George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I will.

Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from Florida yield?

Mr. ALLEN. It is. I very much agree with the Senator from Oklahoma. Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Judge Pryor, Judge Brown, and Judge Kuhl--they all have impeccable records. They have different experiences but great experience, and they are highly recommended by the people who know them best. This is a great way of judging their capabilities. Nonetheless, the facts don't seem to matter. I close and say we need to act in accordance with the Constitution. The Constitution is important. Accountability is important. Fairness and justice are important. As a matter of principle, our judicial nominees deserve a fair and simple up-or-down vote. These nominees are individuals who are important for the function of justice in these various courts. And it is not just these three; there are others being obstructed. I ask my colleagues to show some guts. Stand up and vote yes or vote no. Act responsibly. Since I started off with a Charlie Pride admonition and, unfortunately, we have not been able to ``Kiss an Angel Good Morning'' here on the Senate floor, why don't we follow Aaron Tippin's advice that ``you got to stand for something.'' So why don't you stand. Vote yes or no on these judges but vote. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. It is worse than that. I was not aware of that, I say to the Senator from Texas. That is more than just petty partisan politics. That is disgusting. This will lead to a continual downward spiral of our constitutional responsibilities. You can say you are against a judicial nominee, but to use it to brag and to admit that it is unprecedented in an attempt to raise money--to me, that is the sort of retaliation and retribution that is a real loser, and not just to Republicans or Democrats; the real loser is the justice system of the United States, which has been the pinnacle of the protection of our liberties and freedoms under the Constitution, which was created and designed to protect our God-given rights.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. There is no justifiable explanation. Miguel Estrada is a person of very calm demeanor. He is very mild mannered and soft spoken. He is one who, throughout the entire nomination process, was willing to subject himself to whatever written interrogatories submitted to him by Senators. He was willing to and did meet one on one with Senators. So that characterization is not accurate. Do you know what that characterization is? It is pure politics. It doesn't matter what the truth is because they have not justified it. What is unfortunate about statements such as that is that it is the politics of personal destruction. We should rise above that. I say to the Senator that my very first speech on the Senate floor was about judges. I said that I care about treating people as individuals rather than partisans. I spoke about Roger Gregory. President Clinton had appointed him as an recess appointment. This had many Republicans, understandably, infuriated. I examined and talked to Roger Gregory to determine his judicial philosophy. I studied his records of accomplishment, considered his temperament, and all of the attributes judges who are appointed for life should have. You have to be sure you are not going to end up with some judge who is a radical one way or the other, an activist, but rather one who interprets the law and applies the facts of the case, rather than inventing or creating laws. My first speech was to say, ``let's rise above that and to be statesmen.'' I found Roger Gregory to be very qualified. The first thing I said to President Bush when he asked me my thoughts on this nomination was that I had interviewed judges for various positions when I was Governor and that one can never be absolutely sure about a nominee. But I told President Bush that I felt that Roger Gregory truly had the right philosophy and capabilities, and I hoped he would appoint him. And President Bush did. That is an example of rising above partisanship, rising above this picky, partisan process in the Senate, which denies an opportunity for me, as a Senator, to vote up or down. But it also denies the American people the accountability and responsibility they expect for their Senators.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLEN. No, I was not aware of that. I thank the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, for bringing that up. I hope some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will look back on some of their own statements from 3 years ago and 4 years ago when they were saying judges deserve up-or-down votes, and at those contemporaneous times, from Reverend Sharpton. I may not always agree with Reverend Sharpton, but he seems to be a man of fairness and I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will heed his advice.

Mr. ALLEN. I wish the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, were still on the floor. In his arguments, he cited a quote from Lyndon Baines Johnson as to what would be the best gift that could be given, I believe he said, to the Soviet Union or those behind the Iron Curtain. He thought the best gift would be unlimited debate. I could think of a lot of other things you would want to give people who are repressed than unlimited debate. Maybe freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religious beliefs, private property rights, due process, equal protection of the law, maybe even the right to bear arms so they can overthrow the dictatorship. Unlimited debate--that does not strike me as what is needed in a democracy. What one wants is adherence to the Constitution, accountability and responsible action by those who are elected by the people. And we want fairness, which is being denied here, without potential for filibustering. This is what Senator Levin said that President Johnson said: ``If I should have the opportunity to send into countries behind the iron curtain one freedom, and only one, my choice would be to send those nations the right of unlimited debate in their legislative chambers.'' I expect they could have had all sorts of unlimited debate but what one wants is adherence to our U.S. Constitution. Let me share with our distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, some words that have been said recently: Judgeships are currently vacant, causing undue delays in justice for citizens served by the court. The candidates for these vacancies deserve to have an up-or-down vote on their nominations. The Senate should not be playing politics with the Federal judiciary. Guess who said that? Senator Carl Levin in a press release on May 24, 2000. Then Senator Levin said, on October 3, 2000, in the Congressional Record: I believe the Nation as a whole deserves to have these nominees and other nominees awaiting hearings and votes acted on by this Senate, as well. I believe it is also unfair. Perhaps this is the most important of all to the people who await justice in their courts. Senator Levin said that on October 3, 2000. Then Senator Levin also said that leadership had a responsibility to advise and at least vote on judicial nominees. And parallel to the debates we are having on several of the judges this evening that will go on through tomorrow and into the morning on Friday, he said: Two of the women who we are focusing on today are from Michigan. They are nominees for the court of appeals. The truth of the matter is that the leadership of the Senate has the responsibility to do what the Constitution says we should do which is to advise and at least vote on whether or not to consent to the nomination of nominees for these courts. That was September 14, 2000, 3 years ago. I wish that Senator Levin were still on the floor so I could ask him whether he was right in 2000, saying the Constitution demanded and required Senators to act and vote on nominees. Or does he really believe that the most important responsibility is for endless debate? I say to the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, what we have seen is stalling and more stalling and more stalling. They can debate endlessly, but at the end of every debate, at the end of every examination, of everyone's qualifications and capabilities, and whether Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, or any other of the nominees, ultimately the responsibility is, as Senator Levin said 3 years ago, it is our responsibility to act, to vote. The Constitution demands it. Accountability to our constituents and our respective States demands it. And fairness should not continue to be denied to these many nominees because of the obstruction and also the very inconsistent statements that have been made this year compared to past years. I ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would you find these statements to be prior inconsistent statements which call into question the desirability of having endless debates in the Senate or in the committee, especially after the committee has decided on a majority vote to report out, favorably, a judicial nominee?

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, following up on my esteemed colleague from Virginia's comments and observations on Justice Janice Rogers Brown, she is the first African-American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court, having come from segregated schools in the South, worked her way up. I find it very interesting that the following quote was made a few years ago: Whether it is Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor. What are they afraid of? What are they afraid of? What is wrong with a vote? Tomorrow the person who made that statement on October 28, 1999, Senator Tom Daschle, Democratic leader, is going to lead a filibuster against Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

Mr. ALLEN. Clearly, a prior inconsistent statement showing duplicity. I would ask, when you referred to some of their arguments that she is out of the mainstream, I was looking at the record from the hearings. I understand Justice Brown was criticized for a single ruling she made on a parental consent case. We have parental consent laws in Virginia. The vast majority of people, even some who consider themselves pro-choice, recognize that if an unwed minor daughter is going through the trauma of an abortion, that at least the mother or father ought to be notified, ought to be involved, because it is a medical procedure that even for ear piercing or tonsils being taken out, you need consent. So for something as traumatic as the surgery of abortion, which is physical obviously, but also something that is emotional, parents should know when their 17, 16, 15-year-old daughter is going through such a procedure. She is being criticized for that. I don't find that, at least from Virginia standards, or if the Senator could share with us, do you consider that out of the mainstream? From what I can see from surveys, 80 percent-plus of all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin or their ethnicity or gender, think parents ought to be involved when their unwed minor daughter is contemplating such a procedure.

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to close with a final quote from Senator Daschle that he made in September 1999: ``It is so incredibly unfair to me that they would continue to persist in the determination not to allow these very qualified people to even have a vote.'' Mr. President, that is what all of this is about. Tomorrow morning we will have a chance to end debate on these nominees and allow for fair up or down votes. In addition we will be able to determine the veracity, truth, and sincerity of our colleagues that I have previously quoted. If they were willing to tell the truth 3 or 4 years ago, they will have an opportunity to stop this spiral of unfair actions and delays which only bring more retaliation and more delays. Senators will then be upholding the Constitution and will be accounting to their constituents, as well as giving fairness to the nominees. I thank the President and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. ALLEN. Far from it.

Mr. ALLEN. If I may, with consent, have 2 minutes that is attributed to our time at 9 o'clock.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, for decades, the United States has engaged the regime in Syria in the hope that Damascus would play a constructive role in bringing about Arab-Israeli peace. The U.S.-Syria relationship has been ongoing despite the fact that Syria has been ruled by dictatorship with an uninterrupted record of support for terrorism, specifically directed at Israel. The results of U.S. engagement with Syria have been anything but positive. Throughout the years, Damascus has continued to support international terrorism directed at America and Israel, occupy Lebanon, develop a weapons-of-mass-destruction program, acquire ballistic missiles, and pursue policies counter to U.S. interests. Since the liberation of Iraq, Syria has played a destabilizing role by allowing terrorist fugitives to enter Syria and by allowing mercenaries to cross into Iraq--or at least not stopping them--to engage U.S. troops. Syria has been able to conduct its policies--which are antithetical to U.S. interests--with near impunity. They have resulted in the loss of hundreds of American lives--especially when you consider the bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983. Although Syria is listed--and has been since the 1970s--by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, along with Iran, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, it has not faced the same degree of diplomatic and economic isolation that has been directed at other terrorist states. In fact, Washington maintains full diplomatic relations with Syria, making Syria the only designated state sponsor of terrorism to have such relations with the United States. Syria's special treatment despite its support for terrorism should be over. The events of September 11, 2001 have offered a window of opportunity to review many U.S. bilateral relationships and determine whether it is necessary to change the dynamic--and often the status quo--that has characterized these relations. The administration and Congress have done this most notably with Saudi Arabia in seeking greater cooperation in the elimination of terrorist activities operating from Saudi soil. Now is also an ideal time to reassess U.S. relations with Damascus and demand accountability in our relationship. Equally important, it is time for the Syrian leadership to make a tough choice: it is either with the United States completely in the war on terrorism, or it is not. Either way, shielding Syria from the same economic and political isolation directed at other terrorist states is unmerited and runs counter to U.S. principles in the war against terrorism. As Under Secretary of State John Bolton stated in testimony before the House International Relations Committee on September 16, 2003, ``Syria remains a security concern on two important counts: terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.'' Bolton added: There is no graver threat to our country today than states that both sponsor terrorism and possess or aspire to possess weapons of mass destruction. Syria, which offers physical sanctuary and political protection to groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Jihad, and whose terrorist operations have killed hundreds of innocent people--including Americans--falls into this category of state of potential dual threat. Since the 1970s, the U.S. State Department has listed Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism. Specifically, in its ``Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2002'' report, the State Department found that the Syrian Government ``has continued to provide political and limited material support to a number of Palestinian groups, including allowing them to maintain headquarters or offices in Damascus,'' although the Syrian Government insists that the groups' Damascus offices undertake only political and informational activities, not terrorist operations. Syria maintains close relations with Iran, another autocratic regime listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism and a prominent financial, political, and military backer of these Palestinian terrorist organizations. Moreover, Syria remains the de facto ruler of Lebanon, which it has forcibly and illegally occupied since 1990. Lebanon, the country in which more than 200 U.S. Marines died in 1983 following a terrorist attack on their Beirut barracks, remains a breeding ground and training center for terrorist organizations. Terrorism has spawned in Syria due largely to Syria's opposition to the existence of Israel and its subsequent objection to an Arab-Israeli peace process. Although the United States has engaged Syria--and given it a prominent place in discussions--during the past few decades, Damascus has long been an unwilling and uncooperative partner in bringing about Middle East peace. In fact, Syria did not endorse President Bush's Middle East ``roadmap.'' Syria also appears to be in the terror financing business. In April 2003, an Italian government study found that Syria functioned as a hub for an al-Qaida network that moved Islamic extremists and funds from Italy to northeastern Iraq, where the recruits fought alongside the recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group. And, on October 21, it was reported that U.S. Treasury Department investigators have evidence that $3 billion that belonged to Saddam Hussein's government is being held in Syria-controlled banks in Syria and Lebanon. The Syrian Government has not yet granted Treasury officials access to these accounts, nor has it been willing to share any information about the account holders. Let's review past U.S. policy toward Damascus. Despite all of Syria's irresponsible and threatening policies, successive U.S. administrations have been willing to engage the Syrian Government. For decades, the United States has pursued a policy of engagement with Syria, trying to win Damascus' support for Middle East peace but to no avail. As part of this strategy, the United States has maintained full diplomatic relations with Damascus. It also has allowed U.S. companies to invest in Syria, something that cannot be done in other terrorist- sponsor states such as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Libya. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 1999--the last year there was reliable data available--direct investment of U.S. companies into Syria was $6 million, with 13 U.S. businesses having offices in Syria. While this may seem miniscule in terms of the dollar amount, it is notable because it is tolerated at all. With the death of Syrian President Hafez Assad in 2000 and the ascendancy of his son Bashar to the presidency, there were high expectations that Syria would depart from its anti-Israeli policies and pro-terrorist support of the past and enact political and economic reforms, as well as become a positive influence and player in achieving Middle East peace. Three years into Bashar's term, such developments have not materialized--and without a catalyst to encourage such reform, it appears unlikely that Bashar will proactively change Syria's course. We need a new approach toward Damascus. Continuation of the current U.S. policy toward Syria must end. For too long, it has been too ineffective and has allowed Syria to pursue with near impunity policies counter to U.S. interests. Moreover, it is unproductive and antithetical to the principles associated with the President's war on terrorism. The U.S. must pressure Syria to play by the rules. Given that the government of Syrian President Bashar al- Assad is relatively weak, and recognizing that Bashar deemed it necessary, or least desirable, to provide some assistance to the United States in apprehending al-Qaida, it should be possible to pressure Damascus into changing its policies. That said, Washington must demonstrate that it is serious about having Damascus drop its support of terrorism and its pursuit of policies that endanger peace and stability in the Middle East. Therefore, to demonstrate American commitment, the United States should adopt the following measures in pressuring Syria: Enact the Syria Accountability Act now. Among the numerous provisions contained in the bill, the most notable include the calls for Syria to immediately and unconditionally halt support for terrorism; withdraw from Lebanon and provide for Lebanon's full restoration of sovereignty; halt development of certain weapons; and enter into serious unconditional bilateral peace negotiations with Israel. This bill also states that Syria ``should bear responsibility for attacks committed by Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with offices, training camps, or other facilities'' in Syria or Lebanon. Further, the bill states, that being in violation of key United Nations Security Council resolutions and pursuing policies which undermine international peace and security, ``Syria should not have been permitted to join the United Nations Security Council or serve as the Security Council's President, and should be removed from the Security Council. Pursuant to the legislation, the United States is empowered to ``will work to deny Syria the ability to support acts of terrorism and efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, WMD.'' In addition, the United States will not provide any assistance to Syria and will oppose all forms of multilateral assistance to Syria until Damascus withdraws from Lebanon and halts its pursuit of WMD and ballistic missile accumulation. Until Syria enacts these measures, the President is required to prohibit: the sale of defense articles to Syria that require the issuance of an export license--dual-use items; U.S. businesses from investing in Syria; and export of any goods other than food and medicine to Syria. Diplomatic relations also must be reduced but the degree of that is not defined. The President is given waiver authority for 6-month periods for all of these categories, except the export of dual-use items if it is determined that ``it is in the vital national security interest'' to do so. The Bush administration should apply uniformity in its policies toward terrorist-sponsoring states. Therefore, the administration should not allow U.S. companies to invest in Syria because it sends the signal that Syria is receiving special treatment from Washington. A fairly dramatic reduction of U.S. diplomatic representation would perhaps strongly suggest to Syria that it is not an American ally and will not be one until it starts acting like one. Sending a strong message is key. The United States should apply the proliferation security initiative, PSI, and sanction WMD suppliers. The administration has successfully developed and employed a plan, known as the proliferation security initiative, PSI, to interdict illicit weapons shipments and contraband. PSI was announced by President Bush on May 31, 2003. It involves robust cargo inspections and possible interdiction of WMD materials and illegal arms, based on pooled intelligence among participating countries. To date, 11 nations form the core PSI group: Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the Netherlands, and the United States. While most of the initial PSI activities have focused on North Korea, attention should be paid to Syria--and Iran--with the goal of halting the flow of weapons technology both in and out of Syria. A critical complementary strategy to PSI is using sanctions on countries that supply Syria with weapons and WMD technology. The People's Republic of China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are known proliferators of these materials, with Russia and North Korea being key suppliers to Syria. As part of a wider U.S. policy, the administration should attempt to convince its PSI allies to also use sanctions against WMD suppliers. In conclusion, Syria's actions in the Middle East--and in Iraq, specifically pose a clear, near-term threat to regional stability and to the safety and security of American forces serving in the region. With the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the defeat of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States has made clear that state support for terrorism will no longer be tolerated. It is overdue for the United States and like-minded nations to hold Syria accountable for its actions. Syria's new head of state has had ample time to make the choice whether Damascus is with the United States as a partner or not in fighting the war on terrorism. If Syria is not, then it should face the diplomatic and economic consequences as set out in the Syria Accountability Act. As a sponsor of the Senate version, S. 982, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for this important measure in the form of H.R. 1828, as amended.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I yield. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2559

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise this evening to ask my colleagues to support S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, and the substitute or managers' amendment that has recently been adopted. I thank our chairman of the Commerce Committee, John McCain, our commodore, on his great navigational skills as we worked through this measure. I also thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, for his great leadership, assistance, and true partnership in trying to get this measure through for greater opportunity for Americans. I also thank others who are on this amendment, Senators Grassley, Hatch, Sununu, Leahy, Baucus, Boxer, Lincoln, Smith, the high-tech task force chairman, Senator John Ensign, Senator Warner of Virginia, Senator Burns, who is chairman of the Internet Caucus, and the Senator who is in the chair right now, Mr. Chambliss. All have helped work on this reasonable compromise. There have been a number of concerns to this measure raised by our opponents. We have had several months of negotiations. I am confident the bill as it is presented to us on the Senate floor strikes an appropriate balance between protecting every American from harmful regressive taxes on Internet access while ensuring that necessary protections are in place for State and local governments to maintain their existing revenue base. The fundamental principle driving this legislation is very simple and clear, and that is the Internet must remain as accessible as possible to all people in all parts of America forever. This was a principle established in the 1998 legislation when Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act and it is the principle I ask all Senators to keep in mind as we consider this legislation this evening and tomorrow. My colleagues have heard me say on many occasions that I believe we ought to be promoting freedom and opportunities for all Americans. We need to be advancing ideas, concepts, and policies that help create more jobs and prosperity rather than more taxes and burdens. The Internet itself is one of our country's greatest tools and symbols of innovation and individual empowerment. In my view, the Internet is the greatest invention for the dissemination of ideas and thoughts since the Gutenberg press. When Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church at Wittenberg, if it were not for the Gutenberg press no one would have read those documents and those thoughts. So today, we have the Internet for the dissemination of ideas. It is an individualized empowerment zone where individuals are able to access information, communicate, get knowledge, information, as well as engage in commerce. It is a tool for education. It is a tool for information and commerce. And when we are looking at that, I ask, why would there be some who would want to burden that? I think we ought to be trusting free people and free enterprise. We ought to be on the side of freedom, because that is what has allowed the Internet to flourish, rather than the side of those who would want to make this advancement in technology easier to tax for tax collectors. Some people ask, why is the Federal Government involved in this? Well, heck, if there is anything that is in interstate commerce by its architecture, by its design, by its structure, it is the Internet. One of the great things about the Internet is that it is not confined to boundaries of States or even countries for that matter. For those of us who thought opening up to China was a question that we needed to broach, I thought the fact that the Internet was available and to the extent that the Chinese people could get more ideas from outside of China and not filtered through their government, that was a reason to hopefully open up China for greater prosperity and freedom. This legislation provides and promotes equal access to the Internet for all Americans. It obviously is designed to protect Americans from harmful and regressive taxes on Internet access services, as well as preventing duplicative and predatory taxes on Internet transactions. Specifically, as this measure is before us now, it does several things. First, it extends permanently the current Federal prohibition of State and local taxation of Internet access service. Second, it makes permanent the ban on all multiple and discriminatory taxes relating to electronic commerce. It ensures that several jurisdictions, for example, cannot tax the same transaction simply because the transaction happens to occur over the Internet. Third, our legislation repeals the so-called grandfathering provision over a 3-year period. Fourth, we make clear the original intent of the Internet Tax Freedom Act by updating the definition of Internet access to ensure that the moratorium applies consistently to all consumers. If we are going to exempt Internet access services from taxation permanently, then I believe it makes sense to do so in a manner that applies to all methods of Internet access, regardless of how a consumer chooses to access the Internet, whether by digital subscriber line, otherwise known as DSL connections, by wireless connection, cable modem service, satellite, or dial-up service. Fifth, and lastly, this legislation makes very clear that nothing in this measure prevents the collection or remittance of State and Federal universal service fees. The Internet tax moratorium that has been in place for 5 years has contributed to the extending of Internet access to over 127 million citizens, about 45 percent of the population of America. Unfortunately, that did expire Friday. Every day that it lapses, there is the opportunity for consumers to be susceptible to pestering new taxes on Internet access services as well as taxes on e- mail, instant messages, spam filters, and even Web searches. For every dollar in taxation added to the cost of Internet access, we can expect to see the loss of utilization of the Internet by thousands of American families, especially lower income families. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 30 percent of non-internet users say cost is a major reason they remain offline. Additionally, another 43 percent of non-internet users agreed with the statement that the Internet is too expensive. So, for about half the country who are still not on line, keeping access affordable is vital, and that means keeping access free from State, local, and Federal taxation. The guiding principle is clear, of course: To keep it accessible to all people in all parts of the country forever. This is the position I have held since 1997, since my days as Governor in Virginia when I was one of only four Governors with this position. I cannot ever envision a time where we believe it desirable for any government, State, local, or Federal, to tax access to the Internet. I cannot envision any time in our future where it will make sense to have multiple taxes on the Internet. Nor can I imagine any time in the future where there ought to be discriminatory taxes or predatory taxes on the Internet. Yet if the Senate fails to take action or vote for this legislation, such Members of this body will be permitting and in effect advocating taxing the Internet. There are more people empowered by the Internet today because the Federal policy of the United States has consciously allowed Internet innovators, investors, entrepreneurs, and consumers to remain free from onerous taxation of access to the Internet. As many of you know, when this was first enacted there were dozens of States and local taxing commissars who were, back then, right in the beginning, imposing disparate taxes on a consumer's ability to surf the Internet. Since the last expiration of the Internet Tax Freedom Act in 2001, some States have begun taxing the high-speed component of broadband Internet access services. They are asserting that certain portions of high-speed broadband Internet access are telecommunications services rather than Internet access and the States are thereby circumventing the original intentions of the law. Working with Chairman McCain and Senator Wyden and Senator Sununu in the Commerce Committee, we updated the definition of Internet access to assure that all access services, regardless of the technology used to deliver the service, are covered by the moratorium and therefore exempt from State and local taxation. There have been some misleading statements, some clever hyperbole, and some statements that are just flat-out wrong. I want to set the record straight. They have raised a number of concerns, the proponents of higher taxes, with this legislation, indicating that we have expanded the moratorium on Internet access to include all telecommunications services making tax free even traditional services like local and long distance telephone communications. They have also raised a question of whether or not this bill would prohibit States from imposing property taxes, income taxes, or corporate taxes on telecommunications carriers and Internet service providers. I want Members of this body to understand and be clear on the facts and the truth about this legislation. This bill does not affect traditional voice or long distance telephone services or any other communications service that is not directly used to provide Internet access. This bill, S. 150, does not affect a State's ability to collect income taxes, property taxes, or other corporate taxes, such as franchising fees, that are unrelated to Internet access. The facts are, S. 150 does not unnecessarily expand the moratorium on Internet access; rather, the legislation clarifies and updates the original intentions of the Internet Tax Freedom Act to include high- speed Internet access services. Only because some States and localities have attempted, and in fact are circumventing the original law by taxing portions of high-speed Internet access, did the definition of Internet access need to be updated. The impact of broadband and efforts to stop broadband from being deployed by this taxing approach that is going on, that we are trying to cure, will have a very significant impact on small towns and rural areas. Our colleague, Conrad Burns of Montana, likes to talk about how you have to get broadband out in the country, and he would say there is a lot of dirt you have to dig through just to get from one light bulb to another. The same applies to getting broadband out into the communities and out into the country. If you have higher costs imposed on Internet access and then on top of it all you are putting higher costs on the investment for the transport, that means fewer people in a less populated area will be able to afford broadband, thereby denying them opportunities that one would have, whether it is for information, for education, for knowledge, or for commerce, for small businesses and people who live in rural areas. Another fact: In this bill it only makes permanent the tax moratorium on Internet access services, which is simply the ability to get access to the Internet. Once a consumer has accessed the Internet, the moratorium does not affect the services that are purchased, used, or sold over the Internet that would otherwise be taxable, even if such services are bundled together with Internet access services. So, in summary, the fact is, by allowing this moratorium to expire, the Senate has opened the door for States and localities to begin imposing regressive taxes on Internet access services. By taxing Internet access, States and localities are actually contributing, and would be contributing, to the economic digital divide. The more expensive we allow the State and local tax commissars to make Internet access, the less likely people are going to be able to buy these advanced services, such as high-speed broadband connections, Internet protocol software, wireless or WiFi devices, and many other multimedia applications. At a time when technology, as my friend Senator Wyden has said, and the Internet are growing and improving almost every aspect of our daily lives, where access to the Internet is not a nicety but a necessity for Americans, imposing new taxes on access or levying taxes that discriminate against the Internet as a form of commerce will never be sound policy for America. As a tool, the Internet breaks down economic and educational barriers, leveling the playing field for millions of Americans. There are those who say it shouldn't be permanent; let's make it shorter. When you talk to business investors--and let's go back to rural and small town areas. When someone is making a business investment they want to have some credibility and stability and predictability as to making these millions of dollars of investment to get into a smaller market. What is going to be our rate of return? When are we going to recoup the tens of millions of dollars it takes to get into these areas? We just heard an argument on the Agriculture bill about loans to get broadband. It is a lifeline for folks out in the country, in rural areas. There are all sorts of incentives that people are for. Businesses making those investments have to figure out when are they going to get a return on the investment. If you tax a transport or make it for a short duration of time, they are going to say: Gosh, there are going to be taxes on it in a few years so there will be fewer customers. We just can't risk that investment to get out into those areas. So, more than ever, I really do believe we ought to listen to good, sound business reasoning, common sense and logic. In fact, most economists and technology experts agree that we need to be encouraging the deployment of the next generation broadband Internet connections and bring our communications infrastructure into the 21st century. Economists at the Brookings Institution estimate that widespread high-speed broadband access would increase our national gross domestic product by $500 billion annually by 2006. Failure to pass this legislation with a permanent moratorium and with an updated and clear definition of Internet access like the one this amendment provides, will leave broadband Internet access susceptible and open to harmful taxation. In many States and localities, those taxes could go up as high as 25 percent. Any additional tax burdens on the Internet will mean additional costs many Americans cannot afford, forcing the poor in our society to reduce or even forego their use of the Internet as a tool for exploration, information, education, and individual opportunity. More than ever before, when our economy is finally moving forward in the right direction, the people of this country need security with regard to their financial future. Businesses need certainty that prices for Internet access will remain affordable to consumers if they are expected to build out high-speed networks to rural and small-town communities. In a society, indeed a world, where the quality of life and economic power is directly proportionate to one's access to knowledge, we must close the economic digital divide rather than exacerbate it with State and local taxes. I call on my colleagues to join with the chairman, our commodore, Senator McCain, Senator Wyden, and all of us in supporting the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act and permanently extending the Internet moratorium on tax access and multiple and discriminatory taxes. As we vote on amendments to what would be this Internet access tax issue--and there will be amendments--I respectfully ask my colleagues as we look at these amendments to be leaders who stand strong for freedom and opportunity for all Americans. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. As many of my colleagues have heard me say on many occasions, I believe it is important that we--and I tried to do it myself--advocate policies and ideas that promote freedom and opportunity for all Americans. We in the Senate must advance ideas that help create more investment, thereby creating more jobs and prosperity rather than more burdens from taxation and regulation. This measure permanently extends the moratorium banning access taxes and taxes that discriminate against the Internet. It is one of my priorities. I know the Senator presiding shares that same philosophy and has been a great leader in that regard. As we all know, the Internet is one of our country's greatest tools and symbols of innovation and individual empowerment. I look at the invention of the Internet as profoundly transforming and revolutionary for the dissemination of ideas and information, as important as was the Gutenberg Press. Accordingly, I think everyone in the Senate would want to help the Internet grow and flourish as a viable tool for education, information, and commerce. I stand on the side of freedom of the Internet, trusting free people and free entrepreneurs--not on the side of making this advancement in technology easier to tax for the tax collectors. One of the great things about the Internet is that it is not limited by boundaries of State governments, local governments, not even limited by the boundary of this country. Clearly, the Internet is intrastate commerce. Thus, the Federal Government, Congress, has jurisdiction in the taxation and regulation of the Internet. My legislation, S. 150, promotes equal access to the Internet for all Americans and protects every American from harmful, regressive taxes on Internet access services as well as duplicative and predatory taxes on Internet transactions. Specifically, as reported out of the Commerce Committee, S. 150 has five provisions. First, it extends permanently the country's Federal prohibition of State and local taxation on Internet access service. Second, it makes permanent the ban on all multiple and discriminatory taxes relating to electronic commerce. This ensures that several jurisdictions cannot tax the same transaction simply because the transaction happens to occur over the Internet. Third, my legislation repeals the so-called grandfathering provision over a 3-year-period. Fourth, we make clear the original intent of the Internet Tax Freedom Act by updating the definition of Internet access to ensure the moratorium applies consistently to all consumers. If we are going to exempt Internet access services from taxation permanently, then it makes sense to do so in a manner that applies to all methods and ways a consumer might have access to the Internet, regardless of how they choose to access it, whether by DSL--digital subscriber line connections--by wireless connections, by cable modem service, satellite, or dial-up service. Fifth, and lastly, this legislation ensures that nothing prevents the collection or remittance of State and Federal universal service fees. The Internet tax moratorium has contributed to extending Internet access to over 127 million citizens, approximately 45 percent of our country's population. Unfortunately, that moratorium expired Friday night. Every day that the moratorium lapses, consumers are susceptible to more pestering, burdensome new taxes on Internet access services, as well as taxes on e-mail, taxes on instant messages, spam filters, and even Web searches. For every dollar in taxation--and most kids in elementary school will understand these economics--every dollar added in taxation adds to the cost of the Internet access. With that, you could expect to see lost utilization of the Internet by thousands of American families, especially lower income families. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 30 percent of non-internet users say cost is the major reason they remain off line. Additionally, 43 percent of non-internet users agreed with the statement, ``Internet access is too expensive.'' For roughly 55 percent of the American people who are still off line, keeping access affordable--and that means keeping access free from State, local, and Federal taxation--is vital. The guiding principle of this legislation is simple and clear: The Internet should remain as accessible as possible to all people in all parts of the country forever. That has been the position I have taken on this and held since 1997 during my days as Governor of Virginia when I was one of only four Governors to share this position. I cannot envision any time in our future where it will be desirable for any government to tax access to the Internet. I cannot envision any instance or event that would precipitate the justification for multiple or discriminatory taxes on the Internet by any government, whether large or small, local, State, or national. Yet if the Senate fails to take action by the end of this week or any Senator votes against this legislation, such Member is in effect advocating taxing the Internet. There are more Americans empowered by the Internet primarily because the Federal policy of the United States has consciously allowed Internet innovators, entrepreneurs, and consumers to remain free from onerous taxation. As many know, Congress first enacted this moratorium with the Internet Tax Freedom Act in 1998 after dozens of State and local taxing commissars began to impose disparate taxes on a consumer's ability to access the Internet. Since the last extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act in 2001, some States have begun taxing the high-speed component of broadband Internet access services by asserting that certain portions of high- speed broadband Internet access are telecommunication services rather than Internet access services. The States doing this are therefore circumventing the original intentions of the law. Working with our chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator John McCain, as well as Senator Ron Wyden and Senator John Sununu in the Commerce Committee, we have updated the definition of Internet access to ensure that all Internet access services, regardless of the technology used to deliver that service, are covered by the moratorium and therefore exempt from State and local taxation. I want to also address for my colleagues the misleading statements made regarding S. 150. I understand the proponents of higher taxes at the State and local level have raised a number of concerns about this legislation, indicating that we expanded the moratorium on Internet access to include all telecommunication services, making tax free even traditional services such as local and long-distance telephone communications. Additionally, they have raised the question whether or not this bill would prohibit States from imposing property and corporate income taxes on telecommunication carriers and Internet service providers. The false assertions come maybe from confusion, maybe from a misunderstanding, but in some cases they are intentionally, outright, and flat wrong statements. I am here to set the record straight. I want all the Members of this body to understand and be clear on the facts about this legislation: S. 150 does not affect traditional voice or long-distance telephone services or any other communication service that is not directly used to provide Internet access; S. 150 does not affect a State's ability to collect income, property, or other corporate taxes, such as franchising fees, that are unrelated to Internet access. The fact is S. 150 does not unnecessarily expand the moratorium on Internet access. Rather, the legislation clarifies the original intentions of the Internet Tax Freedom Act to include high-speed Internet access services. Only because some States and localities attempted to circumvent the original law by taxing portions of high- speed Internet access did the definition of Internet access need to be updated. The impact of what the States and localities are trying to do in taxing broadband has implications that particularly are harmful to small communities and rural areas. We have always advocated that we have to get broadband to rural areas. Obviously, it costs a great deal of money. Our good colleague, Senator Conrad Burns, says out in the country there is a lot of dirt to dig between light bulbs. If you are going to get broadband to rural areas, there is a great investment to get it there because you have a fewer number of customers to recoup your investment. In the event a tax is put on to broadband, it means obviously fewer people can afford it, thereby making it less likely that a company is going to invest the millions and millions of dollars it will take to get broadband deployed or high speed deployed to rural areas, thereby ruining, hindering, hampering the ability of people and small businesses in rural communities to get access to high- speed Internet services which is vital for them getting information, education, as well as conducting business. The fact is, S. 150 only makes permanent the tax moratorium on Internet access services, which is simply the ability to get access to the Internet. Once a consumer has accessed the Internet, the moratorium does not affect the services that are purchased, used, or sold over the Internet that would otherwise be taxable, even if those services are bundled together with Internet access services. Proponents of Internet taxes say this bill is an unfunded mandate. The fact is, the cost associated with S. 150 only affects those few States and localities that were grandfathered under the original Tax Freedom Act of 1998. Additionally, my legislation delays the repeal of the grandfathering provision for a 3-year period, ensuring that the moratorium on Internet access taxes applies equally in all 50 States, while giving these few taxing States and localities additional time to adjust their budgets accordingly. Let's realize this has been now 5 years where these States and localities have had time--5 years--to remove these Internet access taxes. With my bill, S. 150, they will have, in effect, 8 years to repeal these regressive taxes on Internet access. I would invite them to look at the record since the enactment of the 1998 moratorium where several States, plus the District of Columbia, have in fact chosen to move away from Internet taxes. For example, in 1999, Iowa enacted a law specifically exempting Internet access from taxation. In South Carolina, after the enactment of the Federal moratorium in 1998, the Governor and tax department issued formal announcements indicating the State would abide by the national tax moratorium and would cease trying to collect taxes on Internet access services. Connecticut's State legislature approved a law that accelerated the phaseout of Internet access taxes in July of 2001. Additionally, in April of 2000, Arizona enacted a law exempting Internet access from State and local sales tax. Finally, in 1999, the District of Columbia also eliminated taxes on Internet access. Meanwhile, we do have these other States--for example, Kentucky, Alabama, and others--that have attempted to tax the transport of high- speed broadband Internet access. In summary, the fact is, by allowing the moratorium to expire, the Senate has opened the door for States and localities to begin imposing regressive taxes on Internet access services. By taxing Internet access, States and localities are actually contributing to the economic digital divide. The more expensive we allow the State and local tax commissars to make Internet access, the less likely people are to be able to buy these advanced services, such as high-speed broadband connections. It makes it harder for them to purchase Internet protocol software, wireless fidelity, or WiFi devices, or many other multimedia applications. These applications are all made less likely to be affordable for many millions of Americans. In a time when technology and the Internet have grown into improving almost every aspect of our daily lives, and where access to the Internet is a necessity for Americans, it just seems to me that imposing new taxes on access or levying taxes that discriminate against the Internet as a form of commerce will just never be sound policy for our country. As a tool, what is great about the Internet is it breaks down economic and educational barriers, leveling the playing field for millions of Americans. You will also hear some say: Let's just have a short extension. Let's have a short extension. We do not need to make it permanent. Well, going back to the business model and understanding how businesses have to invest, they like to see some certainty. If you have a short moratorium, there is less certainty, there is less predictability for investment, therefore, fewer job opportunities, and less likelihood that broadband or high speed will get out to the smaller towns and communities in rural areas. More than ever before, with our Nation's economy finally moving forward in the right direction, the people of this country need security with regard to their financial future. Any additional tax burdens on the Internet will mean additional costs many Americans cannot afford, forcing the poorest in our society to reduce or even forego the use of the Internet as a tool for commerce, education, information, exploration, and individual responsibility and opportunity. In a society--indeed, a world--where the quality of life and an individual's opportunity for prosperity are directly related proportionately to one's access to and the acquisition of knowledge, we as a Senate must choose to close this economic digital divide rather than exacerbate it by allowing States and localities to further tax the Internet. I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, which permanently extends the Internet moratorium on access, multiple, and discriminatory taxes. In sum, I ask my colleagues to be leaders, leaders who stand strong for individual freedom and stand strong for opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Senator Allen are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. It is not right for any scientist or any other person to exaggerate for political effect. But even as much has been made of the vociferous debates before the Senate about past climate change, little has been said about the remarkable scientific agreement about the future. Scientists all agree that human affect on any climate change would warm the coldest air of winter much more than the heat of the summer. When Russia's Prime Minister Putin rejected the Kyoto Protocol last week, he noted that, more than anything else, humans have made Siberia more habitable, according to Dr. Pat Michaels, State Climatologist at The University of Virginia. The most recent consensus of scientists is that the rate of any warming over a long period of time is very small. And, the slight warming trend is much lower than the alarmist projections of the United Nations, or those who may have touted ``extreme scenarios,'' or those who strive to profit politically from climate change scare tactics. Then, one may ask, what is to be done? After all, we cannot go on adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere forever. We won't. If history is any guide, our technology will continue to evolve toward increased efficiency, new materials and new propulsion methods in the next 100 years. In 1800, we were a Nation and world moved by animals and wind on water. In the next 100 years, the locomotive transformed our economy and our Nation. In 1900, the automobile had just been invented. In the next 100 years, transportation and energy fueled the great democratization of wealth and the spread of culture. In 1900, 7,000 people died in the Galveston Hurricane. Mr. President, 100 years later a similar storm hit Texas and killed no one, thanks to advances in meteorology and satellite technology. Could anyone have imagined this in 1900, as we buried the dead from the largest natural disaster in American history? Hardly. But this is how a free, creative world develops if the governments allow ingenuity to thrive to improve our lives. What will be the technology of the future? No one can say for certain. But we all can spur its development by encouraging the marketplace in the vast, diverse fields of nanotechnology or aeronautics, for prime examples. And that is the state of our climate. Climate will continue to change. That cannot be stopped. But so will technology change, unless the Government chooses to hinder new investment in better materials, fuels and systems. Fortunately, now sound science, rather than political science, shows warming is a much slower process than was once feared. My bottom line is that I cannot countenance the loss of tens of thousands of American jobs based upon the scientific factual evidence surrounding this measure. Exhibit 1 October 28, 2003. Hon. Bill Frist, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Frist: We are writing to state our serious concerns about S. 139, ``The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003,'' and to strongly urge that you vote against this bill to avoid the significant job losses and economic harm that it would inflict on our economy, without necessarily achieving any reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. According to an analysis conducted by the independent Energy Information Administration (EIA), S. 139 would cause an estimated average loss of 460,000 American jobs through 2025, with estimated job losses reaching 600,000 by 2012. Instead of improving our economic security through economic growth and job creation, the job losses resulting from S. 139 would place an unacceptable burden on American workers and the American people. EIA's analysis further reveals the higher energy costs the legislation would impose on American energy consumers: once fully implemented, S. 139 would require a 40 cent per gallon increase in gasoline prices and cause nearly a 50% increase in natural gas and electricity bills. As a result of these higher energy costs, EIA projects a net loss of $507 billion (1996 dollars) in Gross Domestic Product over the next two decades. These higher energy costs and reduced economic growth would likely lead American businesses to move overseas, taking jobs with them. As a result, S. 139 may actually lead to an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions as companies formerly in the U.S. move their operations (and emissions) overseas to countries that do not require similar emissions reductions. To compensate for the economic dislocation that S. 139 would cause, the legislation establishes a ``Climate Change Credit Corporation'' for ``transition assistance to dislocated workers and communities.'' However, we believe that the Senate should instead reject this legislation and avoid inflicting the harm that would create the need for such ``transition assistance'' in the first place. President Bush has committed the U.S. to an ambitious and comprehensive strategy to address the issue of global climate change. It is based on the recognition that only a growing American economy can make possible the sustained investments in energy and carbon sequestration technologies needed to reduce the projected long-term growth in global greenhouse gas emissions. Because of its negative impacts on jobs and economic growth, we call upon the Senate to reject S. 139 as a misguided means of achieving our international environmental goals. Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor. Marianne Horinko, Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, fellow colleagues, please do not overreact by the claim that the climate is changing. The climate has always changed naturally. Thanks in large part to scientific research carried out in the United States, we know much more about our climate than we did a mere quarter-century ago. More than anything else, we now know that climate never has been, and never will be, constant. When our civilization arose with the flowering of agriculture, some 5,000 years ago, climate scientists tell us the earth was a few degrees warmer than it is today. At one time, what is now the dry desert southwest was a much wetter tropical environment. Climate scientists also tell us that 300 years ago it was a few degrees colder, Europe suffered through the Plagues, ice skaters graced the Thames River in London. Mr. President, 150 years ago, when that ``Little Ice Age'' ended, America embarked upon its manifest destiny. In the last 100 years, the Earth has warmed an additional degree, American crop yields quintupled, life span doubled, wealth became democratized beyond the wildest dreams of even the most optimistic. In that 100 years, our free economy was powered largely by fuels extracted from the earth. Some of these produce carbon dioxide, which scientists have known, since 1872, can slightly warm the surface of the earth. At the same time, our competitive economy forced increased efficiency. The family car now uses half as much fuel as it once did. Hybrid automobiles achieve as much as seventy miles to the gallon. All in all, we produce a dollar's worth of goods and services with 40 percent less energy than we did a mere 30 years ago. This remarkable change, where the freest society on Earth became the most capable large economy, did not happen because of massive taxation in misguided attempts to direct the lives of free people. No, it happened because people were free--free to buy the most proficient technology, and, above all, free to invest in corporations who understand what people want. And one of those desires is abundant energy, used efficiently. As has been said, over and over, the future belongs to the efficient. And what of the warming of the planet? In the blazing summer of 1988, in this Senate Chamber, NASA first raised the spectre of global warming caused by carbon dioxide. The alarm was sounded, even as others argued that the gloom-and-doom forecasts were overwrought and could lead to disastrous policies. Fifteen years later, thanks in large part to research fostered by this body's committees on science, we know that the calm scientific heads were right. NASA scientist James Hansen, who first sounded the alarm, now agrees with those who were once his critics. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he recently stated that we know how much the planet will warm in the next 50 years to a very small margin of error. That amount is precisely the small warming that the calmer heads had forecast some 15 years earlier. This same scientist has recently stated that some may have exaggerated the threat of global warming for political science purposes. Just last month, he wrote in the online journal ``Natural Science'': ``Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and policymakers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue.'' Moreover, according to a report issued by the Global Climate Coalition, mandatory emissions goals could result in a loss of gross domestic product equal to $300 billion in 2010 alone, assuming that 2010 emissions are held at 1990 levels. How many American jobs would be lost as a result? How many companies will have to close their doors? I would like to read to you, part of a letter from the Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans, Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, and Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Marianne Horinko: According to an analysis conducted by the independent Energy Information Administration, S. 139 would cause an estimated average loss of 460,000 American jobs through 2025. It goes on to say, Instead of improving our economic security through economic growth and job creation, the job losses resulting from S. 139 would place an unacceptable burden on American workers and the American people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of this letter be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. This amendment allows the administration to be extremely flexible in finding an approach. It could involve training, equipment, or a range of other measures. I do not want to micro-manage this process. I want to leave this in the hands of those in the administration with expertise on this issue. I would defer, in large measure, to State Department officials, especially those posted overseas who are dealing with the problem on a daily basis, to come up with a workable strategy. However, I do believe that this is a problem that requires a coherent plan and a coordinated approach by the United States Government. And, I believe that the State Department, in close consultation with the United States Trade Representative, USTR, and the Department of Commerce, should formulate a detailed strategy for the use of these funds before they are obligated. Other agencies, such as the Patent and Trademark Office, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Library of Congress, have expertise on this issue. They can be extremely helpful in implementing these programs, especially with respect to training individuals from developing nations.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. The Allen-Leahy amendment provides $5 million under the ``International Narcotics and Law Enforcement'' account to improve enforcement of intellectual property laws to combat piracy in developing countries. This is a very important issue, as it relates directly to our economic viability as a nation.