George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, on the occasion of Taiwan's National Day on October 10, 2003, I wish to pay tribute to Taiwan's many achievements and to wish Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian and Ambassador C.J. Chen my very best wishes. The Republic of China on Taiwan is a major trading partner of the United States and it subscribes to human rights, the private enterprise system, freedom and democracy. Taiwan has become a model of economic and political success. We are very proud of the achievements of the free people of Taiwan. I am honored to serve as the cochair of the Senate Taiwan Caucus, which was officially kicked off on September 17 with 11 members. We now have 14 members, and I hope more Senators will join this caucus and further strengthen the relationship between the U.S. Senate and Taiwan's Parliament and the people of America and Taiwan. Again, my congratulations to Taiwan and its people on their National Day. May you remain the land of freedom.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the nomination of Glen E. Conrad to be District Court Judge for the Western District of Virginia. I have known Glen Conrad since the day I got out of law school at the University of Virginia, and I was a law clerk for Judge Williams in Abingdon, VA, not far from the Tennessee line. Glen Conrad was a U.S. magistrate judge in Abingdon and then he later moved up to Roanoke. Judge Conrad is tremendously qualified not only to be a judge in the U.S. district court for the Western District of Virginia but a leader-- a judge who is a leader, who understands the system and the operation of the court in the Western District of Virginia. In fact--and I know I speak for my colleague, John Warner--we examine many highly qualified individuals and we truly could find nobody more qualified by a proven record of experience and performance, with the proper judicial philosophy, with a proven temperament to fill this judgeship. Indeed, this judgeship has been declared a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference. Glen Conrad is experienced, knowledgeable, fair, and possesses an outstanding reputation and proven judicial experience. As I said, I have known him for many years. His wife is someone who I have admired, and I put her on the community college board when I was Governor of Virginia. Glen Conrad is a graduate of the College of William and Mary, and that is a very good undergraduate and law school. He is looked upon highly by his peers who know and acknowledge his qualifications and his experience. He has been positively endorsed by the Virginia Bar Association, the Roanoke Bar Association, the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys. He has been highly recommended by the Virginia Women Attorneys Association and by the Virginia State Bar. In fact, he received a highly qualified endorsement from the American Bar Association as well. So whether he is serving in this very large 51-county district, which includes courts in Danville, Lynchburg, Charlottesville, and then in the valley of Harrisonburg, as well as in Roanoke, Abingdon, and Big Stone Gap, regardless whether on the south side, the Piedmont, western, or southwestern Virginia, I believe the President has chosen a very outstanding nominee who will honorably and fairly administer justice in the Western District of Virginia and I urge my colleagues to support him. I endorse him with my full confidence and recommend his approval this evening because we need to get him to work for the people and the litigants in the Western District of Virginia. I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I recognize William O'Brien, county administrator for Rockingham County, VA, who is retiring December 31, 2003, after 26 years of dedicated service. William O'Brien began his career in the U.S. Marine Corps, where he spent 4 years before receiving his bachelor's degree from Mansfield University in 1969. He later earned an MBA from Southeastern University in 1978 before taking his current position in Rockingham County. As county administrator, Mr. O'Brien spent 26 years dutifully serving the residents of Rockingham County. Prior to his work in Rockingham, he also served as county administrator for Warren County, VA from 1973 to 1977. In addition, Mr. O'Brien spent more than 10 years as a professor at James Madison University and Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, VA. I congratulate Mr. O'Brien on his years of dedicated service to the people of Rockingham County and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I recognize Dr. Cynthia Tyson, who retired this year from her position as president of Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, VA. Dr. Tyson was born and raised in England, where she received both her bachelor's and master's degrees, as well as her Ph.D. She first came to the United States as a Fulbright scholar, and has worked in higher education as both a lecturer and an administrator. During her 18-year tenure at Mary Baldwin College, she was the active force behind that school's renaissance into a nationally renowned women's liberal arts college. From the beginning of her tenure in 1985 to this day, Mary Baldwin College has more than doubled its enrollment, with almost 2,200 students attending 6 locations throughout Virginia. The college has consistently attracted more highly qualified applicants, with the SATs and GPAs of its applicants increasing every year. Under Dr. Tyson's presidency, Mary Baldwin's endowment has increased threefold, with a record-setting $58 million raised in its most recent capital campaign. All told, Mary Baldwin College, thanks to Dr. Tyson, is the largest and fastest growing women's college in Virginia. In addition to her work at Mary Baldwin College, Dr. Tyson served as president of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and was an active member in professional organizations, including the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the Virginia Foundation for Independent Colleges, and the State of Virginia Rhodes Scholarship Competition Selection Committee. She is also active in the Staunton community through the Frontier Culture Museum, Shenandoah Shakespeare, and Rotary International. Dr. Tyson has left an indelible mark not only on the institution that she served so well as president but also on the hearts and minds of her colleagues, students, and community as a friend and inspiration. I congratulate her and wish her well in her retirement.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I recognize Mr. Luther E. ``Ikey'' Miller, who passed away on March 17, 2003 in Rileyville, VA. Born on January 27, 1932, Mr. Miller was involved in a wide array of activities in his lifetime, including law, business, politics, the military, sports, music, and agriculture. Throughout his life, he was influential in his community. In 1973, he was appointed to serve as Page County Circuit Court clerk, a post that he held for 26 years, becoming an integral part of the local judiciary. Mr. Miller also served as chairman of the Page County Republican Party for 16 years, and as a Presidential elector for Virginia in the 2000 Presidential election. A Virginia native, he graduated from Luray High School in 1949. Mr. Miller entered the U.S. Army in 1952, serving until 1954, and achieving the rank of corporal before his honorable discharge. He also worked 21 years for First National Bank as a cashier and loan officer. Mr. Miller loved sports, especially baseball, which he played in the minor leagues, as well as football and hunting. He also farmed full- time throughout his life with the help of his family, and played in a country music band for 20 years. Mr. Miller will surely be missed by his wife of 47 years Shirley, his family, friends, and the community he served so faithfully during his life. I join with the Miller family in mourning the loss of such a great family man, public servant, and Virginian.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 978, which is at the desk.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, it is altogether fitting that we have finally accomplished this idea on the second anniversary of the violent and dastardly attacks of September 11, 2001. Several survivors of that tragic day helped inspire this legislation, which will adjust Federal employees' retirement computations to offset reductions in the retirement amounts arising from on-the-job injuries covered under the workers compensation program. I thank my colleague, John Warner of Virginia, for cosponsoring the measure. I particularly thank Kay Cole James in the Office of Personnel Management and her staff for working with me on this measure for well over a year now. Moreover, I wish to thank my colleague, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, whose leadership today, earlier this year, and last year helped move this measure several times through the procedural hoops of the Senate. Finally, we have gotten it passed on the House side. Mr. President, this bill addresses a problem in the retirement program for Federal employees that has been recognized for a long time but unresolved since 1986, when the current retirement system was established. Unfortunately, complications arising from the Tax Code and the Workers Rehabilitation Act of 1973 have blocked any solution. My resolve to introduce this bill and address this problem was inspired by Ms. Louise Kurtz, a Federal employee from Virginia who was severely injured in the September 11 attack, 2 years ago today, on the Pentagon. She worked at the Pentagon as a civil service employee. She suffered burns from the impact of American Airlines Flight 77, but even with all these burns, she still was trying to rescue and help others get out. She suffered burns on over 70 percent of her body. I have seen her several times. In fact, I saw her last year, at the Project Phoenix, the reopening and dedication of the Pentagon. She had no fingers left--just little nubs, really. Her ears were mostly burned off as well. She is a person, though, who continues to endure these painful surgeries and faces other surgeries in the future. She wants to continue with her rehabilitation. She still hopes to return to work someday. Current law, however, does not allow Mrs. Kurtz to contribute to her retirement program while she is recuperating and receiving workers compensation disability payments. As a result, after returning to work and eventually retiring, she will find herself inadequately prepared and unable to afford to retire because of the lack of contributions during her recuperation and rehabilitation. As Mrs. Kurtz's situation reveals, Federal employees under the Federal employees retirement system who have sustained an on-the-job injury and are receiving disability compensation from the Department of Labor's Office of Workers Compensation Programs are unable to make contributions or payments into Social Security or the Thrift Savings Plan. Therefore, under the current situation, which is being changed by this law, future retirement benefits from both sources--the Thrift Savings Plan and Social Security--are reduced. This legislation offsets the reductions in Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan retirement benefits by increasing the Federal Employees Retirement System's direct benefit calculation by 1 percentage point for the extended periods of disability. Mr. President, you have probably already heard my talk about this bill because we have actually passed this measure twice in the Senate. We passed it once on October 17, 2002, and then again in July of this year, 2003. As a lead sponsor of the bill, I was pleased to see that my colleague on the House side, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, with her persistence, finally got the House of Representatives to pass this measure yesterday. By taking this matter up and passing it in the Senate today, we are clearing it for the President's signature. The passage of this bill ensures that the pensions of our hard- working Federal employees will be kept whole during a period of injury and recuperation, especially now that many of them are on the front lines in protecting our homeland security in this new and ongoing war against terror. By protecting the retirement security of injured Federal employees, we have provided an incentive for them to return to work and increased our ability to retain our most dedicated and experienced Federal workers. This is a reasonable and fair approach, in which the whole Senate acted in a logical and compassionate manner last fall, and, of course, we did so in July, and we have done so again today. On the second anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after the brave efforts of those passengers, I thank my colleagues for once again passing this compassionate legislation honoring and helping some of the survivors of these horrific events. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to consume as much time as I may require to speak in opposition to this proposed resolution.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution which will essentially throw out six media ownership regulations issued by the FCC on June 2. There are a variety of issues to cover, and I hope to do that in a coherent and cogent manner. Let me first say to my friend from North Dakota, the issues we are talking about are media ownership of 35 percent versus 45 percent; the issue of cross-ownership, whether newspapers and TV stations can be owned by the same entity or enterprise; and the other issue is whether medium and smaller sized markets are afforded the same opportunities for working together as are allowed in large media markets. Those are the three issues. A lot is focused on just one issue, but the cross-ownership and the so-called duopoly or multiple ownership issues are also very important. It was said by the Senator from North Dakota that the local TV cap and cross-media rule are going to allow one company to dominate sources of news and information in one community. This is simply not true. It is an alarmist argument that may get folks all fired up. The rules the FCC put forward modify the rules that represent long overdue reactions to very extensive and well-researched and documented changes in the marketplace. The new ownership rules that are being put forward ensure no company can dominate a local media landscape. In reality, the newspaper cross-ownership will continue to be completely prohibited in all markets with three or fewer TV stations while only cross-ownership will be allowed in midsized markets with between four and eight TV stations. Only in the Nation's largest market, representing approximately 70 out of the 210 TV markets in the United States, would cross-ownership restrictions be removed. Even in those markets, however, parties will continue to be subject to the FCC's separate local television duopoly and radio ownership limits. So any newspaper-broadcast combination thus will be subjected to competition from at least three and generally more independently owned television stations, numerous radio outlets, not to mention the wealth of cable, DSS, the Internet satellite print competitors, as well, that make up the contemporary media ownership spectrum that is available to consumers. From the very beginning, in the 1930s, the core principles that drove the Nation's communications policies were localism, competition, and diversity. Ownership rules are a byproduct of this public interest and in constructing rules, our Government seeks to preserve these principles, and they continue to be preserved with the FCC's regulation. After 20 months of decisions, comprehensive, exhaustive analysis by the FCC, they have finally done what the courts and the Congress commanded them to do--to adopt new ownership rules that are based on empirical evidence and also the present marketplace. On June 2, the Commission made positive steps in crafting updated rules to take into account the new media outlets that are available to consumers for news information and entertainment. Every 2 years, the FCC is required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to review the media-ownership regulations. Over the past 2 years, five of the six ownership rules were challenged in court. In each case, the FCC's prior regulations, or regulations at that time, were overturned. Indeed, both Congress and the courts have given the Commission a high standard of establishing legally sustainable ownership limits that most importantly remain in the public interest. Unfortunately, many have turned this important policy debate into a political one, substituting opinion for fact. Allegations that these rules will allow four or five companies to dominate all major sources of news and information in one community make for good headlines but are simply not grounded in fact. Over 40 years ago, in the era of black and white television, three networks controlled the TV airwaves, providing only 15 minutes of evening news and 5 minutes of brief news snippets throughout the day on an irregular basis. Today, the fact is there are more choices available to the consumer in terms of how they access information than any other time in our Nation's history--in fact, more than any time in the history of mankind. Even in small towns, the number of media outlets, including cable, satellite, radio and TV stations, has increased by over 250 percent during the past 40 years. Independent ownership of these outlets is far more diverse with approximately 139 percent more independent owners than there were 40 years ago. Today, there are three 24-hour all-news networks, seven broadcast networks, and over 300 cable networks. The multiple news programs, independent commentary, public affairs channels are all fueling our democratic economy and opportunities. There is more programming, more choice and more control in the hands of citizens today than ever before. Sure, times have changed, changed for the better, and the rules governing this burgeoning industry also ought to change to reflect the current state of innovation and new technologies. Otherwise, the rules that were once designed to help consumers, if this resolution passes, have the potential to harm consumers, limiting quality and opportunities for choice programming. Much of this debate gets focused on the 35-percent versus 45-percent broadcast ownership cap and whether that ought to be increased. Our opponents maintain that increasing the cap presents a problem because the five major broadcast networks already own 80 to 90 percent of the top cable channels. In truth, the five companies do not control the majority of the channels. Eighty to ninety percent, that statistic, is what the opponents refer to as actually related to viewership. Now, we heard earlier about Disney and we do not want to be against Disney. Well, let's just take last Sunday night's ESPN broadcast of the Raiders-Titans game which was played in Nashville, TN. I did not particularly like the results, but it sure did score big ratings, averaging 10.8 million viewers, averaging 7.8 million households. However, this number only amounts to approximately 11 percent of all households that subscribe to cable or satellite programming. This is by far the No. 1 for ESPN for an opening Sunday night game. At any given time, a consumer watching television actually has an opportunity to look at 54 different stations. Sunday night's game was the highest rated regular season game in the Nashville TV market since the Titans moved to Music City. Of the sixty- eight percent of the televisions that were on in Nashville, two-thirds of them were watching the Raiders-Titans game. That is about 48 percent of all TVs, so not every TV was on. Nevertheless, those that were on, 68 percent were watching that game. It was the sixth highest rated TV broadcast overall in Nashville since 1997. The top four, and five of the top six, highest rated TV programs in Nashville since 1997 are Titans games. That was led by last January's AFC championship game, in which case I was more happy in that the Raiders beat the Titans, but that was the No. 1 Sunday game of all-time back in January. With this approach, since people in the Nashville, TN, area, or maybe in the Oakland area or elsewhere, two-thirds of them wanting to watch that game, does that mean we ought to be prohibiting or regulating or punishing ESPN or ABC or Disney because they have programming that people actually want to watch? What do we want to make them do, watch something we think is better for them than popular programming? This is a rare situation that there is such viewership, but that will happen. It is consumer choice to see it. In my view, what we ought to do is trust free people. I would never advocate limiting consumer choice or American's ability to access information. We are all concerned about consolidation. We all are opposed to monopolies and care about antitrust. We want to preserve diversity and competition in the media marketplace, but if we look at the real number of options that are available to consumers today across media outlets, consumers have an unprecedented abundance of choices. We get statistics from 1943 to 2000, and there are obviously big increases. Newspapers are about the same or slightly less. In 1943 there were about 1,700 daily newspapers. Now there are approximately 1,500. In 1943 there were 931 AM stations. In 1978, there were about 4,500. In 2001--the best statistics we have presently--it has gone up to 4,700-plus AM stations. In 1943, there were 59 FM radio stations. In 1978, there were 4,069. It has doubled since 1978 to over 8,285 FM stations. Full-power TV stations have gone from 6 in 1943 to 988 in 1978, and in 2001, there were 1,686 full-powered TV stations. In 1978 there were zero lower powered TV stations. In 2001, there were 2,212 low-powered TV stations. Cable started kicking off in the 1970s, and it had about 13 million subscribers. Now, in 2001, there are 69 million. DBS subscribers, of course, there were zero if we are talking about to 1990. In 2001, there were 16 million plus. There are a variety of other areas: Internet access, big difference. Nobody was using Internet access back in the 1990s. Now there are literally hundreds of millions of people on the Internet, and Internet access is about 72 percent. Broadcast networks in 2001, 7 in English and 2 in Spanish; cable networks are now approximately 300; and there are over approximately 2,454-plus channel cable systems. That is what is in the power, in the discretion, in the choice of the American people. They are the ones who see the competition. They are the ones who have control and are making the choice as to what they want to watch. On the issues of newspaper cross-ownership and the local television ownership or duopoly issues, if the resolution were debated today and passed next week, we would be reverting back to the rules that were created in the 1970s. In both cases, the rules are outdated and largely unnecessary, given the increase in the number of media outlets. In some cases, cross-ownership may actually benefit consumers in smaller markets where broadcast companies and newspaper owners face financially challenging conditions. If this resolution passes, local television stations in smaller markets will be prohibited from combining to pool their resources to provide better programming and more local coverage. We all know local news and reporting is expensive to produce, both in getting digital equipment and quality news staff. Those are major expenses, especially in smaller markets where there is less advertising; therefore, less can be charged but there are still pretty much the basic same costs as a large market would have. And while the large market can get all that advertising revenue because they are potentially having contact with more people, they can get their costs recouped. In the smaller markets, there are pretty much the same costs with less of a revenue stream, which makes it more difficult to operate stations in those smaller markets. I am aware of at least two markets in Virginia--Harrisonburg and Charlottesville--that would benefit from the new media rules the Commission issued on June 2. Both of these markets are very small in comparison to the big markets of New York City and Los Angeles and simply don't have the same resources available for comprehensive news programming and so forth that the New York City and LA markets may have. But they still try to make it in a smaller market. Another interesting nuance, ignored in this, is what this does to some markets that were grandfathered, before the 1996 act. In some Virginia markets, and one shared with Virginia and Tennessee, back in 1975 they were grandfathered, or waived, under the ownership rules. If this resolution passes, they potentially will no longer be able to provide local news--if this resolution passes. This is where you have cross-ownership. Previously, and currently under the present rules and law, both the Roanoke and Lynchburg markets as well as the Tri-Cities-- which, as the President knows, are Bristol, Johnson City, and Kingsport--were grandfathered. If this resolution passes, potentially they will no longer be able to provide local news. You also have in the Lynchburg market the local television station and the two local newspapers, the Lynchburg and Danville papers. Both of these media sources have been permitted to combine resources, and that has led to expanded news coverage and increased program offerings for their customers and constituents. I am increasingly convinced by these successful examples in Virginia--this is not theory but it is fact--that we should be relaxing the newspaper cross-ownership rules and regulations. If this resolution passes, it will harm the ability of these voices and these markets to be able to pool their resources for more effective and better reporting and production. I think these FCC rules, by the way, preserve the key, core principles of localism, diversity, and competition. A duopoly--local TV cap. I was visited by several constituent station managers from the Shenandoah Valley, Roanoke area, and Bristol. They raised the local television ownership rule which, if this resolution were to pass, would restrict ownership of more than one station in a market with eight voices or fewer. These small, local television managers confirm that revenue and facility sharing would help keep struggling stations afloat in small markets and actually, and logically, would improve the quality and diversity of programming currently available to viewers. It is certainly the prerogative of the Senator from North Dakota to use the Congressional Review Act and bring before the Senate this resolution of disapproval. At issue are some of the founding principles of government: Freedom of speech and the press, freedom to associate and to petition the Government, freedom to acquire and hold property in accordance with the law. Our Founding Fathers understood that government should not have the power to restrict speech without deeply compelling justifications. I believe the public interest is ill served when Congress forces the FCC to revert back to ownership rules that were overturned by the courts for being outdated and not guided by solid factual records. In my opinion, the congressional mandate established in the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the court order forced the FCC, in a positive and proactive way, to conduct a thorough and exhaustive review of the media ownership rules. I am confident that the Commission's June 2 order established legally sustainable ownership limits that accomplished these three goals: No. 1, promoting diversity, localism, and competition; No. 2, updating the rules to reflect a multitude of new outlets for news information and entertaining; and, No. 3, striking a careful balance that promotes the public interest while ensuring no one company can monopolize any one medium of communications or limit any American's ability to access information. I will conclude by asking my colleagues to oppose this resolution, stand strong for freedom, and support the FCC. Don't foul up. Look forward. Look forward into the reality of opportunity today in America. Let's move forward with that rational, logical approach promulgated by the FCC. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, for yielding. I wish to share my views, my sentiments 2 years after these events. The fact is, we are 2 years exactly to the minute after American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. I keep the remembrance with me of Captain Chic Burlingame, who was the captain, who fought the terrorists on that plane. I think of him. I think of the passengers. One of the passengers was the father of a young boy who lived in our neighborhood and played with our kids. This is a tragic and vile act that hit the World Trade Center, that hit Virginia at the Pentagon, 2 years ago to this moment. Also, at this very time, there was another plane coming from the north that was undoubtedly going to be hitting either this Capitol Building right here, maybe the CIA, maybe the White House, and there was great bravery on that plane to avert further loss of life. I heard my good colleague, Senator Warner, who has had such a life experience in a variety of conflicts, and everyone was talking about, How does this fit into history? When he says this is a moment, dire moment in our history, it means a great deal. It struck us all that this was like Pearl Harbor; and it was. Pearl Harbor brought the United States into World War II. The attacks on New York City, on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon in Virginia brought the United States of America into the War on Terrorism. We reflect back on these fresh memories, but it has been a long 2 years. We reflect back on the bravery, on the courageousness, and on what has transpired. We work to make sure we are more secure here at home as well as abroad. If you look at the legislation we have passed in this body for the last 2 years, on issue after issue, we have worked to make Americans more secure, whether it is port security, whether it is securing greater communications in the DC area, with the Northern Virginia communities and Maryland and DC working together so the first responders have better communication, as they position themselves in a situation that hopefully will never occur again, such as at the Pentagon. We worry about procurement matters and making sure the technologies that are available in the private sector are made available and utilized by our Federal and State and local agencies to analyze the volumes of data. We care about our port security. We care about our pilots. We care about our airports, Metro, and so forth. All of those things do matter. Indeed, in this war we, of course, appreciate things we once took for granted on September 10, 2001, the concepts that have propelled this country, of individual rights, of life, of a strong national defense to meet the ever-changing dangerous world threats. We have appreciated them now more than ever. And it is not just in New York City and in this area, but everywhere. You can be in Independence, VA, you can be in Jackson, WY, you can be in Sioux City, IA, and you know people appreciate the firefighters, volunteer firefighters, rescue squad people, because of the inspiration of those not just at the Pentagon but particularly the thousands who went in to save thousands of lives in New York City. In fact, you see the letters ``NYPD'' or ``NYFD,'' and that means something to everyone, no matter where you are in the country, for those courageous acts. It does remind me of what the Bible tells us, that: Greater love hath no man than this, that he would lay down his life for his friends. That is what those firefighters and rescue personnel were doing in New York City in those Twin Towers. That is why there is an appreciation for those wonderful people whom we salute and remember today and forever with their bravery. Those acts of heroism are always on our minds. We have made our country more secure. We are taking the war to the terrorists abroad. We still have work to do. We have to persevere in many ways in securing and sustaining our country. We have also seen in the days following September 11, 2001, a redefinition of this country and a respect for what makes this country great while we also track down the terrorists. We also are a compassionate country, caring for the families who lost loved ones in these tragic attacks. Here on the Senate floor, Louise Kurtz is an individual whom I have brought up. Senator Warner brought up those working at the Pentagon. Louise Kurtz is a woman from the Fredricksburg area of Virginia. She was severely burned. Her ears were burned off. Most of her fingers were burned off. Last year at this time we were at the Phoenix Project of the rebuilding of the Pentagon. She was there. She is recuperating. She wants to get back to work. Because of Federal laws, though, she gets diminished retirement benefits. So working with Kay James at the Office of Personnel Management, we crafted a bill last year. The Senate passed it. The House didn't take it up. We passed it again this year, with the help of my colleague, Senator Warner, and particularly Senator Collins of Maine. We passed it again, and I am happy to say, finally, the House took it up yesterday and passed that bill to help out folks like Louise Kurtz and others who are serving our country. If they are injured in the line of duty, while they are recuperating they should not have their retirement benefits diminished. I am hopeful some time today this measure will get to the President's desk, to get it finally acted upon in a way that, on the second anniversary, those brave civilians will be properly treated. More importantly, the thing that has really inspired, I think, all Americans is the great American spirit that has guided our Nation through this time of terror and tragedy. We now, of course, are so appreciative of the men and women in uniform who are in dangerous, precarious places in Iraq and Afghanistan taking the war for our security to the terrorists overseas. We are grateful for those who are active, those who are in the Guard, those who are in the Reserve, and their families and their employers back here at home, who are all patriots, as they send their sons and their daughters abroad to protect us. One of Virginia's most prominent sons, George Washington, our Nation's first President, knew the strength of America's spirit and ordered his Army to be encouraged by saying: Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is; to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions. We saw great and noble actions on September 11, 2001, and we have seen great and noble actions over the past two years. We must be mindful, appreciative, and grateful for those patriots who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, and we must be equally grateful and appreciative for those who are serving us now. So I thank my colleague, Senator Warner, for his sage and steady advice. We have worked together. This is a day that actually brings all Americans together, regardless of which region, which State, or which political party you come from, in remembering what is good and wholesome about this country and uniting us for the benefit of the people. As we remember those whom we lost on September 11, I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting those heroes, the family members, and the survivors who remain. And let us be encouraged, as was President Washington, to higher goals, ``to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.'' Let's be encouraged to those greater actions because we will always remember, and we will always stand strong for freedom. Because together we must make sure liberty and justice not only endure but prevail. I thank you, Mr. President, and yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, for his work on this important issue. I, too, strongly believe that mentoring is effective. Unfortunately, the need for mentors is so much greater than what is currently available. MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership estimates, based on the latest US Census figures and risk factors for youth, that approximately 17.6 million young people could benefit greatly from a high-quality formal mentoring relationship with a caring adult. Of those young people who need mentors, an estimated 2.5 million are fortunate to be in formal, high- quality mentoring relationships. But that leaves more than 1.5 million young people in need of mentors, falling into a ``mentoring gap.'' The President has requested $100 million for Mentoring Programs grants and $50 million for Mentoring for Children of Prisoners as a strategic first step to closing that mentoring gap, and I want to recognize him for his leadership. Through a concentrated effort, we will be able to match thousands of new children with caring adults. But, that cannot happen unless we are able to increase the funding for mentoring in this appropriations bill. Given the tight budget times we are facing, I appreciate the increase that the committee was able to provide for mentoring. However, I believe that we can do better in conference. I, too, would like to work with the chairman with the goal of matching or exceeding the House figure of $75 million, even though it is still short of the President's request of $150 million. I would like to conclude my remarks at this time and yield to a fellow former governor, the Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homestead Preservation Act which would make available low-interest loans to American workers who have been displaced by international trade so they can continue to make home mortgage payments. This legislation would provide needed mortgage payment assistance to these Americans facing difficult times. While the relaxation of trade barriers and free trade agreements have opened some new markets to American products and services, it has also led to a decline in the U.S. manufacturing and textile industries. These are the jobs that hard working Americans have depended on for generations and plants and facilities that have helped to sustain communities for decades. Americans are industrious, hard-working and innovative, but it is unfair to ask them to compete for employment with workforces that do not operate under comparable environmental or labor regulations and in countries that do not reciprocate and violate trade rules. I want to make sure that free trade is at the same time fair trade. The opening of the U.S. market offers great benefit to all Americans, but we should mitigate harm to people making a living in manufacturing or textiles. The People's Republic of China through their currency manipulations, dumping of wood bedroom furniture, textile commands and illegal semiconductor taxation violate rules of fair trade. One can also look to the recent decision by the Department of Commerce finding that South Korean subsidies provided to Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. have caused great damage to U.S. computer chip manufacturers. As our government continues to follow international trade rules, we owe it to our workers to hold foreign governments accountable for their violations of these agreements. Going forward, I pledge to take a hard look at all proposed free trade agreements to make sure the interests of the United States are not being compromised. It is essential in the negotiation of these new trade pacts not to place traditional U.S. industries at a distinct disadvantage. Free trade agreements have the opportunity to greatly enhance the economies of the U.S. and its partners, but they must offer generally equal benefits to people in both countries. Unfortunately, recent years have seen the closing of numerous textile and manufacturing plants in the Commonwealth of Virginia and many can be attributed to international competition. These economic disasters are not unique to my Virginia alone. People in communities in our sister States of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia have experienced such disasters as well. People from Maine to Ohio to California understand and have endured these large layoffs. With each of these closings, a community is thrown into turmoil with families left wondering how ends can be met until new employment is found. I understand no government program or assistance can substitute for a secure, well-paying job, but I believe the U.S. government can reasonably assist these families as they transition from one career to another. Presently, there are useful assistance programs that aid American workers seeking new employment, but unfortunately, there is nothing currently in place to protect what is usually a family's most valuable financed asset--their home. The Homestead Preservation Act has been introduced to meet that need. My legislation would provide families vital temporary financial assistance enabling them to keep their homes and protect their credit ratings as they work toward strengthening and upgrading their skills and search for new employment. Individuals seeking to take advantage of this program would need to be enrolled in a job training or job assistance program. Training and education programs that focus on new technology and emerging industries would aid displaced workers in gaining a skill that will allow them to find a good-paying and secure job in a new field. At a time when families are dealing with an uncertain future they should feel secure that food will be on the table and a roof will be over their heads. The loans to be provided by the Homestead Preservation Act would not solve all of the problems facing unemployed workers, but they would provide important assistance for families facing the prospect of losing their home. In closing, I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Warner, Edwards, Dole, Hollings, Graham, Chambliss and Snowe for joining me in introducing this legislation. They know and understand the hardship facing these families and I am grateful that they have signed on to help provide this needed assistance. When offered in the 107th Congress, this Homestead Preservation Act received tremendous bipartisan support. I would respectfully urge my colleagues to consider the value Americans place on owning a home and support this caring and needed initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I remember him being there. I remember the joy of that committee meeting. Miguel Estrada was there. His wife was there. His mother Clara and his sister Maria were all there. They were so proud of this young man, who came to this country from Honduras as a teenager. He was unable to speak English. He applied himself, worked hard, and went on to an Ivy League school for undergraduate studies. He then went to Harvard Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude. He later worked in the Solicitor General's Office under President Clinton, where he argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, winning most of them. He also clerked for Supreme Court Justices. The American Bar Association unanimously recommended him with their highest qualifications. It was really a day of joy. It was uplifting. There were four vacancies on the court. I remember saying ``adelante'', come, ``Miguel Estrada.'' So people were charged up about this country seeing that a Horatio Alger story still was possible. Seeing that if someone worked hard in this country and applied themselves, that if someone recognizes them, like President Bush, and allows them to serve their country on the second most important court in this country, which is the D.C. Court of Appeals, that everyone would say, this is what America is all about; there is opportunity for all people, regardless of their background, so long as they have that record of performance. Then we saw obstruction month after month. It took everything the Senator could do on the Judiciary Committee to even get him out of committee. When the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, was Leader, we could not even get it out of committee. So this hold continued, these personal fouls. Now we come to this day, 28 months after President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada. I have not served as long as the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, or our great leader, Senator Frist of Tennessee, but I know my colleagues all look at history. Today I think is a very sad, dark day in the history of the Senate. An injustice has been perpetrated, an injustice to this gentleman with impeccable credentials, who is an inspiration to all Americans. In particular, this was an opportunity for a Hispanic American for the first time ever to serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals. The real motive of this obstructionism is not his qualifications, not his judicial philosophy, not claims that Miguel Estrada would be an activist or does not understand the proper role of a judge, but the reality is they want to deny him that added aspect on his record of performance that he served on the Court of Appeals. They fear that, should a vacancy arise on the Supreme Court of the United States, President Bush would like to make history and appoint someone who has the proper judicial philosophy and is also a Hispanic American to the Supreme Court. This is a sad day for America. As the Senator from Pennsylvania says, he is a young man. He is willing to serve in the future and we are going to still champion Miguel Estrada. I know Senator Specter, Senator McConnell, Senator Frist, and those on this side of the aisle, and a few on the other side of the aisle, such as Senator Miller of Georgia, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator Breaux of Louisiana, we are going to keep fighting for well-qualified judges such as Miguel Estrada. I hope and pray some day in the future we will have another opportunity to vote on Miguel Estrada to serve this country, because we are going to stand for people of quality, of character, of performance, and of competence. This sort of obstruction needs to stop. Senators do not have to vote in favor of judges if they so desire, but they should vote one way or the other--not delay, not hold, not obstruct. It is wrong to treat people in such an unjust, unfair, and inequitable way. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for his great leadership in getting Miguel Estrada out of the Judiciary Committee. It is a shame and I think a disgraceful day that Miguel Estrada has been forced to withdraw his name so he can focus, with his family, on his future. He has a bright future. I know Senators share my view that he has a great future for service in this country someday when the Senate stops its obstruction.

Mr. ALLEN. I say to my good colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that I know he is on the Judiciary Committee. Since Miguel Estrada lives in Virginia, my colleague, John Warner, and I presented Miguel Estrada to the Judiciary Committee. The Democrat leader was then in charge. Was the Senator from Pennsylvania present at that committee meeting?

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes in support of the Bond-Levin amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Objection.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the Bond-Levin fuel economy amendment that reasonably improves safety, fuel economy, and environmental conservation as mutual goals. I am pleased to join with a bipartisan list of Senators as a sponsor of this amendment that will ensure that our public policy in America does not compromise common sense, the free market, consumer choice, safety, or American workers. I wish to touch on some of these key issues. Insofar as safety is concerned, estimates from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Journal of Law and Economics, and Regulation Magazine have shown that between 2,000 and 4,500 deaths occur each year as a result of our current CAFE standards. The reality is very logical: With smaller, lighter cars there is a higher risk of injury when an accident occurs. The issue of vehicle cost also affects consumers. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that CAFE standards have raised prices by as much as $2,500 for cars and $2,750 for pickup trucks and SUVs. Clearly, if the opposition's amendments are adopted rather than the commonsense, reasonable approach that is proposed by Senator Bond and Senator Levin, we would have higher prices. With higher prices, what do we get? Obviously, if fewer people can afford to purchase new vehicles, sales are reduced, which translates into fewer jobs in the automobile industry. The job loss issue is not theoretical. I have met with United Auto Workers in Virginia and learned that even a 1-mile-per-gallon increase in CAFE standards would result in the loss of approximately 10 percent of auto manufacturing jobs. The last thing I want to do is go down to the Ford F-150 assembly plant in Norfolk, Virginia and have the 2,000- plus employees line up and say to them: One out of every 10 of you is going to lose a job because of what some officious people in Congress want to impose on America's auto industry and consumers. I do not want to do the same thing with the GM Powertrain facility in Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania County and tell those employees: One out of 10 of you will lose your job because certain elected officials in Washington are taking away your ability to put food on the table for your families. The employment of over 116,000 Virginians is dependent on the automobile industry, and congressionally mandated unreasonable increases in CAFE standards will put these jobs in jeopardy. The great success of America as a world economic leader is based on freedom and the ability of the free market and consumer choice to prevail in the marketplace. Recently, my friend and fellow colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, used a clever reference to a recent movie to describe the other side's approach to CAFE mandates, calling the approach ``too fast, too furious.'' I also want to draw on Hollywood and the recent success of Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest ``Terminator'' movie and point out that the other side's unreasonable and unscientific approach terminates jobs, terminates safety, terminates consumer choice and terminates common sense. American's already have the choice of what vehicles they wish to drive. There are already vehicles available that get 40, 45, 50-plus miles a gallon. If Americans want smaller, lighter vehicles, they are available. It is important that we use sound science and common sense and trust free people to make the right choices for themselves, their families, and the environment. The Bond-Levin amendment states that auto experts at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and the auto and safety industry ought to have the ability to determine the best methods of achieving these goals. The CAFE numbers used by the other side, in our view, are arbitrary and truly based on political science as opposed to sound science. The Bond-Levin amendment increases the use of incentives to industry and consumers alike rather than punitive market distorting mandates that would decimate an industry responsible for approximately 3 percent of our gross domestic product and employs about 2\1/2\ percent of all Americans. Also, it is a very forward looking approach in that it provides tax incentives for research and development of advanced technological innovation in fuel cells, hybrids, and electric vehicles. It is my view that Congress should be in the business of providing incentives to people and manufacturers for innovation that do not compromise safety, do not cause the loss of American jobs, and do not preclude individual choice in the marketplace so that people can make their own decisions for themselves and their families. I ask my colleagues to support the Bond-Levin amendment. We should trust free people to make decisions for the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of their families. Most importantly, we ought to make sure that America stays strong and competitive. When we look at our auto industry, our strongest market base is in SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks, which would be harmed by the opposition's amendments. So let us stand strong for American workers, as well as our families and free market, and support the Bond-Levin amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter from the American International Automobile Dealers Association in support of the Bond- Levin amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in commending the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, for his outstanding, articulate, and insightful remarks. While we worry sometimes on minutia, he brought back the international global perspective while we are in the midst of a war against terrorism. These were historic remarks that I think got us, as Americans, renovated, invigorated, and re-resolved in this war on terror. He also served, I think for us as Americans and the United States, as a bridge to our friends in Europe. While most of them were with us in this most recent conflict in Iraq, some were not. But there are so many of those shared values that bring us together. Indeed, Prime Minister Blair brought those forward. While in some areas the Germans and the French are helping, we want others to join in the United Nations and NATO. I would say the most important things the Prime Minister mentioned were not that we have shared interests in trade or shared interests in security but that we have a shared love of individual liberty. And if Thomas Jefferson--not a very well-loved person, I am sure, in Great Britain--were on that floor of the House just a moment ago, he would have said: Well done, Mr. Prime Minister. Those are good, sound Jeffersonian principles that he advocated. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to recognize Mr. Giles H. Miller, Jr. of Culpeper, VA. Throughout his celebrated 100 years, he has been a model of altruistic service to his community, the Commonwealth of Virginia and America. A Virginia native, Mr. Miller was born in Lynchburg on July 26, 1903. He attended college at the Virginia Military Institute from August 1920 to June 1924, and while enrolled, Mr. Miller was awarded some of the highest accolades the school has for students. As an alumnus, he has served VMI tirelessly in roles including President of its Board of Visitors, founder of the Miller Basketball Scholarship Program, and Chairman of the VMI Flying Squadron, just to name a few. His service has won him the school's Spirit Award, Distinguished Service Award, as well as the position of Senior Living Alumnus and the distinction of ``Mr. VMI.'' Mr. Miller's record of exemplary service extends also to the community of Culpeper, VA, where he has been a resident for more than 70 years and has deservedly earned the distinguished title of ``Mr. Culpeper.'' Over those years, he has been a member of the Culpeper Town Council, Vice Mayor of Culpeper, founder and President of the Culpeper Host Lion's Club, Chairman of the Board of Culpeper Memorial Hospital and President of Culpeper National Bank. In recognition of his work, he has been honored as Outstanding Citizen of the Year in Culpeper, as well as with the Culpeper Colonel Award from the Board of Supervisors and the Good Scout Award from the Boy Scouts of America. In addition to his work in Culpeper, Mr. Miller has worked in significant positions throughout the Commonwealth, including a stint as Director of the Federal Reserve Bank in Richmond. Mr. Miller is an example of many of the traits that we as Americans honor: service, dedication, and hard work, among others. He is a wonderful role model for his fellow Virginians and Americans, and I congratulate him on the wonderful celebration of his 100th birthday.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I recognize Mr. Stephen Arthur Heavener who will retire on August 1, 2003, after having served 8\1/2\ years as the Executive Director of the Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority. He leaves this position to become Executive Director of the Department of Development in Carlsbad, NM. During Mr. Heavener's 8\1/2\ years of service at the Warren County EDA more than 1,100 county jobs were created and the local industrial tax base increased from 8.5 percent in 1990 to 13.5 percent in 2002. These particular accomplishments came to fruition largely because of Mr. Heavener's work with Pen-Tab Industries, Toray Plastics, America, Family Dollar, Ferguson Enterprises and SYSCO Northeast Cooperative, Inc. Mr. Heavener also assisted in the redevelopment of the Avtex Fibers Superfund site in Front Royal. The massive construction on this 500-acre site will eventually create more than 11,000 square feet of premium rehabilitated office space, 240 acres of Conservancy Parklands, 160 acres of eco-business park, and 30 acres of soccer fields. In addition, Mr. Heavener has also aided in the growth and expansion of local businesses in Warren County by creating the Rural Business Enterprise Loan program, which has provided loans for small businesses in the amount of $250,000. Mr. Heavener's record of success as Executive Director of the Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority is well-known and respected. I congratulate him on his years of dedicated service to the people of Warren County and the Commonwealth of Virginia and wish him well in his new position in the Department of Development in Carlsbad.