, what, then, can I say to these families or to these servicemen who believe that I am their elected representative and have that responsibility?

Senator Stabenow, in her amendment, says this new policy of the administration, of refusing to answer letters from Democratic Senators and Democratic Congressmen, takes away from the voice of those families and those servicemen and people across the United States who rely on us to stand up and hold any administration accountable, whether it is Democratic or Republican.

I think, honestly, her amendment goes to the heart of why we are here doing business in the Chamber of the Senate. I support her very strongly. I urge my Republican colleagues who have been very loyal to their President, and that is understandable and admirable, to think long and hard about this policy. Things change in this town. The tide of politics can hit the shore and go back out to sea and come back again. You never know, a year, 2 years, 3 years from now, whether or not policies taken by this administration establish a precedent which is not healthy for our constitutional democracy. Certainly this decision by the administration to turn down inquiries and letters of request on matters as basic as the protection of our men and women in uniform and whether or not our helicopters are adequately protected-their decision as a policy basis, which I understand has been included in an e-mail and sent across the administration-raises some important questions.

I see the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, has taken the floor. Again, he is a perfect illustration of why this new policy of the administration, refusing to answer inquiries from Democratic Senators about their spending policies and taxing policies, make it impossible for him to do his job on the Budget Committee to make certain that every administration is held accountable.

I am going to yield the floor and say to my friend and colleague from Michigan, thank you for bringing this issue up. This is not just a morning newspaper article. This is a serious constitutional question. I hope some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, after first reacting they want to stand by their administration, will think long and hard if this is a policy we in America should be asked to live with, when future Congresses and future Presidents are elected and we are all told we are trying to share a responsibility of accountability across our Government.

I yield the floor.