George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Louisiana, I have a few minutes, no more than 3 or 4, maybe 5 at most, of concluding remarks. The others on our side who wanted to speak are elsewhere, and the vote will get them back here.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I respect the creativity, diligence, and ardor with which the Senator from North Dakota pursues this issue. This issue of taxing or requiring retailers or sellers to tax that are not located within the State, that do not have a physical presence in the State, do not have a nexus in the State, is an argument that is as old as our Republic. One of the problems our Founders had, in going from the Articles of Confederation to our current Federal Republic, was that different States were imposing fines, taxes, and tariffs on interstate commerce. So that was one of the reasons we went to the current form we have--to at least have within our country a free trade zone and not have burdensome taxes on the flow of interstate commerce. The idea the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, proposes, with long, deliberative examination, may be worthwhile. But the issue at hand at this moment is that the moratorium on Internet access taxes and discriminatory taxes expired last Sunday, October 21. This issue in recent years has been worked on time after time. It first came up in the midst of the Bellas Hess decision and then came up more recently in the Supreme Court Quill decision. In those situations, the issue was catalog sales. But whether the catalog company is in Maine or New Hampshire or Oregon or whatever other State, the Supreme Court ruled that these States could not compel those companies--Quill at that particular time--to remit sales taxes to a State in which they had no physical presence. So that is the constitutional parameter we are under. This issue of trying to get around the Supreme Court decisions, trying to come up with simplification, and hamstringing the Senate in the future to vote on whatever this may be as far as simplification is concerned, while it is a very creative and, I think, very thoughtful approach, to me, we really have no time to act. Let's recognize that the other body, the House, has already acted. It is a 2-year extension on the very simple, clear, and clean issue of having a moratorium on access taxes and discriminatory taxes on the Internet by States or localities. Please note, Mr. President, when this moratorium was first put on 3 years ago, several States and localities had imposed access taxes and discriminatory taxes, and they are now grandfathered. So here we are today generally stuck with those taxes being imposed in those jurisdictions, in those States. The longer this lapses, the more likely the legislative process will apply, whether in a local jurisdiction or in a State. We will end up with more of these taxes, and we will never be able to get rid of them. They will be like the Spanish-American War tax, the luxury tax that was put on telephone service to finance the Spanish-American War. We won that war 100 years ago, but that tax is still on telephone service. While this is a good idea and something that can be worked on over the years, if something such as this should pass the Senate, it is obviously different from what has passed the House, which means it would have to go to a conference committee. Who knows when that might meet? We may be here only a few more weeks, and most likely those differences would not be ironed out. It is fine to work on simplification. It has been worked on for decades. I don't think this issue of access taxes on the Internet or discriminatory taxes ought to be held hostage to that very problematic although understandable concern of the Senator from North Dakota and many others. With that, I object to the request of the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, this issue is foundational to the formation of our Republic. It is actually similar to what Patrick Henry talked about, taxation without representation. Obviously, the use taxes are to be collected by the States. This is not a decision to be made by the States. If it were up to the States, obviously, they would be collecting and compelling retailers who do not have a physical presence in their State, who don't vote in their State, who do not receive any fire services, any police services, any services whatsoever from that State. If it were up to the States, for their convenience, they would be requiring them to collect and remit these taxes. This really becomes an issue of convenience for the tax collectors at a locality or at a State. It is, as Senator Dorgan rightly stated, a decision for Congress to make. It does deal with interstate commerce. However, Congress, in all the decades this has been considered, has never said, before the Internet was even contemplated for use of communications or commerce or education, when people were more concerned about catalog sales, even then Congress said, no, we are not going to burden interstate commerce. So that is the reason why Congress has never agreed. Now, the States and the localities can simplify. There is a ZIP code reported to me in the Denver, CO, area, that within that same code there are four different sales taxes applied to the very same product. I agree with Senator Dorgan that all of this ought to be simplified. I think if the States on their own, along with their subdivisions--counties, cities, or municipalities--worked to simplify, they will find many, especially the larger retailers that are from out of State, willing to comply as long as it is simplified and there is auditing, which is logical, and they get a reasonable remittance back for collecting and sending in those sales taxes, as is accorded to most retailers within a State. Then I think you will find it all being handled in that regard. Again, all of this is separate from the most pressing issue, which is these access taxes and discriminatory taxes which on Senator Dorgan and I would be in absolute agreement; we would not want to see more of them coming on, and there are many in effect now. Indeed, I am researching South Carolina, where the legislature has enacted a moratorium on State sales taxes on charges for Internet access effective from October 1998 through October 2001. Outside of this moratorium period, South Carolina can subject charges for Internet access to the State's sales tax. It may be automatic, by virtue of that law in South Carolina, that such taxes can be imposed even if the legislature may not be meeting. So for the most part I don't suspect many are going to be able to go to public hearings to get them done. But this is how this may be applying in South Carolina, unless the Governor said let's hold off on this and see what happens in Washington.

Mr. ALLEN. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, I join with him. Although we have a contentious issue on some parts, we are in agreement there. I hope that message goes out to States and localities. Just because this has lapsed, please do not rush to tax the Internet access or impose discriminatory taxes. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in the matter of Internet taxes. As you and others across this country who are following this issue very closely well know, the 3-year moratorium on access taxes as well as the 3-year moratorium on discriminatory taxes on the Internet that had been passed by the Senate and the House 3 years ago expired on Sunday, October 21--just a couple of days ago. The Internet is important to our economy. The taxes that could be imposed on the Internet would be harmful to the economy. It would be harmful to technology. I think it would be very harmful especially to lower-income families and thereby widen the digital divide. In my view, there is no time to dawdle; there is no time for conference committees. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1552, the House-passed 2-year clean extension of the Internet access tax moratorium currently being held at the desk, and that it be considered, read three times, and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ALLEN

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

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise this afternoon on a very sad note. We lost a State senator from Virginia, Emily Couric. For those who knew Emily Couric, and for those who worked with Emily Couric and followed her life and her battles, we all know we have lost a fine person. We have lost an articulate, passionate, and inspirational leader. Emily Couric passed away today, October 18. She had been a State senator in the 25th District of Virginia since after her election in 1995. That is an area around Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Greene County, Madison County, Orange County, and Nelson County--generally the Piedmont area of Virginia. She passed away of pancreatic cancer today in her home in Charlottesville. She served in the State senate while I served as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. She was recognized by all on both sides of the aisle as a leader-- especially in her areas of greatest concern, which were health care and education. Before serving in the State senate, she served on the school board in the city of Charlottesville, and indeed before getting elected to the State senate was chairman of the school board. She had many accomplishments, such as establishing advanced mathematics and technology diploma seals for those high school graduates. Picture that--encouraging students to do even more than what is just enough to get by. But if they wanted to do even more, they could add an advanced mathematics and technology aspect to their education. She was also a leader in supporting research and rehabilitation for victims of spinal cord injuries and traumatic brain injuries. She was a leader in the Democrat Party in Virginia. Had she not contracted pancreatic cancer, she would right now certainly be running for Lieutenant Governor on the Democrat ticket. She explored that race. But she was diagnosed with cancer back in July of last year--2000. She was certainly regarded as a frontrunner and would not have had any opposition whatsoever in her party. I would certainly guess that she would probably have won very easily. But she had to withdraw from the race because she had to undergo treatment for the pancreatic cancer. Nevertheless, she didn't want to get out of what she cared about, which was serving the people. Indeed, she served as the general chair of the Democrat Party of Virginia, and undertook that responsibility in December of 2000. She served on many committees in the State senate, such as the Education and Health Committee, the Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee, and the Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee. She served in a variety of areas, but she did not just serve Virginia, she served the region. She served not only in the legislature, but on the Southern Regional Education Board and the Southern Legislative Conference Education Committee, as well as other policy committees. As I said, prior to her election, she did serve on the Charlottesville School Board from 1985 to 1991, including one term as chairman. She served on a lot of community boards and organizations. She was a member of the Charlottesville Boys & Girls Club, the Charlottesville Area School Business Alliance, the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, the Virginia National Bank, the Virginia Festival of the Book, the Heritage Repertory Theater, Camp Holiday Trails, and various other activities in the community. Until her last breath, you knew her passion was for all these ideas, but especially those that would benefit youngsters with their health, their education, and their future opportunities. She was born in Atlanta, GA. She moved to Virginia in 1951. She was a graduate of Yorktown High School in Arlington, VA, right across the river from us. She received her bachelor of arts from Smith College and graduated with honors, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, and Sigma Xi from Smith College. Expressing for my colleague and myself, and I think all Senators and anybody who knew Emily Couric, our prayers and thoughts are with her husband, Dr. George Beller of Charlottesville, VA, her son Ray Wadlow-- he is a doctor--and her daughter-in-law Jessica of Philadelphia, PA; and her son Jeff Wadlow of Los Angeles, CA. She is also survived by her parents Elinor and John Couric of Arlington, VA; her siblings, Clara Couric Batchelor, John Couric, Jr., and, of course, one we know and see every morning, Katie Couric; her step children, Michael Beller, Amy Beller, and Leslie Beller; and also seven nieces and nephews; and two step-grandchildren. We will all miss Emily Couric. Regardless of our political parties, Emily Couric was an inspiration. Her life really embodied her true dedication to her fellow human beings. Once she was diagnosed with this terrible cancer, she kept fighting. She did not give up. She is an inspiration and her spirit lives on. All of us have been blessed to have known her; and, indeed, future generations will have healthier, better lives because Emily Couric cared enough to devote a great deal of her lifetime to public service and the betterment of others.

Mr. ALLEN. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. ALLEN

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

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I will speak briefly because we have a meeting shortly. Our time on the Republican side is to be protected between 4 and 5 for a meeting on the economic stimulus package. I listened to my friend from California, Senator Boxer, speak on the foreign operations bill. That bill will be passed. I think it is an important bill. I have enjoyed working with Senator Boxer on her tourism promotion, which I think is very important for our economy. I have enjoyed working with the Presiding Officer in allowing people all across this country to show their care in their communities for the 6,000-plus people who lost their lives. There are going to be a lot of park projects, mentoring, recreational facilities, maybe computer laboratories, maybe homes for adults, and senior citizen programs across the country named for each and every one of the fallen victims of these violent acts of terrorism on our office buildings in our airplanes on September 11. I look forward to working with you. All of that is going to be done in less than a year. That will be a fitting memorial so we will remember those who lost their lives. The people taken from us by those terrorist attacks were good people. They were our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, grandparents, grandchildren, our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones. They should be remembered. The foreign operations bill, while it is an important bill--and it will be passed--also is important in the administration of justice. We have a crisis in the administration of justice. Obviously, we have a crisis mentality so far as terrorism is concerned, as well as prosecuting the war on terrorism on the home front where we need to have our first responders better equipped. Our surveillance needs to be improved. In situations where there may be an anthrax scare, it needs to be properly identified and remedied. If it isn't anthrax, we need to make sure people are not panicked. I believe very strongly that those front-line people, the fire, rescue, and police officers who are working in the terrorist attack zone, ought to be accorded the same sort of tax policy treatment accorded to our military personnel. Under current Federal law--it is very good law--if our military men and women in uniform have to serve in a combat zone, their income taxes for that month are not paid because they are in a combat zone. This war on terrorism has changed the face of war. Now the terrorism war is not taken to military facilities but is taken to office buildings, to airplanes, to civilians, and to commercial airlines. We have seen that--whether it was an attack on the World Trade Center buildings or whether at the Pentagon or obviously the innocent people who were on the airplanes that were hijacked and turned into weapons. With that, we see that innocent, unprotected men, women, and children are now the targets and the victims of terrorist attacks. My view is that the firefighters, the rescue squad people, the heroic police officers, whether in New York City or at the Pentagon, are working in a combat zone. But it is called a terrorist attack zone. The President has so designated these areas. It would seem to me that these warriors and these patriots here at home in their heroic acts of working in these buildings and in these facilities--some of them with their last breath of life to get people out, to save lives, and also in the aftermath of pulling rubble out with their hands, breathing toxic air in the crumbling buildings--those individuals are also in a combat zone. It is a terrorist attack zone. It seems to me very logical and appropriate to adapt our tax laws so they do not have to pay income taxes for the month in which they are working in these combat zone areas, or terrorist attack zones. I have legislation in that regard. Hopefully, we will pass that, as well as legislation to say to the family members of those who have lost their lives that they will not have to worry about paying taxes. Again, using the analogy for those who serve in our military, if a man or woman in our Armed Forces is killed in combat, they are not subject to income taxes, and half of their estate taxes are forgiven. Again, the targets of these terrorist attacks were men, women, children, and families. It seems to me we should accord them the same sort of tax treatment. I have put in a bill, for which I have support from a good number of Senators, to say to those victims' survivors that they will not have to pay income taxes for the loss of their husband, wife, or other family member, and they will not have to be worrying about death or inheritance taxes. I think that is an appropriate and logical adaptation of law in that regard. So far as justice and the judicial system are concerned, there are currently 106 vacancies in the Federal courts, 31 at the circuit court and 75 at the district court level, which is higher--it is almost 50 percent higher than the vacancy rate 2 years ago when many Democratic Senators, including the current chairman, Senator Leahy, complained about a vacancy crisis. That is when there was a 50-percent vacancy rate. Forty-one of those vacancies have been formally classified as judicial emergencies by the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States. This is the highest vacancy rate since 1994. Despite the high level of vacancies and the record pace of nominations, the judiciary has actually shrunk during the months since President Bush took office. In other words, the number of vacancies has increased, and the Federal Government has moved backwards in its effort to bring the judiciary up to full strength. During the first year of the Clinton administration, just to give you a sense of the pace of court nominees, there were nominees for the court of appeals. Of those nominees, 60 percent of President Clinton's court of appeals nominees were reported in the first year. In contrast, President Bush has nominated 25 circuit court nominees and the committee has reported 4. That is just 16 percent. One of those was Roger Gregory of Virginia--a very good move. I am glad the committee reported Roger Gregory. But 16 percent is just not good enough. There are those who will say, gosh, this is the same as it has always been. Let's look at first-year comparisons of former Presidents. President Clinton nominated 32 judges by October 31 of his first year in office. Of those, 28--or 88 percent--were confirmed by the time Congress went out of session in 1993. Further, President George Herbert Walker Bush nominated 18 judges by October 31, 1989, of which 16--or 89 percent--were confirmed by the time Congress recessed by the end of the year. President Reagan's confirmation rate for pre-October 31 nominees confirmed during his first year was 100 percent. Now President George W. Bush has nominated 60 judges, and the Senate has confirmed only 8, a mere 13 percent. So that is the actual comparison. Currently, there are 108 empty seats in the Federal judiciary, which is about 12.6 percent of the total number of judgeships. This is the highest in modern history, except for the extraordinary event in December of 1990 when Congress created 85 new positions and, therefore, there were 85 vacancies all at once. I believe we can do better. I think these nominations ought to be acted on before we recess for the year, which will be the end of the President's first year in office. I think all of the President's nominations that were made prior to August certainly should be acted upon. Again, if you look at the history of the Senate, by the end of the President's first year in office, the Senate has acted on all judicial nominations made prior to the August recess; the only exception being one Clinton nominee the Senate acted on in the following year. If we are going to work with the President to reach his goal to address the current judicial vacancy crisis, then the Senate should confirm at least 40 more judges by the end of this session. I do not think this is too hard to do. It can be done if we work our will. I ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to hold these hearings. These individuals ought to be vetted, ought to be cross- examined. Look at their record, their judicial philosophy, their demeanor, especially if they are district court judges. I think if they look at the competence, the qualities, and the characteristics of these judges, they will certainly find them to be individuals who ought to be on the bench administering justice. Clearly, we have a judicial crisis. These vacancies should not continue. We need to act in the Senate, not just do one thing at a time. Let's keep moving forward to make sure that, yes, we support our military, support our intelligence efforts, our diplomatic efforts in foreign operations, making sure we are properly reacting and stimulating our economy to get people back to work, making sure consumers have greater confidence and have the capability to then buy things so those who manufacture or produce various goods or services can start hiring again and get our economy moving again--but also we need to make sure the third branch of Government, the judicial branch, is at full strength, which it certainly is not with the 12.6-percent vacancy rate, which is an unprecedented high rate, again, as observed by those who see this as a crisis. We need to get to work in the Senate. I hope once we get a commitment to move forward, that we then, obviously, can move forward on the foreign operations bill, which is also a very important measure. But let's get our judicial branch of Government up to full strength. That is our duty and responsibility as well. Mr. President, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. (The remarks of Mr. Allen pertaining to the introduction of S. 1532 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the President's Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act. The Senator from California was talking about her concerns, help on the way. I think we all share those concerns. While the actions of Americans have shown that we are trying to get open for business again, we are obviously united in our resolve that a long fight awaits us because of these vile terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. This flag is from the Pentagon. The President just gave a wonderful speech, as did Secretary Rumsfeld. Everyone was united in tears and in love for those families who lost loved ones and, also, a resolve that freedom and justice will prevail. Indeed, we are working to rebuild and recover. The President talked about rebuilding the Pentagon. Others have talked about rebuilding in New York. The rescue, recovery, cleanup, and rebuilding efforts will be enormous. Congress has responded with $40 billion in aid. The airline industry, which is responsible for 10 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, as well as being a key element of our reserve military airlift fleet, needs to remain solvent. We recognize that. We understood that the FAA closed our skies after the terrorist attacks. We have responded with $5 billion in cash for lost revenue, due to the skies being closed, to help get our airlines back in the sky as quickly as possible. The perception of safety while flying has been shaken to the core. I have participated in hearings in the Commerce Committee working to help craft legislation aimed at improving aviation safety both on the ground at airports, and on our aircraft as well. Senators Hollings, McCain, Rockefeller, and Hutchison have worked hard in bringing this bill to the floor to do just that. We will pass this legislation to ensure that no commercial airliner or any aircraft in this country ever again is commandeered and used as a weapon. Ronald Reagan National Airport, which is a symbol of the Nation's Capital and our transportation system, remained closed for nearly 3 weeks due to Federal order. After nearly 3 weeks of consideration of ideas for safety and special precautions for Reagan National Airport, last week President Bush very wisely announced a plan with a phased-in approach so that flights at Ronald Reagan National Airport could start. I was fortunate to be on the first flight out of Reagan since that fateful day last Thursday. For the first 3 weeks of the reopening of Reagan National Airport, it is restricted to operating at 24-percent capacity. After that, in phase 2, it will be at 57-percent capacity for as long as 7 weeks. We still have a lot of work to do. While our general aviation pilots are fortunately back in the skies, there are still limitations on airspace all around the country. Airline carriers and manufacturers have laid off over 100,000 employees. Airport employees and workers for businesses located in and around airport facilities are losing jobs by the thousands. Reagan National Airport is again open for business, but many of its 10,200 employees are out of work since they are restricted to operating at one-quarter capacity. Vendors, business owners, and concessionaires at the airport have lost revenues and jobs because of this direct Federal action. The shock waves are being felt throughout our economy--from retail establishments to high-tech businesses. Now that we have addressed some of the recovery and rebuilding efforts, we are finally able to turn our attention to these hard- working Americans who unfortunately have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Today, on behalf of the President, I am introducing legislation to provide that necessary assistance for the backbone of our economy--the free people of the greatest and strongest nation on Earth. The President's plan will provide health coverage, unemployment benefits, and job training assistance to hard-working Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the economic downturn since the September 11 attacks. Specifically, it will extend unemployment benefits for up to 13 weeks beyond what individual States cover. It will provide COBRA health insurance premiums, which are substantially covered by the Federal Government, for up to 10 months. It will also more easily allow affected workers to avail themselves of more than $6 billion in Federal programs that provide job search, training, placement, and other services. It makes $11 billion available to States to help low-income workers and families who have lost their jobs to maintain health insurance through either the S-CHIP or Medicaid Programs. It will also provide $3 billion to States in the form of national emergency grants that Governors can fashion to best address the needs of their States to help workers maintain health care coverage, supplement their income, and receive job training. Also, the Governors can use it to compensate employees who have lost their jobs due to this direct Federal intervention. In addition, the White House, my office, and the Republican Senate leadership offices, have been working through the night addressing some of the specific concerns I have for Reagan National Airport. That is why I will add an amendment to the President's package to address those specific concerns, because although actions such as the Reagan National shutdown are sometimes necessary for national security reasons, those actions that will directly impact the ability of hard-working Americans and business owners to make a living. We should respond in realization that limited Federal benefits are little comfort to those thrown out of work due to a Federal action. That is why my supplemental amendment will also allow the Governors of the States where major disasters have been declared to use their national emergency grants to supplement the incomes of those unemployed or underemployed because of direct Federal action, or for the lost revenues of those businesses that were similarly affected. These are not mandated, direct Federal grants but allowable uses under the national emergency grant programs at the discretion of Governors. Again, it makes sense. If the Federal Government has an action that harms someone, whether it is their property or their livelihood, the Federal Government ought to help them. It is indeed the same logic we used in helping the airline industry. The White House, of course, has seen the need to act. They understand that direct Federal action is necessary. Unfortunately, it was necessary to keep Reagan National closed for a while. The leadership at the White House and the Senate Republicans have been very helpful in analyzing this supplemental amendment, and I believe we can make it work out in the end. Most of all, I know all Americans have significant concerns about jobs--jobs for people in all of our States. These job losses are not unique to New York, or Virginia, where those terrorist attacks have the greatest impact; the job losses are felt in every corner of our country. We see smaller airports worrying about whether or not they are going to have service. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this measure today for this needed aid to help our hard-working citizens all over America recover from the extended effects of this horrific disaster. In times like this, I believe the entire Nation has a role to play in keeping American businesses and entrepreneurs running, and especially in keeping Americans at work. Once again, I believe America will triumph over tyrants and we will stand strong with our people; unwavering in the face of terrorism. We will show that not only is America open for business but also that America means business.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the President's Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act. The Senator from California was talking about her concerns, help on the way. I think we all share those concerns. While the actions of Americans have shown that we are trying to get open for business again, we are obviously united in our resolve that a long fight awaits us because of these vile terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. This flag is from the Pentagon. The President just gave a wonderful speech, as did Secretary Rumsfeld. Everyone was united in tears and in love for those families who lost loved ones and, also, a resolve that freedom and justice will prevail. Indeed, we are working to rebuild and recover. The President talked about rebuilding the Pentagon. Others have talked about rebuilding in New York. The rescue, recovery, cleanup, and rebuilding efforts will be enormous. Congress has responded with $40 billion in aid. The airline industry, which is responsible for 10 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, as well as being a key element of our reserve military airlift fleet, needs to remain solvent. We recognize that. We understood that the FAA closed our skies after the terrorist attacks. We have responded with $5 billion in cash for lost revenue, due to the skies being closed, to help get our airlines back in the sky as quickly as possible. The perception of safety while flying has been shaken to the core. I have participated in hearings in the Commerce Committee working to help craft legislation aimed at improving aviation safety both on the ground at airports, and on our aircraft as well. Senators Hollings, McCain, Rockefeller, and Hutchison have worked hard in bringing this bill to the floor to do just that. We will pass this legislation to ensure that no commercial airliner or any aircraft in this country ever again is commandeered and used as a weapon. Ronald Reagan National Airport, which is a symbol of the Nation's Capital and our transportation system, remained closed for nearly 3 weeks due to Federal order. After nearly 3 weeks of consideration of ideas for safety and special precautions for Reagan National Airport, last week President Bush very wisely announced a plan with a phased-in approach so that flights at Ronald Reagan National Airport could start. I was fortunate to be on the first flight out of Reagan since that fateful day last Thursday. For the first 3 weeks of the reopening of Reagan National Airport, it is restricted to operating at 24-percent capacity. After that, in phase 2, it will be at 57-percent capacity for as long as 7 weeks. We still have a lot of work to do. While our general aviation pilots are fortunately back in the skies, there are still limitations on airspace all around the country. Airline carriers and manufacturers have laid off over 100,000 employees. Airport employees and workers for businesses located in and around airport facilities are losing jobs by the thousands. Reagan National Airport is again open for business, but many of its 10,200 employees are out of work since they are restricted to operating at one-quarter capacity. Vendors, business owners, and concessionaires at the airport have lost revenues and jobs because of this direct Federal action. The shock waves are being felt throughout our economy--from retail establishments to high-tech businesses. Now that we have addressed some of the recovery and rebuilding efforts, we are finally able to turn our attention to these hard- working Americans who unfortunately have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Today, on behalf of the President, I am introducing legislation to provide that necessary assistance for the backbone of our economy--the free people of the greatest and strongest nation on Earth. The President's plan will provide health coverage, unemployment benefits, and job training assistance to hard-working Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the economic downturn since the September 11 attacks. Specifically, it will extend unemployment benefits for up to 13 weeks beyond what individual States cover. It will provide COBRA health insurance premiums, which are substantially covered by the Federal Government, for up to 10 months. It will also more easily allow affected workers to avail themselves of more than $6 billion in Federal programs that provide job search, training, placement, and other services. It makes $11 billion available to States to help low-income workers and families who have lost their jobs to maintain health insurance through either the S-CHIP or Medicaid Programs. It will also provide $3 billion to States in the form of national emergency grants that Governors can fashion to best address the needs of their States to help workers maintain health care coverage, supplement their income, and receive job training. Also, the Governors can use it to compensate employees who have lost their jobs due to this direct Federal intervention. In addition, the White House, my office, and the Republican Senate leadership offices, have been working through the night addressing some of the specific concerns I have for Reagan National Airport. That is why I will add an amendment to the President's package to address those specific concerns, because although actions such as the Reagan National shutdown are sometimes necessary for national security reasons, those actions that will directly impact the ability of hard-working Americans and business owners to make a living. We should respond in realization that limited Federal benefits are little comfort to those thrown out of work due to a Federal action. That is why my supplemental amendment will also allow the Governors of the States where major disasters have been declared to use their national emergency grants to supplement the incomes of those unemployed or underemployed because of direct Federal action, or for the lost revenues of those businesses that were similarly affected. These are not mandated, direct Federal grants but allowable uses under the national emergency grant programs at the discretion of Governors. Again, it makes sense. If the Federal Government has an action that harms someone, whether it is their property or their livelihood, the Federal Government ought to help them. It is indeed the same logic we used in helping the airline industry. The White House, of course, has seen the need to act. They understand that direct Federal action is necessary. Unfortunately, it was necessary to keep Reagan National closed for a while. The leadership at the White House and the Senate Republicans have been very helpful in analyzing this supplemental amendment, and I believe we can make it work out in the end. Most of all, I know all Americans have significant concerns about jobs--jobs for people in all of our States. These job losses are not unique to New York, or Virginia, where those terrorist attacks have the greatest impact; the job losses are felt in every corner of our country. We see smaller airports worrying about whether or not they are going to have service. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this measure today for this needed aid to help our hard-working citizens all over America recover from the extended effects of this horrific disaster. In times like this, I believe the entire Nation has a role to play in keeping American businesses and entrepreneurs running, and especially in keeping Americans at work. Once again, I believe America will triumph over tyrants and we will stand strong with our people; unwavering in the face of terrorism. We will show that not only is America open for business but also that America means business.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Defense of Internet Tax Freedom Act, with my friends and colleagues from California, Montana, New Hampshire, and Virginia, to extend the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes for five-years. As you know, the original provisions of the Internet Tax Freedom Act are set to expire this October 21, less than two weeks from now. As many in this chamber know, I have made extending the moratorium on taxes that discriminate against the Internet one of my top priorities since coming to the Senate. I cannot ever envision a time when it will be okay for any government to tax freedom on the Internet by taxing access to the Internet. I cannot ever conceive of any instance or event that will precipitate justification for multiple or discriminatory taxes on the Internet by any government, large or small, national or local. For this reason, I have maintained constant and steady support for the permanent extension of the Internet moratorium on Internet access, multiple and discriminatory taxes. I never thought I would be willing to vote for, much less sponsor, legislation that endorsed a limited extension, but the events of September 11, 2001 have forced all of us in this Congress, and indeed throughout the country, to think and act according to the most immediate interests of our Nation. Now, more than ever, the people of this country need security, not only with regard to safety, but also with regard to their financial future. Any additional tax burdens on the Internet now, will mean additional costs that many Americans cannot afford, forcing the poorest in our society to reduce or even forgo their use of the Internet as a tool for education and exploration. Consider the fact that by taxing Internet access, States and localities are actually contributing to an already growing economic ``digital divide.'' For every dollar added to the cost of Internet access, we can expect to see lost utilization of the Internet by thousands of poor and impoverished families nationwide. Furthermore, the more expensive you make Internet access, the less likely people are to buy advanced services, including broadband delivered high-speed Internet access, multimedia expansion cards, and Internet protocol enabling software. Given the current state of the technology market as a whole, a decrease in consumption resulting from Internet access taxes could destroy what glimmer of hope remains for many telecommunications and technology manufacturers. The effects of these closures have already been felt throughout our country. Congress should be working to keep businesses open and Americans employed, and that is why we must pass a reasonable extension of the moratorium on Internet access, multiple, and discriminatory taxes. If you consider for a moment that the Internet has only been around in its contemporary form since 1995 or 1996, then you realize that this technology and the impact it has made and will continue to make on our economy is both very promising and very unsure. To date we have very little reliable data as to the real impact the Internet is making on the daily lives of Americans. We have little to no information as to how and why consumers on the web decide to spend their hard earned money. We have no real evidence that consumers would decide to spend money or purchase products they buy on the web today if these products were only available in traditional brick-n-mortar settings. The studies we have seen thus far all contradict one another. In one study dealing with the effects of Internet purchasing on State revenues, I found a quote from the President of the National Conference of State Legislatures comparing State budgets in recent years to the engine of a luxury car. Yet, I have heard from this and other organizations that the Internet is destroying State tax revenue streams. I don't know who or what to believe. All I know is that many in this Senate need time to understand this issue. There are many members in this body who do not fully recognize that the moratorium is completely unrelated to sales taxes or the collection thereof. Given that fact, I cannot see why extending the moratorium for a mere few months or years would be beneficial in terms of educating the general public and the Members of this body. In a matter of months or a few years, the technology sector will only just be at the point of full recovery from the current downturn in our economy. We will need several years beyond that point of full recovery to complete the comprehensive, neutral studies of the Internet and e- commerce that Members of Congress will need in order to make these important decisions, decisions that may directly challenge the conventional wisdom of our Founding Fathers and our own historical experience. Given these requirements, five years seems to be the minimum amount of time Congress, the private sector, and other interested organizations will need in order to make well-informed, proactive decisions regarding other issues not related to the Internet moratorium. In the meantime, we can guarantee a level of stability for the Internet over the next five years that will allow our Nation to continue to close the digital divide and encourage new and enhanced uses of the web for consumers. I call on my colleagues to join me and my fellow cosponsors in cosponsoring the Defense of Internet Tax Freedom Act, in supporting a five year extension of the Internet moratorium on access multiple and discriminatory taxes. Let's give the Internet the future it deserves and show America that the answer is not more taxes but rather better, more efficient government for the people and by the people.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Defense of Internet Tax Freedom Act, with my friends and colleagues from California, Montana, New Hampshire, and Virginia, to extend the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes for five-years. As you know, the original provisions of the Internet Tax Freedom Act are set to expire this October 21, less than two weeks from now. As many in this chamber know, I have made extending the moratorium on taxes that discriminate against the Internet one of my top priorities since coming to the Senate. I cannot ever envision a time when it will be okay for any government to tax freedom on the Internet by taxing access to the Internet. I cannot ever conceive of any instance or event that will precipitate justification for multiple or discriminatory taxes on the Internet by any government, large or small, national or local. For this reason, I have maintained constant and steady support for the permanent extension of the Internet moratorium on Internet access, multiple and discriminatory taxes. I never thought I would be willing to vote for, much less sponsor, legislation that endorsed a limited extension, but the events of September 11, 2001 have forced all of us in this Congress, and indeed throughout the country, to think and act according to the most immediate interests of our Nation. Now, more than ever, the people of this country need security, not only with regard to safety, but also with regard to their financial future. Any additional tax burdens on the Internet now, will mean additional costs that many Americans cannot afford, forcing the poorest in our society to reduce or even forgo their use of the Internet as a tool for education and exploration. Consider the fact that by taxing Internet access, States and localities are actually contributing to an already growing economic ``digital divide.'' For every dollar added to the cost of Internet access, we can expect to see lost utilization of the Internet by thousands of poor and impoverished families nationwide. Furthermore, the more expensive you make Internet access, the less likely people are to buy advanced services, including broadband delivered high-speed Internet access, multimedia expansion cards, and Internet protocol enabling software. Given the current state of the technology market as a whole, a decrease in consumption resulting from Internet access taxes could destroy what glimmer of hope remains for many telecommunications and technology manufacturers. The effects of these closures have already been felt throughout our country. Congress should be working to keep businesses open and Americans employed, and that is why we must pass a reasonable extension of the moratorium on Internet access, multiple, and discriminatory taxes. If you consider for a moment that the Internet has only been around in its contemporary form since 1995 or 1996, then you realize that this technology and the impact it has made and will continue to make on our economy is both very promising and very unsure. To date we have very little reliable data as to the real impact the Internet is making on the daily lives of Americans. We have little to no information as to how and why consumers on the web decide to spend their hard earned money. We have no real evidence that consumers would decide to spend money or purchase products they buy on the web today if these products were only available in traditional brick-n-mortar settings. The studies we have seen thus far all contradict one another. In one study dealing with the effects of Internet purchasing on State revenues, I found a quote from the President of the National Conference of State Legislatures comparing State budgets in recent years to the engine of a luxury car. Yet, I have heard from this and other organizations that the Internet is destroying State tax revenue streams. I don't know who or what to believe. All I know is that many in this Senate need time to understand this issue. There are many members in this body who do not fully recognize that the moratorium is completely unrelated to sales taxes or the collection thereof. Given that fact, I cannot see why extending the moratorium for a mere few months or years would be beneficial in terms of educating the general public and the Members of this body. In a matter of months or a few years, the technology sector will only just be at the point of full recovery from the current downturn in our economy. We will need several years beyond that point of full recovery to complete the comprehensive, neutral studies of the Internet and e- commerce that Members of Congress will need in order to make these important decisions, decisions that may directly challenge the conventional wisdom of our Founding Fathers and our own historical experience. Given these requirements, five years seems to be the minimum amount of time Congress, the private sector, and other interested organizations will need in order to make well-informed, proactive decisions regarding other issues not related to the Internet moratorium. In the meantime, we can guarantee a level of stability for the Internet over the next five years that will allow our Nation to continue to close the digital divide and encourage new and enhanced uses of the web for consumers. I call on my colleagues to join me and my fellow cosponsors in cosponsoring the Defense of Internet Tax Freedom Act, in supporting a five year extension of the Internet moratorium on access multiple and discriminatory taxes. Let's give the Internet the future it deserves and show America that the answer is not more taxes but rather better, more efficient government for the people and by the people.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the United States- Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. I believe this agreement will help transform Vietnam's economy into one that is more open and transparent, expand economic freedom and opportunities for Vietnam's people and foster a more open society. At the same time, I commend my colleague, Senator Bob Smith, for his efforts to press for consideration of the Vietnam Human Rights Act. Senator Smith is correct: These two measures should have been considered in tandem. A constituent, and friend, of mine is Dr. Quan Nguyen. He is a respected leader of the Vietnamese community in Virginia. His brother, Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, is in Vietnam and he is not free. He is the head of the Non-Violent Movement for Human Rights in Vietnam. He spent 20 years in Vietnamese prisons because he dared to believe in the concept of freedom, liberty and democracy. He has been under house arrest since 1999. He lives with two armed guards stationed outside his residence. His telephone and Internet accounts have been cut off and his mail is intercepted. Dr. Que has been labeled a common criminal because his ``anti-socialist'' ideas are a crime in Vietnam. The struggle for freedom of conscience, economic self-sufficiency and human rights is one that has not ended with the conclusion of the Cold War. Regimes throughout the world continue in power while denying basic human rights to their citizens and unjustly imprisoning those who peacefully disagree with the government. One such place is the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I support increased trade with Vietnam and will vote for this measure. At the same time, I urge the government of Vietnam to choose the path of enlightened nations, the path of true freedom, and true respect for all its citizens and their human rights. Vietnam waits on the cusp of history, and the choices before it are important choices between freedom and respect for human rights, or stagnation and totalitarianism.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I want to state for the record why I voted in support of the request from President Bush for an authorization of a Base Realignment and Closure Commission in fiscal year 2003. I support a BRAC round in 2003 for three reasons: First, I am confident that with an objective analysis of their military value, Virginia bases will score well compared to other installations throughout the Nation. I am sensitive to the fact that BRAC is an emotional issue. As unemotional as we would like to make it, we cannot get completely away from the emotion that is involved with closing installations and potentially uprooting people's lives. While I am sensitive to the emotions involved, I am confident that Virginia will come out well. Virginia bases have, in past years, demonstrated their military value and will do so again this time. As Governor of Virginia, I, in 1994, established the Virginia Office of Base Retention and Defense Adjustment. We coordinated an effective State effort to assess the attributes of our military facilities to protect Virginia interests in the 1995 BRAC rounds. Indeed, after the 1995 BRAC, some 4,000 jobs were returned to Virginia that were lost in the 1993 BRAC round. Finally, Fort Pickett was on the 1995 BRAC list until we negotiated a transfer to the Virginia National Guard to serve as Headquarters of the Commonwealth's Department of Military Affairs. So our bases are not only operationally important to their own services but they are interwoven in a web of joint-ness in which our military puts great value. We are operating at peak capacity in Virginia. We are efficient and we are ready to serve our national interests and meet the challenges of a BRAC round. Second, the Department of Defense has indicated that a BRAC is needed on the merits. They have indicated there is a 25 percent excess infrastructure throughout our military installations. The Bush administration believes we could save $3.5 billion by consolidating operations. We then have a responsibility to work for more efficiency so that our resources can be allocated where they are needed most. These resources can be used to improve pay for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. Savings can be used to acquire upgraded, more technologically advanced equipment, armaments, and spare parts; all to better protect our uniformed personnel. Indeed, these savings can even be used to upgrade facilities in which our services are located. Finally, during this time of national emergency, we should give due deference to the decisions of the President, Secretary of Defense, and the Pentagon. The administration has said we, as a nation, need to authorize a commission. Secretary Rumsfeld called it ``imperative to convert excess capacity into war-fighting ability.'' During a time of national emergency and throughout our ``war on terrorism,'' it is important to support the National Command Authority in their decisions to wage war and structure an efficient war machine. Again, because this is a highly emotional issue and affects the lives of people throughout the land, Congress must have confidence in the recommendations of the administration, Department of Defense, and the commission. I am confident of the Secretary's ability to ensure the integrity of the BRAC process which is so important to the accurate assessment of our future operational needs and force structure. Again, I am aware of the concerns that many of my fellow Virginians feel as we approach BRAC once again. But I remain committed to supporting the Bush administration during this time of national emergency. When thinking objectively, everyone understands the urgency of utilizing our assets in the most effective manner possible. I am confident in the Secretary and commission's ability to conduct an objective assessment of the Nation's defense infrastructure needs.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues my concern about our economy, the loss of jobs, and the economic stimulus package being considered by Members of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Mr. Thomas, the Senator from Wyoming, mentioned some of the economic stimulus package. In my view, an education opportunity tax credit should be included in any economic stimulus package put together in the coming weeks. We know our economy is in serious trouble. The economy grew just 0.2 of 1 percent in the second quarter of this year, compared to 4.1- percent average growth in the year 2000. The most important thing we can do at this point is increase consumer spending, especially on durable goods. Orders for durable goods dropped in August, as reported by the Commerce Department, all of which was due to the technology and transportation sectors. We have addressed the transportation industry partially, with the airline industry stabilization bill, but the technology sector still remains unaddressed. Consumer confidence is dropping like a stone. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index released last week, September 28, indicated that consumer confidence dropped 21 percent. Although the correlation between consumer confidence and spending is not strong in the short term, it is strong in the mid-to-long term. The No. 1 reason for this precipitous drop in consumer confidence is because of where consumers thought they would be in their own lives 6 months out. One financial market analyst was recently quoted in the Washington Post as saying that the size of this decline in consumer confidence will translate into reduced spending in the next 6 months. That confidence decline is not over. Consumers, clearly, are on a very cautious mindset. That is why we must take measures to improve consumer confidence and spending again. There is a debate currently underway in our country over which types of tax cuts are the answer to providing immediate economic growth. In my judgment, we must focus on individual tax cuts that will immediately lift consumer confidence and result in greater consumer spending--the idea that we need to increase corporate savings and investment necessities, that those companies have revenues in the first place, revenues that come from consumer spending. Instead, what is needed, as the Wall Street Journal editorialized today, is ``temporary, not permanent tax breaks--and preferably for consumers, not business.'' The Wall Street Journal article was very clear as to the ineffectiveness of corporate tax cuts in order to spur the economy, citing Gregory Mankiw, an economist at Harvard, who favors permanently abolishing the corporate income tax, but states that doing so now would not result in immediate investment. He is quoted as saying: The problem now is there's a lot of uncertainty, which is inducing people to wait, which depresses aggregate demand, which in turn exacerbates the economic slowdown. The Wall Street Journal further opines that: . . . stimulating spending and making members feel secure would be more effective than reducing corporate tax rates as a way to boost economic growth. In fact, we all know our economy, this free market, is all about the consumer. If consumers do not buy, companies will not have revenue. If companies do not have revenue, they will not be able to invest, nor will companies need employees to be in those jobs to produce. If they do not invest, if they are not creating jobs, our economy will not grow out of this economic sluggishness. The technology sector, which was once the leading force behind economic growth and productivity, is now the most significant detractor, getting hit the hardest by the contractions in spending and investment. There has been a 19-percent drop in technology spending, including a 45-percent drop in personal computer orders and a 14.5- percent drop in software and equipment spending. Other sources of capital and growth have dried up as well. Banks continue to limit their exposure to the high-technology sector and tighten lending standards, cutting off resources at a time when money is already scarce. Venture capital has all but disappeared from this sector. First-round venture capital funding has already fallen $1.84 billion, down 87 percent from the previous year during the second quarter of 2001. This has all led to widespread layoffs within the tech sector over this past year. Job cuts in the high-tech industries of telecommunications, computers and electronics--those job cuts are up 13 times over what they were last year. Through the end of August, high tech accounted for nearly 40 percent of the 1.1 million job cuts so far in 2001. Just to put that in perspective, that is 4 times more, 4 times greater than the entire post-attack airline industry layoffs--over 400,000 jobs lost in the tech sector versus, obviously, a great concern over 100,000 jobs lost in the airline industry sector. The total tech job sector cuts in August alone exceeded all of the cuts for the year 2000. This technology sluggishness is clearly harmful for our future. Technological advancements are how America and our economy will compete and succeed internationally, and technological sector growth and rapid advances in productivity have been the base of our economic growth in the past and will be a vital key to our competitiveness in the future. As we look at technology in the future, whether it is computers, whether it is clean coal technology, whether it is fuel cell technology, these are important for future competitiveness, our quality of life, and good jobs in the future. The lifeline to our economy, consumer spending, has been seriously dampened by the terrorist attacks which occurred on September 11, 2001. That is why I would like to bring the attention of my colleagues back to a bill I introduced in March of this year, the Educational Opportunity Tax Credit of 2001. This proposal will provide a $1,000- per-child computer purchase tax credit which families can also use, not just to buy computers but printers, monitors, educational software, or Internet access. However, this tax credit would not apply to tuition at a private school. This would provide the exact type of boost both consumer spending on durable goods and the technology sector need. Maybe we could limit this tax credit to 1 or 2 years. Even with that limitation I would estimate it would provide upwards of $20 billion in new consumer spending. Think of parents who have a child in school. If they could buy their son or daughter a computer or some peripherals, a printer, they would say: Gosh, if I do it this year or next year, I will get a tax break for it. That will induce that spending. It clearly would induce computer and technology spending, especially if it is available for 2 years, thus propelling the technology sector while also improving educational opportunities for students. The fact is, experience shows that even a small, temporary reduction in taxes can bring about huge increases in computer sales. In South Carolina, they had a sales tax holiday on computers for just 3 days. CPU sales increased more than tenfold; 1,060 percent in those 3 days. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania they eliminated the sales tax on computers for 1 week. CPU sales increased sixfold; 615 percent in that time. My Educational Opportunity Tax Credit would not just impact computer sales but also software makers, Internet access providers, printer, monitor and scanner manufacturers as well. In South Carolina they realized a 664-percent and 700-percent increase in monitor and printer sales, respectively, with only a 5- percent tax break. We know that consumer spending accounts for two- thirds of all economic activity, which is largely flat and has been flat this summer and weakening in the last report in our economy. The Education Opportunity Tax Credit represents the right solution for our economy. No. 1, it increases consumer spending on computers and related technology. No. 2, it injects $20 billion into the weakest and one of the very important links in our economy. No. 3, it provides previously out-of-reach education and technology opportunities for families. As I said before, I am willing to work with my colleagues in addressing the best way to implement this proposal. We can shorten the applicable timeframe from the original bill. We can look at a different credit level to make sure we get the maximum economic impact for minimum fiscal impact to the Treasury. But I am convinced that combining consumer-oriented tax cuts with appreciation of what is really going on in the technology sector can improve consumer confidence, accelerate consumer spending, and provide the technology sector the revenues they need to reinvest and return our economy to strong growth and also provide more good paying jobs for the people of America. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I say to the Senator from Montana that I will try to say what I want to say in support of this measure in 5 minutes.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the United States- Jordan Free Trade Agreement. First, I congratulate Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley for their work in producing this very important legislation, which is a significant step forward in making Jordan a world partner with the United States. Most of the debate on this matter is centered on the new ground which this measure makes in including multiple worker rights provisions in the body of the U.S. trade agreement, rather than as a side agreement, for the first time. The volume of the bilateral trade between the United States and Jordan throughout the 1990s was consistently modest. Therefore, it is thought, this agreement is unlikely to have any great immediate or dramatic impact on the volume of bilateral trade. However, I wish to share with my colleagues what this agreement means to the Commonwealth of Virginia and, particularly, to the Albemarle Corporation, headquartered in Richmond, VA. Albemarle is a worldwide manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals, such as bulk ibuprofen, biocide products, and flame retardants. Nearly 50 percent of the corporation's revenues are derived from products that are sold outside the United States. Several years ago, Albemarle Corporation began negotiations with the Arab Potash Company to create a joint venture company that will process bromine and bromine derivatives from the Dead Sea in Safi, Jordan. This agreement will allow Albemarle to bring the bromine into the United States tariff free. It will be actually shipped to Albemarle's facility in Magnolia, AR, for final processing. This will represent a multimillion-dollar investment and it will be used for a variety of products, such as flame retardants for TVs and computers, and other products, and it obviously will provide Albemarle with increased marketing opportunities globally for these lines of products. It is anticipated that the capital outlay for this joint venture will be $150 million. This outlay makes this joint venture the largest U.S.- Jordanian private venture in Jordan to date. At full operation, they will be creating over 200 new jobs at the plant near Safi and its main Amman office. I congratulate King Abdullah and his government for their efforts leading to Jordan's accession to the World Trade Organization. Acceptance by the World Trade Organization, combined with Jordan's economic reforms, are significant steps forward to making Jordan a world partner with the United States. These developments also made Albemarle more excited about conducting business with its Jordanian partners. This free trade agreement is another step toward solidifying our relationship and placing Virginia products on the same tariff footing as products from other countries. I believe fair and free trade is the best way to increase trade, encourage economic development, and improve investment opportunities for all involved. It is important that the achievements made by King Abdullah and the signing of this free trade agreement be recognized and ratified by the Senate. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I thank Senator Hutchison, who has been an outstanding leader on the issue of aviation safety and better airline quality for many years. This is not something that Senator Hutchison first started worrying about after this terrible disaster of September 11. She has been working on this issue way ahead of time. If more people had listened to Senator Hutchison years ago, some of the concerns we are now finally addressing would have been addressed. I join with many of my colleagues in thanking Senator Hutchison and all those who worked together on this package to provide some stabilization for air transportation. Yesterday we had hours and hours of hearings with Secretary Mineta, who all of us recognize did a great job in coordination with the FAA, in grounding all flights. They saved lives. They saved lives here in America with that quick decision. However, without that decision in response to the terrorist attack, our airlines would be in much better financial shape today. We are now in a different paradigm, a different world. I have heard comments from my colleagues: Why is the Federal Government involved in this versus other businesses? The main reason is, the Federal Government controls the air, and the FAA grounded all the airplanes. It actually said: You must stop business. That decision has caused losses for the industry. Today we will vote to provide compensation for those lost revenues resulting from this necessary decision regarding the safety of our citizens. We also recognize the absolute essential nature of air travel for our way of life, for our economy, for commerce, and for our national security. It has been stated by many others how important it is for our economy and how many jobs are affected. In our Commonwealth of Virginia, Reagan National Airport is shut down today. It remains the only airport in the Nation that is prohibited from operating. There are 10,200 employees currently out of work, and then about five to seven times as many employees indirectly affected who are also out of work. General aviation fortunately is back, at least at a greater level than it was previously. But we know that the layoffs are in the tens of thousands across this country. We recognize the need for safe planes. Next week we will address airline safety with efforts to make sure the cockpits are safer and the security is better. Today we will address the financial losses resulting from the events of September 11. However, I had hoped that this bill would include assistance for workers who had lost their jobs as a result of the airlines being grounded.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I share the desire to make sure employees who are out of work are also taken care of with both health and unemployment benefits. I am working with Senator Carnahan of Missouri to make sure that this is made part of the overall package. I will cosponsor her bill to provide unemployment assistance, extend healthcare benefits and to provide for worker retraining. We need to act today on aid for the airlines so that future job losses are avoided, and in the future let's make sure we take care of those hard- working employees who are have already lost their jobs through no fault of their own. I thank my friend from West Virginia. I yield the floor.