[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 141 (Thursday, October 18, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10811-S10815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1504

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1504, the 
Internet tax moratorium bill; that the Senate then proceed to its 
immediate consideration, that the bill be read three times, passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will 
state the objection that I understand will be raised, but let me assure 
my colleague and friend that there is an interest on both sides of the 
aisle to extend the moratorium, maybe with not this precise language, 
maybe it would be the Enzi proposal, maybe it would be something 
Senators Allard and McCain and others are working on. We will try to 
work with you to make sure the moratorium is extended. At this 
particular time, an objection will be raised.
  Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say that I understood there would 
be an objection. We will now experience a circumstance where the 
moratorium expires on Sunday. My expectation is that will not have much 
material impact on what or what might not happen in the country in the 
intervening days.
  It is my hope that all of us who have worked on this can reach an 
agreement on how to do a number of these things. I don't want to retard 
the ability of remote sellers, catalogs, Internet, or other devices; I 
don't want to retard their ability to use that marketing strategy to 
enhance commerce in this country. I don't want to burden them in a way 
that would be unfair.
  By the same token, we have this growth of remote sales by enterprises 
that, in many cases, have grown very large but have very few locations 
and use the mail and Internet transactions with which to conduct 
business; much of the commerce is then outside of the ability of State 
and local governments to receive the sales and use tax from that 
commerce just as other transactions would require.
  That doesn't mean that when you buy something over the Internet, or 
from a catalog, it is tax free; it is not. A use tax is required to be 
paid, but almost no one pays it.
  Some would make the case that, for example, those who want to solve 
this problem are talking about a new tax. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. There is already a tax on these transactions. It is not paid 
because it is horribly complicated for individual citizens to find a 
use tax form and submit a use tax to Oklahoma, or North Dakota, or 
Virginia, and say, by the way, I bought a shirt, or shoes, or a tool 
set, and here is the use tax I owe because the sales tax wasn't 
collected when I purchased it.
  Because of that set of circumstances, we believed it would be better 
for the seller and the buyer to find a way to collect that, remit that 
to the coffers of State and local governments. It is used largely for 
education and improving and strengthening our schools, and we believe 
it would be important to do that.
  We are trying to solve several problems. I believe at the end of the 
day we will extend this moratorium. I wish we had done it today. We 
will extend this moratorium. My colleague from Wyoming would make 
permanent the moratorium on taxing access. I will support that. We will 
extend the moratorium. If we are doing the right thing, I think we will 
at the same time begin to address the second part of the issue on 
behalf of the Governors, mayors, State legislators, States, school 
administrators, and all the folks who care about that.
  On the other side, we are going to address the question of complexity 
on behalf of the remote sellers. They are not just whistling in the 
dark here. This is a real problem and a serious problem that we have to 
address. We are dealing with both sides of the equation. I support 
addressing both sides in a thoughtful and sensible way.
  Again, I understand why an objection was raised, although I regret 
that it was made. I wish we had been able to extend the moratorium 
today. I want everybody to understand that there is no division in the 
Senate, in my judgment, about whether the moratorium should be 
extended; it is how long, and should we do it without trying to find a 
way to buckle up the other part of the solution. We ought to, in my 
judgment, deal with both sets of problems at the same time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate sponsor of the Internet tax 
freedom bill, I appreciate a chance to set the record straight about 
exactly what this law is.
  For example, it is continually cited that the Internet tax freedom 
law creates a kind of Cayman Islands for the Internet, where you can't 
collect taxes. That is not right. The only thing the Internet tax 
freedom law does is it bans discriminatory taxes. You can tax the 
Internet; you just must do to the offline world what you do to the 
online world. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, not a single jurisdiction in this country--not even one--has 
been able to show any evidence that they have been hurt by their 
inability to impose discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. We are 
constantly told by the mayors and Governors in some jurisdictions that 
they have been hurt. We have repeatedly asked for the evidence, and 
there has been none forthcoming.
  I have made it clear that I am very anxious to work with the mayors 
and Governors on this issue. I was not aware there was going to be an 
effort to extend the moratorium today for just a few months, because we 
have had these negotiations now for 18 months in an effort to try to 
bring the parties together. I want to make it clear that I am anxious 
to continue those negotiations.
  No. 3, there is absolutely nothing in current law that prohibits 
States and localities from collecting revenue that is owed to them. 
There is nothing in the Internet Tax Freedom Act that bars them from 
doing that. I just hope that as we make this effort to bring together 
technology companies, States, localities, and the mayors, we can 
recognize that it is possible today under current law to collect all 
taxes owed. The reason it is not done is, A, the technology doesn't 
exist to do it in a fashion that would not burden business and, B, a 
lot of the mayors and Governors don't want the political heat 
associated with collecting those taxes. Probably most illustrative of 
this point is what former Governor Celucci of Massachusetts, now 
Ambassador to Canada, said: Look, I am not going to put people on the 
border of Massachusetts to chase people down coming

[[Page S10812]]

from New Hampshire. I am not going to have that kind of chaos on my 
hands.
  I hope we will continue this effort to try to bring the parties 
together in a constructive fashion. I wasn't aware there was going to 
be an effort today by unanimous consent to deal with this issue. I want 
to make it clear that I am anxious to work with all of the parties who 
have been involved in this issue. But there is absolutely nothing in 
the Internet tax freedom law that creates a Cayman Islands with respect 
to the Internet, No. 1; and, No. 2, there isn't anything that keeps 
States and localities from collecting taxes that are now owed; the 
reason it is not done is technology and politics. I hope, working 
cooperatively together, as we have sought to do for 18 months, it will 
be possible to do that.
  Senator McCain and I have introduced a bill that would bar 
discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce for 2 years. We introduced 
that legislation several weeks ago. It is virtually identical to what 
the House passed this week. I hope we can work from that. I want 
colleagues to know that before we come to the floor, we will be 
consulting with all the parties, and we will make an effort to bring 
people together on that.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I just want to clarify a point the Senator 
made. I assume he was not making the point that I was suggesting that 
the Internet Tax Freedom Act created a ``Cayman Islands.'' I have not 
suggested that, and I didn't say that today. If the Senator is 
responding to somebody who might have done that, it wasn't I. I want to 
make sure the Senator understands that.
  If I might make a final point, the Senator is accurate that the State 
and local governments can now impose a use tax on sales that are made 
by remote seller to a customer in that State. He is also accurate that 
they almost never do because it would require the hiring of tens of 
thousands of Federal workers to try, in each individual case, to 
achieve that tax collection. That is precisely why there needs to be a 
balance in these proposals, to achieve both goals: Extend the 
moratorium and, in some cases, make them permanent; second, to both 
simplify the sales use tax systems and allow the collection.
  I might finally say that I appreciate the generous time, and I say 
that I would object to a 2-year moratorium with nothing else in it that 
gives us an assurance of solving the second problem, as some today 
objected to the 8-month extension of the moratorium I suggested. We 
will come to a balance on that. The reason I felt the need to offer 
this today is that Sunday the moratorium expires, and this is simply 
saying we can solve that and extend it for 8 months, until next June 
30, and there will be no expiration.
  I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, to wrap up briefly, we have tried for 18 
months to bring the parties together. For example, I proposed--in spite 
of the fact that I see absolutely no evidence that any jurisdiction in 
this country has been hurt by their inability to impose discriminatory 
taxes, I proposed, over the opposition of many in business, that when 
the mayors and Governors have a proposal that is ready to go, they be 
given an opportunity to have a vote in the Congress, an opportunity to 
vote on a proposal of their choosing.
  So I have clearly gone to considerable lengths to try to be sensitive 
to the concerns of mayors and Governors. I hope we will continue the 
effort to try to bring the parties together.
  I was not aware there was going to be an effort to proceed to this 
bill by UC today, otherwise there would have been many colleagues, who 
share my view and support the legislation I offered with Congressman 
Cox that passed 98 to 2 in this Chamber, to support those positions to 
carry on this debate. The only way we are going to get this done is to 
bring the parties together.
  I point out finally with respect to the time period, the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, known as NCSL, said recently they 
wanted a 4-year moratorium because they were not ready, from a 
technological standpoint, to advance the solutions that would address 
this issue without putting burdens on out-of-state sellers.
  We are dealing with an extraordinarily important issue. The 
technology sector has been very hard hit, as all of our colleagues 
know. The last thing they need is to be shellacked with discriminatory 
taxes. There are more than 7,600 taxing jurisdictions in this country. 
If you are talking about overturning the Quill case, which is what this 
debate is all about, which says that you cannot impose taxes unless 
there is physical presence in a particular jurisdiction--a case I 
strongly support--you are dealing with very serious matters with 
respect to the economy of this country.
  I would like to see us go back to the way we tried to deal with this 
for the last 18 months, which was in a conciliatory way, trying to 
bring the parties together. Starting Monday, there is an opportunity 
for considerable economic mischief. Fortunately, only four State 
legislatures are in session right now, but there is an opportunity for 
considerable economic mischief.
  The legislation that Senator McCain and I have advanced on a 
bipartisan basis provides the framework to proceed, but Senator Enzi, 
who has been very constructive on this issue for quite some time now, 
has made for me and others a copy of another proposal he has. I assure 
him and those with whom he is working that we will look at it very 
carefully and work with him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak this morning, 
but I arrived in the midst of the discussion of an issue which I think 
is very central to our federalist system of government. The Nation 
depends upon our States and local governments to deliver some of the 
most basic services that protect the security and advance the well-
being of our people and our Nation as a whole.
  We just had a dramatic demonstration of that with what happened after 
September 11. While there were a number of Federal personnel involved, 
the front line, the first responders, the people who lost their lives 
in the collapse of those buildings serving the public interest were 
largely employees of State and local governments.
  We know, and we all applaud the importance of education for the 
future of our Nation. That is predominantly a State and local 
responsibility. What we are talking about today is the capacity of 
State and local governments to have sufficient control of their sources 
of revenue to continue to provide those very services.
  While the current law, as the Senator from Oregon has correctly 
stated, focuses on prohibiting the States from adopting discriminatory 
tax systems that will single out and adversely affect distance sellers, 
particularly those who sell over the Internet, the fact is there is 
another form of discrimination, and that is the discrimination between 
the Main Street retail seller and that distant seller.
  The discrimination is that in times past, we have adopted a 
philosophy that said in order for a State to require a seller to 
collect its sales tax, there had to be a physical presence of that 
seller within the State. That was a concept that made sense in a 
previous era, but that era has passed.

  We just passed a major antiterrorism bill, and one of the basic 
changes we made had to do with wiretaps. Our wiretap law was basically 
written for the old rotary phone. It proved to be inadequate to deal 
with the issues of the cellular phone, computer communication, and all 
the things with which we are now familiar and in daily personal use.
  The same economic and technical changes that have caused the Congress 
to reevaluate its concept of what it takes to fight terrorism have 
affected the way in which commerce is delivered in America.
  We now have a situation where if you sell the same book at a retail 
store on Main Street, that seller is obligated to collect the sales tax 
of the State and local jurisdictions that might be imposed on that 
book. If you buy the identical book over the Internet, there is no 
obligation to collect sales tax.
  I do not think that is a defensible differentiation, and the 
practical effect of that is going to be over time to erode the 
competitive position of the Main Street seller, and through that 
erosion also affect the ability to properly finance our police, fire, 
and education systems that are so critical to the functioning of our 
Nation.

[[Page S10813]]

  Yes, there is an issue of discrimination here, a mild discrimination, 
and a quite unlikely discrimination that might be directed by State 
legislatures against Internet sellers and a massive discrimination that 
is being directed today against the Main Street retailer.
  I believe these two issues are interconnected, and we should do as 
Senator Enzi is suggesting: At the same time we grant an extension of 
the moratorium, we build into that extension a mechanism that will 
result in the resolution of this much bigger issue of discrimination--
the discrimination against the Main Street seller.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the distinguished Senator from Florida yield for a 
question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. In just a moment when I complete my remarks, I will be 
pleased to yield.
  The reality is that what we are about here, for those who are new to 
this issue, is the fact that time is on the side of the distant 
sellers. Right now, a relatively small percentage of American retail 
sales are conducted over the Internet, but that percentage has been 
growing every year. Already the distant sellers have acquired enough 
influence to cause the House of Representatives to take the action it 
has taken and to build considerable support within the Senate for an 
extension of the moratorium without any mechanism to deal with the 
discrimination against Main Street and the discrimination against the 
children and the other citizens who depend upon State and local 
government for fundamental services such as education and police.
  The secret of those who would like to effectively make this 
discrimination against Main Street permanent is they want to continue 
moratorium after moratorium until the percentage of people who are 
using the Internet is so great that there will be no political 
constituency to deal with this discrimination.
  I state for myself and I believe for others that we consider this to 
be a core issue of the future of federalism in America; that we have to 
have strong State and local governments, and we have to depend upon 
them to make decisions appropriate to their people. State and local 
governments, as one who served there for 20 years, do not like taxing 
their people. They are as sensitive to that as we are in Washington, 
maybe more so.
  We should not deny them the capacity to make the decisions that are 
in the best interest of their people. That is a fundamental part of our 
federalist system, that different levels of government have 
responsibilities and must accept the obligation of those 
responsibilities, including the appropriate way to finance them.
  So this is, as I say, a very basic issue. I, for one, will insist 
before we extend this moratorium beyond the very short period as 
suggested by the Senator from North Dakota that any longer extension 
must be linked to a process, not a solution but a process, to move us 
towards the resolution of this fundamental discrimination that exists 
within our Nation and within our economy today.
  I yield to the Senator from Oregon for his question.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague, and I think he knows I am very much 
committed to working with him and with Senator Enzi. I do not know how 
many hours we have put in over the last 18 months trying to do this. My 
question was designed really to get a sense of the thinking of the 
Senator on a particular point that may help us move this issue along.
  What I and many others are concerned about is sticking it to sellers 
who are located thousands of miles away from a local jurisdiction and 
that seller has no presence in the local jurisdiction other than a Web 
site. That is the only presence they have today. Of course, the Supreme 
Court has said there has to be physical presence, under a current Court 
decision, in order to do that.
  In the view of the Senator from Florida, what is the case for 
imposing these various taxes--of course, anything that is already owed 
can be collected under the current Internet tax freedom bill, so we are 
talking about something new. What is the case in the mind of the 
Senator for having changed treatment of that particular seller who is 
located thousands of miles from a local jurisdiction and who has no 
presence in that jurisdiction other than a Web site?
  Again, I do not ask this question for any other reason than I think 
it would be helpful for me and others who spent a significant amount of 
time to get the thinking of colleagues as we try to figure out a way to 
move forward on it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the very sincere and committed effort the 
Senator has made to try to arrive at a resolution, and I hope in this 
debate which has arisen today, and will arise with greater frequency 
now that the moratorium is about to lapse, that we can reach such a 
resolution.
  What I think is basic is, first, the Constitution. The Constitution 
vests--and it was one of the most controversial debates at the 
Constitutional Convention of 1787--in the Federal Government the 
control of interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, as I read the most 
recent opinions on this issue, did not say requiring distant sellers to 
collect sales tax was unconstitutional. Rather, they said it was 
unauthorized; that it would take an affirmative act of Congress to 
sanction the States to require distant sellers--that is, sellers who 
did not have a physical presence in their State--to collect their sales 
tax.
  So the issue is, we have to take an affirmative act in order to 
empower the States to require that distant sellers should collect their 
sales tax. So then the question is why----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The time of the Senator from 
Florida has expired in morning business.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes to 
complete the answer to the question from the Senator from Oregon.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. So the question then is whether we should take that 
affirmative action. I think we should for two basic reasons. One is 
fairness. It is, in my judgment, intolerable to have an economic system 
in which government says if you are selling from a distant location, 
you are at a competitive advantage over persons who are selling on Main 
Street. That is precisely the current circumstance of requiring one to 
collect sales tax but not requiring the other to do it, and it is not 
an insubstantial competitive disadvantage. In my State, depending on 
which locality one is in, it could be a 6-, 7-, or more percent 
differential.
  Second, the practical effect of this is going to be to erode the 
capacity of State and local governments, acting through the democratic 
process of representative election and decision, as to what services 
should be provided and how they should be financed to substantially 
erode that capability.
  My State happens to be particularly dependent upon sales tax. About 
70 percent or more of our general revenue is collected by sales tax. So 
if there were a significant percentage of that which moved from Main 
Street to distant seller, it would have an immediate and substantial 
impact on the capacity of our State to educate its children, to defend 
our people through police, to protect our people in time of emergency 
through fire and other emergency response institutions.
  So this is a basic question of whether we at the national level are 
going to say to our brethren in the 50 States that for all time you are 
going to be saddled by this discrimination, which will have the effect 
of eroding your capacity to decide how to finance the services your 
people are asking you to provide.
  I do not believe all wisdom resides in Washington. I believe in a 
distributed democracy and that we ought to let 50 States and thousands 
of local jurisdictions make those kinds of judgments, and eliminating 
this massive discrimination that currently is part of our tax system 
will return that degree of respect and capacity to State and local 
governments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, at what time is the Senate expected to 
reconvene following the recess?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 2 p.m.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m., when the Senate 
reconvenes following the recess, I be recognized for not to exceed 35 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator

[[Page S10814]]

Voinovich be allowed to follow the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  I have refrained from getting into this discussion about the 
moratorium on Internet taxes up to this point, but I need to voice some 
comments because I am one of the people who has been working on this 
issue for the last 18 months and was a part of the debate we had 18 
months ago that put the current moratorium into effect.
  I thank Senator Graham from Florida, who has been intensely involved. 
He has been one of the main people who has provided a connection with 
Congress and State legislators. I thank Senator Ron Wyden, the Senator 
from Oregon, for his intense interest. I think probably the number of 
hours the Senator from Oregon and I, and Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, 
Senator Dorgan, and Senator Graham have spent in meetings on this 
issue, which has not been a specific bill, probably exceeds the time 
spent on any other issue that was not actually a bill, which indicates 
the intensity of the need there is to resolve the issue nationwide.
  Particularly since the events of September 11, there has been a drain 
on resources for cities, towns, counties, and States as they have put 
more security in place, as they have provided for the difficulties that 
have happened in their States. Most of them rely on a sales tax to be 
able to do that.
  Education is another area heavily funded by sales taxes. Those States 
that collect sales taxes and rely on sales taxes have been intensely 
interested that their right to collect sales taxes is not taken away. 
Getting all of the groups together has been extremely difficult: the 
recognition that there is an added burden on direct marketers when they 
do this, that the States need it, that the retailers are at an unfair 
disadvantage if there is not a sales tax collected. And it is small 
retail merchants that provide for donations for the year books and the 
other local activities that would be sorely missed if they were not 
there.
  Getting some protection for all of these groups and bringing them 
together has been a real task. We have been making tremendous progress. 
There has been some concern that the moratorium runs out Sunday and the 
Nation will go into a major crisis. That is not the case. The 
grandfathering dates back to 1998. I suspect nobody is going to undo 
that particular date.
  We need a solution. This is not my solution. This is the solution of 
all of the people I mentioned who have been working on it and will be 
continuing to work on it to come to some kind of an agreement where, 
first of all, we extend the moratorium; second, we make sure we protect 
the States so they can, with some pressure--and this is where the 
States have to come to the middle, too--simplify their tax system so 
that direct marketer or that person doing remote sales has some 
capability of complying. In order to make that easier, one of the 
things we have built into the bill is a requirement that there be one 
form, one reporting place, one place to send the check, and a maximum 
of one audit. There is also a requirement there be reasonable 
compensation to the person who collects it.
  Everybody who does direct sales collects sales taxes. They collect it 
in the State in which they are located, which is where they have a 
nexus and in other States where they have a nexus. There is an intense 
interest on their part to see that there is some simplification to the 
tax system in the States where they have to work.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ENZI. I am happy to yield for a question when I complete my 
remarks.
  As I mentioned, we have been working with retailers and a coalition, 
including a lot of retailers and others who rely on the sales tax or 
rely on businesses that have a sales tax. That includes people who 
build shopping malls and do other types of retail businesses. I 
acknowledge their help in coming to this particular bill. I thank the 
National League of Cities and the National Governors' Association, and 
most particularly, my Governor from Wyoming, Governor Geringer, and the 
Governor from Utah, Governor Leavitt, for the tremendous hours they 
have put in together trying to get everybody on the same page.
  I yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I appreciate the work 
that has gone into this. He obviously has strong views on it. It has 
been very constructive in trying to work with me and others.
  I ask my colleague about a procedural matter that could allow us to 
go forward and bring the parties together. Senator McCain and I 
introduced legislation several weeks ago that is virtually identical to 
what the House passed this week. The House has already begun to move.
  My question to my colleague is, would the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming be willing to work with me and others, the entire group 
involved, to craft a unanimous consent request that could come up early 
next week where we could take up in the Senate the House-passed bill 
and then have an open and fair debate on amendments and all of the up-
or-down votes that Members of this body would choose to have?
  Would my colleague be willing to work with me and others to see if we 
could craft that kind of approach that is agreeable all around?
  Mr. ENZI. I am happy to work with the Senator from Oregon. I have 
been working also with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to see if 
we cannot propound some kind of unanimous consent. It needs to be done 
quickly before States run off the edge and pass some things we might 
then feel bad about repealing but have to repeal. I am interested in 
doing that.
  However, I hope the propounded unanimous consent could deal with this 
bill, rather than the straight 12-month extension. I have been talking 
to people on the House side and I think they see some reasonableness in 
going with the approach I am providing, as well.
  We need to come up with a propounded unanimous consent that will get 
us to this form of debate and voting on amendments so this bill will 
have a majority of cosponsors and can be passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Today Senator Dorgan, the chairman of the Democratic Policy 
Committee, is going to have at our luncheon the Ambassador of Egypt, 
the Ambassador of Jordan, the Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates 
and the Charge d'Affaires of Pakistan. I compliment Senator Dorgan for 
arranging these eminent people to speak with Members.
  I mention that only as a preface to a letter I received from a 
constituent of mine in Las Vegas, a young constituent. Her name is 
Sanaa Khan, and she is a ninth grade student. The letter reads:

       Dear Senator Reid: It is unfortunate that Americans do not 
     have the basic knowledge about Islam. This is the faith 
     practiced by almost seven million Muslims living in the 
     United States, and over one billion people around the world. 
     It is the fastest growing religion in the world. As a 
     research topic for my 9th grade English project, I chose to 
     highlight the basic tenets of Islam, in order to develop a 
     better understanding among my friends and teachers in school. 
     I would like to send this to you so that you may share with 
     your friends and colleagues.
       The Islamic belief is structured around five main pillars: 
     (1) The profession of faith. (2) Daily worship. (3) Fasting 
     during the month of Ramadan (based on the Islamic lunar 
     calendar). (4) Charity and (5) Making the pilgrimage to 
     Makkah.
       The profession of faith is simple. It's declaring that one 
     believes in one God and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is 
     the messenger of God. By reciting this, one may convert to 
     Islam. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last prophet of 
     God who lived from 570 to 633 BCE.
       Daily worship is praying five times a day: at dawn, midday, 
     afternoon, evening, and at night. These prayers are short and 
     include recitation of verses from the Qur'an, the holy book 
     for Muslims. During these prayers, Muslims bow their heads in 
     the direction of Makkah, Saudi Arabia, the holiest place for 
     Muslims.
       Charity in Islam is called ``zakat''. This is the 
     obligation to share what one possesses with the poor. Muslims 
     are required to give 2.5% of all the money and jewelry they 
     own once a year to less fortunate people.
       Fasting during the month of Ramadan is also mandatory. 
     Fasting is refraining from food and drink from dawn until 
     dusk. Muslims go by the Islamic lunar calendar making Ramadan 
     the ninth month. Fasting is

[[Page S10815]]

     significant because it makes you a stronger person by 
     realizing the significance of self control, discipline, and 
     restricting ones desires.
       The last pillar is making the pilgrimage to Makkah, Saudi 
     Arabia. This pilgrimage is called Hajj. The holiest mosque is 
     in Makkah, Masjid-al-Haram. Hajj occurs only once a year 
     during the twelfth month of the Islamic calendar. It is 
     required that you perform Hajj at least once in your lifetime 
     if one can financially afford it.
       The prophet of Islam is Muhammad (peace be upon him). He 
     was born in Makkah, Saudi Arabia in 570 BCE. In 610 BCE, the 
     angel Gabriel carried the revelation from God and brought it 
     down to Muhammad (peace be upon him). After a period of time, 
     these revelations were placed into one book called the 
     Qur'an.
       I hope this information, though very basic, would at least 
     provoke some thought process towards efforts to better 
     understand Islam.

  I appreciate very much Sanaa sending me this letter. I hope everyone 
in the Senate will become familiar with her letter and become familiar 
with the tenets of her religion.
  I have been on the floor before, speaking about Islam and what a 
great religion it is. I have said before and I repeat that my wife's 
primary physicians are two members of the Islamic faith, her internist 
and the person who has performed surgery on her. I know them well. I 
have been in their homes. I have socialized with them. I have talked 
about very serious things with them. We have helped each other with 
family problems.
  I have been to the new mosque with them in Las Vegas. They are 
wonderful people with great families. I have come to realize Islam is a 
good religion; it is a good way of life. Muslims maintain a good health 
code as their religion dictates, and they have great spiritual values 
as their religion dictates. It is too bad there are some people--evil 
people around the world--who would target the innocent in the name of 
Islam.
  I believe that the strength of Islam, and the faith and fortitude of 
more than one billion Muslims around the world, will overcome these 
evil people and their evil deeds.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 1566 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________