George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I am sorry.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Therefore, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to address this issue as it lays right now as we are moving to proceed, and some of the misinformation, mischaracterizations of where we are. This issue is not a novel or new one for the Senate. We have debated this in the committee. It has been on the floor. Senator Wyden and I were ready to roll with this back in November--a permanent moratorium making sure forever there would not be discriminatory taxes, multiple taxes, or access taxes for consumers on the Internet. Now we get to this point and there are a lot of mischaracterizations. The Senator from Arizona, chairman of the Commerce Committee, has come up with a proposal, an amendment to the bill, which is not permanent. To me it is not ideal. It is not perfect. But a lot of what happens in the Senate fails to meet that standard of ideal and perfect. Once in a while, one has to be practical, pragmatic, and sometimes cut back on what you think is the ideal. This amendment of the Senator from Arizona is a 4-year moratorium rather than a permanent moratorium. I look at a ``Dear Colleague'' letter from some of my colleagues, Senator Carper and Senator Alexander, and they say: A moratorium of 4 years, that is tantamount to a permanent moratorium while they argue for a 2-year extension of a moratorium. Well, if 4 years is permanent, I guess whoever gets elected President next year is going to be there permanently; Senators with a 6-year term, that must be ad infinitum. Four years is temporary; it is not ideal. I would prefer it to be permanent, and the reason I would like it to be permanent is because companies have to invest millions, tens of millions of dollars, if they are going to get broadband out, especially small towns and rural areas. In the event there is a shorter duration, then that means it is less likely that there will be stability, predictability, and confidence that the laws will stay the same. Anyone, even those with a fourth grade education--at least those students who have the benefit of Virginia's standards of learning--will understand that if you tax something, fewer people will be able to afford it. The question before the Senate is whether we want to have Internet access and the Internet service monthly bills to be burdened with, on average, about a 17-percent tax, as is the case on telephone bills. Senator Wyden, myself, and many others believe that if we want more people to have access to broadband and the Internet, then the best way is not to burden it with regulations or taxes. This is particularly true for those with lower incomes and those in rural areas and small towns, who need access to the ability to conduct commerce, access to education, access to telemedicine--access to all forms of information, which is key to competitiveness these days. The grandfather clause has also been changed from the bill Senator Wyden and I originally introduced. We wanted to stop those who found a loophole in the original moratorium and started taxing the backbone of the Internet. They are taxing that and, of course, ultimately the consumer has to pay for those taxes. We wanted to stop that immediately. Senator McCain's amendment gives those States greater leeway and gives them up to 2 years to wean themselves off of this latest loophole for taxation. For those who have been taxing prior to 1998--and many States are still taxing--although States such as Iowa, South Carolina, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, which were grandfathered, have stopped taxing Internet access. But other States are continuing to do so. Senator McCain's amendment--unlike what the House did, which was stopping these States from taxing instantly--gives them 3 years to wean themselves off of it. The compromise that Senator McCain put forward, to me, is not ideal; it is beneficial, though, in that at least for the next 4 years we are protecting consumers from being hit with these burdensome, counterproductive, undesirable taxes on their access to the Internet. While not perfect, it is a measure that we can move forward with. It will have the Senate on record as not being in favor of taxing access to the Internet, but rather on the side of the consumers, on the side of freedom, and on the side of opportunity. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I have always been one to support innovation. It is with the innovative researchers of this Nation and the world that have provided us with some of the greatest contributions in history. Inventions such as the computer, the Internet, the automobile, the airplane, and vaccines have transformed the world as we once knew it, to the world that we live in now. I would like to take a moment and recognize yesterday's event commemorating April 26, 2004, as the 50th Anniversary of the Salk polio vaccine field trials, a truly significant day for our Nation. On April 26, the March of Dimes and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, commemorated the 50th anniversary of the development of the Salk polio vaccine along with several other organizations. This day in April holds great significance for the nation as it was that day in 1954 that the first dose of the Salk vaccine was distributed to children at Franklin Sherman Elementary school in McLean, VA as part of the National Field Trial Program. In the months that followed, more than 1,800,000 school children, collectively referred to as ``Polio Pioneers'', participated in these trials. The outcomes of these field trials were truly significant. Reports indicated that the Salk vaccine was 80-90 percent effective in preventing polio and in the four years following the trials, medical personnel administered 450 million doses of the vaccine, making it a standard fixture among childhood immunizations. By the end of 2003, poliomyelitis had been eliminated world-wide in all but 6 countries. The result of this vaccination--nearly 5 million children have been given the ability to walk who would otherwise have been paralyzed and 1.25 million childhood deaths have been averted. The Salk polio vaccine is a great contribution to our nation and to the entire world. While poliovirus was eradicated from the United States by the early 1980's, it continues to exist in the wild in a limited number of regions around the world. Nevertheless, the World Health Organization has set 2005 as the target date for complete, global eradication of the virus. It is through the unwavering support and undying efforts of the innovators of this world and organizations such as the March of Dimes that make this occasion possible. The people of Virginia thank you, the people of the United States thank you, and most importantly the world thanks you.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Absolutely, they would have to pay those taxes.

Mr. ALLEN. Sales and use taxes, if they have a physical presence in that State, yes, they would have to collect and remit those taxes.

Mr. ALLEN. I say to my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, he is exactly correct. The unfunded mandate aspect of this is a kind of perverse reasoning because the States that were grandfathered back in 1998 have yet to wean themselves off of this tax on Internet access. We are actually giving them, in our measure, 3 more years, and that is a loss of revenue to them? Then there are those in the last couple years that have made rulings that are taxing the backbone or the transport, more importantly, the high speed transport or broadband. That is about $40 million. So the point is, they have had plenty of time to wean themselves off of this tax, and we are actually going to give them even more time. Also, it is not unprecedented for Congress to recognize the importance of a coherent national policy regarding matters of interstate commerce. In 1973, States were prohibited from imposing a tax, a fee, or a head charge on all air commerce. In 1985, Senator Bob Dole led a measure affecting food stamp purchases. States were putting sales taxes on food stamp purchases, and Senator Dole introduced a bill, and it passed in 1985, prohibiting States from imposing sales taxes on food stamp purchases. Most recently as we were passing the Medicare drug bill this last winter, just a few months ago, Congress prohibited States from imposing insurance premium taxes on drug insurance policies. The fiscal impact of that was approximately $60 million. Now, in the last 10 years, of course, the Internet has grown, with the policy of our country that we would not tax it. We wanted it to flourish, to grow, and provide opportunities for individuals. What our opponents will have us do, though, is--again, remember, they want to have unelected tax administrators or local and State governments to tax the Internet backbone or, for that matter, high-speed or broadband telephone service. Let me speak about everyone's telephone bill. Look at all those taxes on it. This is why the moratorium is so essential, that we stop them from taxing anymore than they are now, and wean them off. Realize it is nearly impossible to repeal taxes because--do you know what?--on your telephone bill, for every single citizen, every single person in America who has telephone service, part of those taxes that you are paying is a luxury tax that was put on 105 years ago as a luxury tax on telephone service to finance the Spanish American War. Guess what? We are still paying it. That war has been over for over 100 years and we won. Yet we are still paying that tax. That is why it is important, number one, to wean the few States and localities off of this negative, burdensome tax on opportunity and freedom but also to stop it from happening in the future. The President of the United States, on numerous occasions--recently, in New Mexico, in Michigan, in Minnesota--has stated a goal for this country, in the year 2007--which is also the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown by the Virginia Company--he wants to have everyone in this country having access to broadband. Broadband is essential for rural areas. I know in southwestern Virginia, in Southside Virginia, in any rural areas in this country, they look at having broadband, high-speed Internet access as key to their young people having opportunities--whether it is educational opportunities or health care with telemedicine, or for small businesses to be able to be competing internationally, as opposed to young people having to leave their home and their roots and their heritage to find jobs elsewhere. It is the President's view that we are falling behind--and we are falling behind--other countries as far as broadband and high-speed access. You see a disparity, one based on income. Every study and anybody with a scintilla of common sense will understand, if you tax something, fewer people can afford it. Those who are lower income or lower middle income cannot afford it. Every study--by Pew and others-- shows that the cost of Internet access is the reason for them not being online. For broadband, if you want to get broadband deployed and available in rural areas, and have competition and choice for customers, clearly DSL will be an approach, wireless will be an approach, maybe satellites. Most cannot use a cable modem because there is just a lot of dirt to dig to get to many rural areas that are sparsely populated. The fact is, the most recent studies show there is a disparity not only in the economic digital divide, which manifests itself with Hispanic Americans and African Americans, but also rural versus city areas. City areas have almost three times as much utilization and use of broadband in their homes than out in the country in rural areas. Broadband deployment is only 10 percent in rural areas while it is over 28 percent in city or suburban-city areas. For rural areas to be able to compete, and for the vitality of their future, adding a 15- to 18-percent tax--these are the telecommunications taxes that our opponents would impose--will diminish the availability of the Internet. That 15- to 18-percent tax means it is going to take more money to get broadband access to those people, and fewer people will be able to access it. Therefore, the investors will not invest the money to get into that community.

Mr. ALLEN. I am happy to yield to my friend from New Hampshire.

Mr. ALLEN. I say to my friend, the Senator from Oregon, he is exactly correct. I recollect back in 1997, I was Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia when Senator Wyden and Congressman Chris Cox of California introduced this measure. I was one of four Governors who believed this was clearly interstate commerce. If there is anything that is interstate in nature by its architecture, design, and engineering, it is the Internet. I thought we ought to have a national policy, that it be more ubiquitous or more available, understanding that taxation harms it. I believed, as did the Senator from Oregon and Senator Sununu, this would be a great engine for innovation, growth, investment, and jobs. That is exactly what happened. The amount of revenues lost by those first, most avaricious, those desiring to go in and start taxing at the local and State level, is very small. But if you look at the economic growth led by the Internet, and the revenues that came after it--and it does not have to be a technology business; it could be a mom-and-pop startup business; it could be a major corporation; it could be somebody working from their home on eBay--you see the revenue growth, you see more jobs and, therefore, more revenue for the Government. So when you look at the effect of the localities and States not being able to tax this interstate commerce, you find that it actually has been beneficial for the economy. The lost revenues are very small. In fact, there were about 10 States, I believe it was, that were grandfathered in that had already started taxing prior to 1998. About three-quarters of those States are still taxing Internet access. Six years later, you would figure they would wean themselves off of it. But there were about a quarter of these States--South Carolina, Connecticut, Iowa and the District of Columbia, and others--that have said: Gosh, this is harmful. This makes our jurisdiction, our State less attractive for investment and jobs, and it is bad for our citizens, and they voluntarily stopped taxing the Internet. The reality is, all of these fiscal impacts that we hear of are so farfetched. In fact, the CBO confirmed that our opponents and the State tax agencies have overstated the revenue impact of this clarification to make sure that DSL and broadband is not taxed. They overstated it by 100 times. The fiscal impact, if you throw them all together, at best, would be $200 million. Across the whole country, our opponents are saying it is going to cost $20 billion.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, you would still have to pay corporate taxes, State payroll taxes.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, they would.

Mr. ALLEN. I am happy to yield to my friend from New Hampshire.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield.

Mr. ALLEN. I would say to the Senator from New Hampshire, he has it exactly correct, as well as protecting consumers from access taxes. The Senator from New Hampshire understands this issue very well. Maybe the opponents would like to stop these delay-of-game tactics so we can actually get to protecting the people. I find it interesting--and as I said, this has nothing to do with subsidies of telecommunications companies--that virtually every Senator will say, let's figure out subsidies; let's figure out tax breaks to get broadband to rural areas. Why would you want to have subsidies and expenditures and then on the other hand say, let's tax it, when you are trying to get more people utilizing and having access to broadband for a variety of reasons? I see the chairman of the Commerce Committee has arrived. I will simply say, the United States has been a leader for freedom. We are falling behind other countries in broadband, its deployment, and its use to Asian and European countries. Simply put, taxes on access to the Internet reduce the number of consumers who can afford to purchase this service, thereby limiting opportunities for millions of Americans. Reduction of demand will stifle investment in rural and underserved areas. It will slow the deployment of the next-generation broadband technologies. I urge, most respectfully, my colleagues to stand on the side of freedom, embrace innovation and improvement, and not tax this tool for individual empowerment and opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support cloture on the motion to proceed. It is a motion to proceed for opportunity and for freedom. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to urge my colleagues to support the motion for cloture to proceed to S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. This bill does have strong bipartisan support. Let me say a few things in response to my good friend, the junior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper. If those who oppose this measure want to extend the moratorium, why are we having this debate tonight? Why are we going to have to have a motion for cloture on moving to proceed on the bill? I agree that we should do no harm. Those who are for this measure want to prevent harm to consumers so that they are not loaded up with taxes from State and local governments. I will get into the details of that in my remarks. The cost, the so-called unfunded mandate aspect of this is a very small amount in the scheme of things, $80 to $120 million, then another $40 million for the taxing of DSL. Updates in the new technologies need to be made in the definition of Internet access to make sure DSL and digital subscriber lines using telephone lines get high-speed Internet access or broadband. We need to have that changed to make sure the folks at the State and local level recognize that there has been an update and upgrade, there have been advancements in technology in the transport of the Internet, particularly broadband, but DSL lines should not be subject to taxation. The intent of the first Internet tax moratorium was to make sure the Internet was free of taxation. The Internet is a freeway. If you want access to information, you click on. Now that transport is being taxed. Who pays? The consumer pays. I will use an analogy. Now we have a freeway. You are going to Charlotte, NC, from Washington, DC, you get on Interstate 95 and switch over to Interstate 85. It is a freeway. Then you get off on an exit to wherever you want to get in the city of Charlotte, NC. The advocates of taxing the Internet and those who oppose S. 150 would like to turn that freeway into the New Jersey Turnpike, a toll road. Clearly, the consumer getting that information on the backbone of the Internet is going to have to pay for it, increasing their costs. Companion legislation was passed by the House 8 months ago. My colleagues have heard me say on many occasions, I believe what we ought to be advocating in the Senate, in the Congress, at the Federal level, and every level of government in the United States of America, are policies that allow people to compete and succeed. That means tax policy, regulatory policies that promote freedom and opportunity for all Americans. We ought to, as leaders, be advancing ideas that help create more investment, creating, thereby, more jobs and more prosperity rather than more burdens of taxation and regulation. Senator Wyden from Oregon and I joined together early last year with this bill. We want to make sure there is equal access to the Internet for all consumers and also protect e-commerce transactions from discriminatory taxes or multiple taxes. The Internet is one of the greatest tools invented by this country. It is a symbol and an actual tool of innovation and individual empowerment. Accordingly, I would think everyone in the Senate would want to help the Internet continue to grow and flourish as a valuable tool for commerce, for information, for education. However, as of November 1 of last year, the Federal moratorium, which was originally enacted in 1998--and Senator Wyden was a key sponsor of that measure--expired, leaving consumers vulnerable to harmful regressive and discriminatory taxes for the first time in 6 years. If the Senate does not act now and move to consider S. 150, it is unlikely we will get another chance in this election year. If we do not invoke cloture, the Senate will be known as a Senate that favors new taxes on the Internet; the Senate that turned a blind eye; and a Senate that limited individual opportunity while enabling harmful, regressive taxation of access to the Internet. When Senator Wyden and I introduced this legislation over a year ago, it was consistent with the founding principles of the original moratorium that the Internet ought to remain as accessible as possible to all people in all parts of the country forever. Unfortunately, in the last year of debate, the focus has shifted away from that principle, causing unnecessary confusion and delay. Let me be clear, this legislation is not about tax breaks for telecommunications companies. It is not about mayors and Governors. It is certainly not about the 1994 Republican revolution that has absolutely nothing to do with traditional telephone calls migrating to the Internet. Rather, our legislation has everything to do with consumers and the impact of taxation on real people and our American economy. All of the protax arguments and misleading accusations presented by the opposition are unrelated distractions aimed at confusing Senators and stalling consideration of this very important measure. In fact, the issue is not about telephone services migrating to the Internet. Rather, it is the ongoing campaign by State and local tax lobbyists to make sure telephone taxes, which average 15 to 18 percent, migrate to the Internet. I ask my colleagues and anyone else who might be listening to think of their telephone bill. Think of the bill you receive each month with all sorts of taxes included--usually multiple local taxes, State taxes, as well as Federal taxes. In effect, the opponents of our measure would have our monthly Internet service provider bill be loaded down with all those taxes, as on our telephone bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act or the FAIR Act. Over the past decade, asbestos-related lawsuits have increased dramatically and have shown no sign of lessening. According to reports, at least 730,000 claimants have sued more than 8,400 defendant companies alleging some kind of injury by asbestos exposure. The number of defendant companies that have been sued has increased by 8,100 since 1983 according to the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. There is no doubt that the current asbestos litigation system is a failure. The system is harmful on two fronts: it is harmful to the economy and harmful to the asbestos victims, who currently wait years for their cases to be resolved. Sadly, some of these victims die before even having their day in court. I view this measure as a jobs bill. Some would ask: How is this legislation going to help create jobs? I would answer that while we are steadily recovering from an economic downturn exacerbated by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and our necessary response in the war on terrorism, we need to make sure that willing men and women can find jobs. Employment is improving. However, if the Senate does not act on this important reform legislation, the numbers of unemployed Americans will increase. The fact is that asbestos-related bankruptcies inflict a staggering toll on the American workforce. Companies that have declared bankruptcy because of asbestos-related litigation employed more than 200,000 workers before their bankruptcies. So far, asbestos-related bankruptcies have led to the direct loss of as many as 60,000 jobs, while each displaced worker will lose an average of $25,000 to $50,000 in wages over his or her career, according to Joseph Stiglitz, cowinner of the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics. One economic study by the Financial Institutions for Asbestos Reform found that, considering the multiplying effect of private investment, failure to enact asbestos legislation could reduce economic growth by $2.4 billion per year, costing more than 30,000 jobs annually. Extended over a 27-year time frame, this would translate into the loss of more 800,000 jobs and $64 billion in economic growth. And RAND concluded that 423,000 new jobs will not be created due to asbestos litigation, and $33 billion in capital investment will not be made. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle preach the need for job growth and argue that Republicans are not doing enough to spur the economy and preserve and create jobs. This bill helps preserve jobs. But unfortunately, if we continue to allow this dysfunctional system to exist and let partisan politics run rampant, we will see a major dilemma in the American workplace--thousands of Virginians and Americans unemployed. In addition, a failure to resolve this situation will have an adverse effect on employee pensions and retirements. Each worker who loses their job from an asbestos bankruptcy loses on average at least 25 percent of the value of their 401(k) retirement accounts. Thus, a failure to act will not only lead to job loss, but could hamper their long-term financial well-being. Furthermore, individuals use their pensions and 401(ks) for a number of things. An individual may use it to retire, to pay for their children's college education or for incurred health expenses as they grow older. Unfortunately, the crisis does not stop there. Opponents seem to forget that many victims are unable to receive just compensation because the courts have been burdened by the sheer volume of cases-- legitimate and less meritorious alike. They have been unable to ensure that even a majority of asbestos compensation goes to plaintiffs who are actually injured. Shipyard workers and Navy veterans from my Commonwealth of Virginia should not have to suffer in the current system. The RAND study that I referenced earlier found that the vast majority of new claims-- approximately 90 percent--are made by people who do not have any sort of cancer or mesothelioma. These individuals prevent the claims of those who are truly ill from being heard and given their day in court and zap the limited resources available to compensate true victims now and in the future. This bill will provide some consistency in the settlements that are awarded to victims. Far too often, the awards are unfair, inconsistent, and erratic. Currently, victims can only expect to see 43 cents of every dollar in compensation awarded. The rest of the money goes to lawyers and administrative costs. The FAIR Act seeks to remedy this injustice. This legislation will make sure that victims receive immediate compensation in full. By capping the litigation costs, we are making sure that awards are going into the bank accounts of the truly injured, rather than legal fees for companies and claimants. As the Chicago Tribune said in September 2002, ``Today's dysfunctional system benefits primarily trial lawyers and healthy plaintiffs--and that drains resources from those who are sick and dying because of asbestos. That's a national shame.'' The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act is a long overdue attempt to correct that terrible wrong. So what does this bill do? In short, the FAIR Act would establish a privately funded trust fund composed of mandatory contributions from current corporate defendants and their insurers as well as moneys from existing bankruptcy trusts. Plaintiffs who believe they have been injured by asbestos exposure would submit claims to the administrator of the trust fund with evidence that they were exposed to asbestos for a period of time sufficient to cause their medical condition. Qualified claimants would be paid a clear compensation depending on eligibility and disease type on a no-fault basis. Properly administered, the trust fund will ensure that nearly all defendants' and insurers' asbestos expenditures end up in the hands of injured claimants. And by paying fixed generous award amounts depending on the severity of the disease, the FAIR Act would ensure that the truly impaired are compensated. I urge my colleagues to move to consider this bill. Too many jobs are being lost in bankrupted companies while Virginians and Americans with asbestos-related diseases receive inadequate compensation. The principal point is that action and leadership has been needed for years. There is no reason to procrastinate and avoid responsibility to remedy this current dysfunctional, failed situation. The FAIR Act is a reasonable, responsible way to move forward jobs and equity; to filibuster and block this bill is an avoidance of responsibility.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Senator Wyden's amendment to the PRIDE Act that provides States the option to extend current TANF waivers and create additional waiver authority. Virginia has been a leader in many important national reform movements throughout the history of our country. In February of 1995, during my tenure as Governor of the Commonwealth, Virginia enacted one of the most principled, tough, comprehensive welfare reform measures in the United States. It was a tough fight to get this measure passed by a Democrat led General Assembly. Many other States enacted successful reforms and our approach and that of Wisconsin and Massachusetts served as a model for the entire Nation and encouraged self-sufficiency, the dignity of work and the pride of independence rather than dependence. The ``Virginia Independence Program'' transformed an outdated welfare system that was failing taxpayers, sapping initiative from welfare recipients, and breaking up families. I have had many former welfare recipients thank me for ending the downward cycle of dependency and despair. Unlike the Federal work requirement outlined in the 1996 law, able- bodied recipients in Virginia were required work within 90 days, the State had a 2-year limit on benefits, with transition assistance in the third year and promoted individual responsibility by allowing no increase in State benefits for recipients who have more children while receiving welfare. Vital reforms were made for children. Virginia ended the marriage penalty, increased enforcement of child support by suspending professional and driver's licenses for ``deadbeat'' parents, required mothers to identify the father to receive benefits, or receive no benefits--this led to 99 percent identification and more child support. Finally, the law required that minor-age mothers having children while on welfare must live with a parent or guardian and stay in school, more commonly referred to as ``Learnfare''. These reforms resulted in a 60 percent decrease in welfare rolls, and saved more than $357 million in taxpayer funds in Virginia which were used for other priorities in education and law enforcement. Ultimately, I measure our success not by how many people are receiving welfare checks, but rather by how many people are leading independent, self- reliant lives. Virginia's trailblazing welfare reform has been extremely successful in setting the stage for Federal welfare overhaul, significant declines in welfare roles nationwide, and increasing the number of former welfare recipients getting back to work. Virginia's waiver from Federal law has enabled much of the success in requiring able-bodied men and women to work for their benefits. With the passage of the Federal welfare reform in the fall of 1996, Congress intended to give the States flexibility with the law. Flexibility through these waivers has allowed States the ability to develop innovative programs that best serve their citizens. Fifteen other States opted for waivers. Indeed, Virginia has far exceeded the goal of the Federal welfare legislation offering Virginians the best tools to provide for themselves and their families. As of June 2003, Virginia's welfare waiver expired. It is imperative that the PRIDE Act, a continuation of welfare reform started in 1996, include waivers for States that have taken the initiative to make comprehensive welfare reforms. We need to ensure that States can continue to encourage independence through work, promote families and marriage and guarantee child-support enforcement. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that States can maintain these positive results and successful welfare reforms. unemployment compensation

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, yesterday the Financial Accounting Standards Board, FASB, released an exposure draft of a rule that will require companies to treat employee stock options as an accounting expense. I find this proposal fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons and urge my colleagues to support legislation to prevent this from becoming a reality. During my time as Governor of Virginia, I witnessed unparalleled growth in the technology sector of my State's economy. Many new and exciting businesses brought their products, services, and, most importantly, jobs to Virginia. Many of these technology companies that located to Virginia were small ``start-ups'' with little more than a good idea and the willingness to take a risk for the hope of reward later. These technology companies contributed greatly to the tremendous economic expansion witnessed during the 1990s. However, technology companies were able to attract and retain top talent and key directors without having to raise large amounts of capital by granting employee stock options. In the end, shareholders and employees won. Employee stock options granted by many technology companies were awarded broadly to employees not only to give them an ownership interest in the company, but also to better align the interests of employees and shareholders. I think employee ownership and incentives are great. It is desirable to have motivated employees caring abut the success of their company. Broad-based employee stock options give employees--from the newly graduated worker to the experienced CEO--ownership in the company. Indeed, a well-respected technology CEO has said that employees with stock options are like homeowners, whereas those without stock options are like renters--there is a difference in the attitude, commitment and level of entrepreneurial spirit. The proposed FASB action will destroy our partnership culture of distributing stock options to the entire workforce of a company. Broad-based employee ownership delivers higher returns to shareholders, greater productivity, increased return on equity, and higher returns on assets. Unfortunately, the unelected officials of the Financial Accounting Standards Board want to bring this era to an end. In their effort to treat employee stock options as an accounting expense, they are disregarding three fundamental issues. First, employee options are not freely tradable. How do you value something that has no market? How do you put a price on something if it is not for sale? The answer is that you cannot. There is no accurate way to value these options without an open market. Second, employee stock options are subject to lengthy vesting periods--typically between 4 or 5 years. If the employee changes jobs before the options vest, they are forfeited. Finally, employee stock options will be exercised only if the stock price rises above the strike price. How does one predict future stock prices with any degree of certainty? There are entire industries dedicated to such a practice, yet I am unaware of anyone who is able to predict with absolute certainty what a stock price will be over a given length of time. This news is sure to be greeted with joy by our competitors in the Pacific Rim. Entrepreneurs in Taiwan, Singapore and China will not just continue to focus on software development or gene sequencing there. They will create global competitors there which will be listed on those stock markets. They will be free to offer stock options without the burden of expensing and our most talented people will flock there, just as they flocked to the Silicon Valley and Virginia when our technology industries were built. I find it distressing that a communist country, the People's Republic of China, has companies attracting entrepreneurial people and customers with stock options. Meanwhile, here in America an unelected, prejudicial board wishes to stop such employee ownership, motivation and success to Americans. This proposal will harm the ability of innovative American companies to successfully compete. Despite the issues I have discussed, FASB is determined to make fundamentally flawed assumptions about future stock price and employment trends. What is more, according to a Bear Stearns report, there will be a 44-percent decline in NASDAQ 100 companies' profits if they would have been required to expense employee stock options in 2003. I hope my colleagues are aware of the issues and risks posed by moving forward with this flawed proposal. At this time, we need to embrace efforts to keep people working and our economy growing. If FASB is allowed to proceed, the economic effects will be disastrous.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, or what many individuals refer to as ``Laci and Conner's Law.'' We have all heard the tragic story of Laci and Conner Peterson; Laci, 8 months pregnant with her unborn son Conner, were viciously murdered at the hands of a killer. Regrettably, Laci and Conner's story is only one of many instances where a woman is harmed and may not only lose her life but the life of her unborn child. In my Commonwealth of Virginia, we had a similar tragic situation occur in April of 2002. Ronda Robinson was maliciously gunned down in her Lynchburg home, while her two daughters watched in terror. Like Laci, Ronda was in her third trimester when she and her unborn child had their lives taken. At that time, Virginia did not have a fetal homicide law on the books, and the Commonwealth was unable to bring a homicide charge against the murderer for the killing of Ronda's unborn child. Unfortunately, the situation in Virginia and many other States remains the same. If a mother survives an assault, but loses her unborn child, the law currently does not recognize any loss of any human life at all. However, I am pleased that the Virginia General Assembly has taken steps to correct this wrong. This year, the Virginia General Assembly overwhelmingly passed legislation that would hold an individual accountable who, ``unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and with premeditation kills the fetus of another.'' Twenty-Nine senators or 72 percent of the senate and 77 members of the house of delegates or 77 percent of the house supported this legislation. While this legislation has not yet been signed into law, I am hopeful that Virginia will follow the lead of the 29 other States that have passed this important and meaningful legislation. I have the same optimism for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. We have a chance to hear the voice of the voiceless and bring fairness to a system that has essentially told hundreds of women and their families, their unborn child never existed. I have been blessed with four great gifts, my loving wife and my three wonderful children. I have witnessed my children grow and live healthy and happy lives. I see what my children have accomplished so far in their lives and I am eager to see what other great accomplishments will follow. But many individuals are unable to witness the birth and growth of their child because of a violent criminal act. Throughout my tenure in public service, whether it was in the Virginia House of Delegates, U.S. House of Representatives, Governor's office, or now in the U.S. Senate, I have always tried to be tough on criminals. I have always believed in the principle that if you commit a crime, you should be punished. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act closely upholds my beliefs by making criminals accountable for their actions. Under current Federal law, an individual who commits a Federal crime of violence and kills or injures an unborn child cannot be prosecuted for those violent acts against the unborn child. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act seeks to rectify this situation and close that loophole. Under this bill, if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined Federal crime of violence, then the assailant could be charged with a separate offense for the second, enhanced crime upon the unborn child. Opponents of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act contend that this will hamper a woman's right to choose and constitute an attack on Roe v. Wade. This is simply false. In fact, this legislation explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself, legal or illegal, or to any form of medical treatment. In addition, opponents have brought numerous challenges against State unborn victims laws, based on Roe and other constitutional arguments, and all of these challenges have been rejected by State and Federal courts. I have always been a strong supporter of rights of the people in the States to determine their laws so long as it does not harm interstate commerce or our Constitution. This bill safeguards those States' laws. This legislation does not supersede State unborn victims laws, nor does it impose such a law in a State that does not have one on the books. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act merely applies to an already defined set of Federal crimes. The bottom line is that criminals must be held accountable for their actions. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act ensures that justice is sought and available for the totality of the violent murderous act. This is good, solid legislation that is tough on crime, appropriately punishes criminals, and meets the ends of justice desired by law- abiding citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that we can send it to President Bush for his signature and ensure that justice will be served.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment submitted by Senator Bingaman and me to address a tax problem that makes the United States a less attractive location for international companies to build new operations here in the United States and thereby hire American workers. As the U.S. economy emerges from a prolonged period of weak recovery, I believe it is important that the Congress seize the opportunity to enhance and improve the competitiveness of the United States as a location for new investment and job creation. Investment in the U.S. from companies from Europe, Asia and Australia make a vital contribution to the American economy. In Virginia, we have investment from Europe such as Siemens, Framatome, Holtzbrink Publishing, BluePrint Automation, Drake Extrusion, Stihl, Porcher BGF Industries, Infilco Degremont, Maersk Container Services, DCS America, Volvo Trucks and BI Chemicals. From Japan, we have investment in Virginia from Canon, Toray, Oji- Yuka Synthetic Paper, Yokohama Tire, NWB, ``K'' Line, Yupo, Dynax, and Sumitomo. From Canada, we have investment in Virginia from Maple Leaf Bakeries. From Australia, we have investment in Virginia from RGC Minerals and Industrial Galvanizers. According to the most recent government data, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-parented companies provide jobs to 6.4 million Americans and support $350 billion in annual payroll. It is worth noting that 34 percent of these jobs are in the manufacturing sector--more than double the proportion of manufacturing jobs at all U.S. companies. U.S. subsidiaries pay significant taxes here--new IRS data shows that federal tax receipts from these companies totaled $28 billion in 2000, 14 percent of all corporate tax payments. This international investment coming into the U.S has declined over the last few years, as the net inflow of foreign direct investment into the United States recently dropped from $322 billion in 2000 to $40 billion in 2002. Unfortunately, our U.S. tax code raises the costs of financing for international companies who want to expand existing operations in the U.S. or build new operations to serve the North American or western hemisphere markets. The United States competes against other nations for locating such manufacturing operations. The cost of financing is part of the complex decision that these companies confront when considering where to locate a new operation. Our amendment would make building or expanding U.S. operations more attractive, while still keeping in place the strong safe-guards against potential abuses. Section 163(j) of our U.S. Tax Code is intended to ensure that companies don't engage in the practice of ``earnings stripping'' when borrowing from a foreign related party, e.g. a parent and an affiliate. And yet the law also limits the ability to borrow from an unrelated third party with regard to a loan that is guaranteed by the foreign parent company, even though there can be no ``earnings stripping'' if an unrelated third party receives the interest payment. The Bingaman-Allen amendment addresses this barrier to job creation in two ways. First, it removes borrowing from a U.S. taxpayer or public markets, such as commercial paper, from the calculation of disqualified interest and ensures that the borrowing relates to public debt or is truly with an unrelated third party who is subject to U.S. tax on such interest income. This provision has the added benefit of encouraging international companies to borrow from financial institutions that are subject to U.S. taxation or the commercial paper market strengthening the U.S. financial markets and bringing tax revenue into the U.S. Treasury. Second, our amendment removes from the calculation of disqualified interest guaranteed third-party borrowing to the extent the taxpayer can demonstrate it could have borrowed without such guarantee. This improved provision is sound tax policy because it requires companies to prove that they could have borrowed without the guarantee, while permitting them to access a lower interest rate by reason of a parent company guarantee. The revenue impact of this provision is potentially small given that when a company receives a lower interest rate, they also have a smaller interest deduction. Our amendment is necessary because current law on the ability to deduct interest creates a disincentive for Virginia companies like Infineon Technologies, a global semiconductor manufacturer to make additional investments in the United States. Without our amendment it will be more difficult for Infineon to invest in its 300 millimeter wafer semiconductor fabrication plant near Richmond, Virginia. At full build out, this facility could create more than 1,000 good paying technology jobs in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Another Virginia company that is affected by the ability to deduct interest is Alcatel, the U.S. subsidiary of Alcatel, SA, a global 500 corporation organized in France. Alcatel manufactures communications equipment for business and carrier customers, and it currently employs over 4,500 Americans with manufacturing facilities in California, Texas, North Carolina, and Massachusetts and approximately 100 employees in Virginia. The broadband network equipment manufactured by Alcatel is deployed in the networks of AT&T, SBC, BellSouth, Verizon, and Qwest, among others. Alcatel has maintained a commitment to Northern Virginia's local economy through its operations in Reston, VA. As a multinational leader in telecommunications and Internet technology, it is important that Alcatel maintain this point of presence at the seat of our Nation's capital. Alcatel Virginia includes employees dedicated to providing administrative support, sales, human resources services, and senior personnel involved in Alcatel North America's Mobile Networks and Space Solutions Divisions. Current laws on the ability to deduct interest could disallow the tax deduction of over $50 million that Alcatel's U.S. subsidiary is contractually obligated to pay to its foreign parent corporation each year. Unless the current law is changed, we will dampen potential growth by Alcatel in Virginia and across the country by effectively increasing the taxation of a corporation, which has chosen to create jobs in the U.S. through investment. I have three more examples of what this amendment will mean to Virginia: Winchester, VA--M&H Plastics, a British company, plans to locate its first U.S. facility in Frederick County. The manufacturer of plastic bottles, caps and tubes for the personal care market will create 57 new jobs through a $12 million capital investment. Virginia successfully competed with Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland and Canada for the project. Leesburg, VA--WaveLight Laser Technologie AG of Erlangen, Germany has selected Loudoun County for its U.S. headquarters. Through a $5 million investment, the company will create 30 new jobs. Virginia successfully competed with Illinois and Maryland for the project. WaveLight Laser Technologie AG, listed on the Prime Standard since January 2003, develops, produces and markets laser systems in the fields of ophthalmology, aesthetic surgery, urology and industrial applications. WaveLight's market success is based on its innovative laser systems that are technology leaders in their areas of application. Virginia Beach, VA--STIHL Inc. plans to expand its operations in Virginia Beach. Through an investment of $60.8 million, the company will create 200 new jobs. STIHL's investment includes the construction of a 228,000-square foot addition to its U.S. headquarters in the Oceana West Corporate Park. Virginia successfully competed with Brazil, China, and Germany for the project. STIHL manufactures the world's largest selling brand of chain saws and portable, hand-held, cut-off machines, as well as a complete line of outdoor power equipment for homeowners and professional users. STIHL Inc. is a subsidiary of German-based STIHL Holding AG & Co and one of seven manufacturing facilities in the STIHL Group. Without the passage of the amendment sponsored by Senator Bingaman and me, it will be much more difficult for any of these three job creation opportunities in Virginia to occur. The bottom line is that we need to remove barriers to international investment in our United States. This Bingaman-Allen amendment will surely help achieve this goal. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Bingaman and me in supporting this common sense provision that will increase investment and jobs in Virginia and throughout our Nation. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of my Homestead Preservation Act that I have filed as an amendment to the underlying legislation to repeal the FSC/ETI tax regime. I do support this JOBS bill, which should be focused on helping U.S. manufacturers compete or increase American jobs. This amendment would provide displaced workers access to short-term, low-interest loans to help meet monthly home mortgage payments while training for or seeking new employment. This is commonsense, compassionate legislation designed to help working families, who through no fault of their own, are adversely affected by international competition. Unfortunately, our economy has witnessed the loss of far too many manufacturing jobs over the last five years. It is important to note that these are the jobs that traditionally allowed working Americans to provide for their families, own a home, send their children to college and plan for retirement. All regions of our country have been touched in many manufacturing sectors. I share the concern my colleagues have expressed and share their commitment to stem this negative trend. And while these are uneasy times for everyone, regions such as the southeast, midwest, northeast, and in southside and southwest Virginia, with heavy concentrations in manufacturing--especially the textile and apparel industries--have been especially hard hit. The textile and apparel industries have experienced a decrease in employment of 160,000 and 400,000 jobs respectively over the last decade. While a portion of these losses can be attributed to expected contraction of the industry, experts have attributed much of the trend to increased international competition. Fair and free trade is necessary if American businesses are to have the opportunity to promote their goods and services and continue to expand through growth abroad--NAFTA and recent trade agreements have created a net increase in U.S. employment. But while trade is helping our economy as a whole, there are many good, hard working families, who have been adversely affected by international competition--especially in the textile and apparel industries, furniture and other manufacturing industries. Anytime a factory closes, it is a devastating blow to all of the families and businesses in the community and region. While I was proud of the outstanding way the close-knit southside and southwest communities in Virginia came together to help those who lost their jobs, when companies like Pluma, Tultex and Pillowtex close their doors, the families of these communities should not be forced to go through these times alone. I was so pleased to learn that after the Tultex plant closed in Martinsville in early December of 1999, people donated toys to the Salvation Army to make sure that Christmas came to the homes of the thousands of laid off workers. With this amendment I am proposing that the Federal Government do its part to help Americans through these tough times. Understanding no government program or assistance can substitute for a secure, well-paying job, I believe the U.S. government can reasonably assist 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 financial and emotional asset their home. Two of the programs in place, the Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, program and the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance, NAFTA-TAA, program help workers get additional job skills training and employment assistance and provide extended unemployment benefits during job training. In fact, once the doors were closed at the Pillowtex plant, the community and local government acted quickly to secure these benefits. Thankfully, Secretary Chao and the Department of Labor promptly responded to this request. Such quick action was much appreciated by these Virginians and North and South Carolinians, as it provided health insurance for their families, as well as resources for education and retraining to assist in finding a new job. These programs are the result of the commonsense, logical conclusion that good, working people can lose their jobs because of trade--not because they did anything wrong or because they don't want to work. We ought to find a way to ease the stress and turmoil for people whose lives are unexpectedly thrown into transition after years of steady employment with a company that suddenly disappears. While these hard-working folks are searching for appropriate employment, they should not fear losing their homes. For most people and families, their home is the largest investment they make in life. Many have considerable equity built up in their homes. Government agencies already have low-interest loan programs in place to help families who have met with unexpected natural disaster like a hurricane, a flood or a tornado. When a factory closes, it is an economic disaster to these families and their communities. The effects are just as far reaching and certainly as economically devastating. Like a natural disaster, families displaced by international competition are not responsible for the events leading to the factory closings. In fact, after natural disasters families and communities rebuild with the assistance of the federal government. The economic disasters of plant closings do not share hope and revitalization. The point is the Federal Government ought to make the same disaster loan assistance programs available to our temporarily displaced workers. This is my rationale for introducing the Homestead Preservation Act. This legislation will provide temporary mortgage assistance to displaced workers, helping them make ends meet during their search for a new job. Specifically, the Homestead Preservation Act: authorizes the Department of Labor to administer a low-interest loan program--4 percent--for workers displaced due to international competition; the loan is for up to the amount of 12 monthly home mortgage payments; the program is authorized at $10 million, per year, for 5 years; and distributes the loan through an account, providing monthly allocations to cover the amount of the worker's home mortgage payment. The loans would be paid off or repaid over a period of 5 years. No payments would be required until 6 months after the borrower has returned to work full-time. Additionally, the loan is available only for the cost of a monthly home mortgage payment and covers only those workers displaced due to international competition and who would qualify for benefits under the NAFTA-TAAP and TAA benefits programs, and participate in these programs. Finally, my amendment would require that individuals seeking to avail themselves of the loan program be enrolled in a job training or job assistance program. Like the NAFTA-TAAP and TAA benefits programs, the Homestead Preservation Act recognizes that some temporary assistance is needed as workers take the time to become retrained and further their education, expand upon their skills and search for new employment. The current economic situation of our country has made it even more vital that the Federal Government do what is right by our workers in the manufacturing industries suffering high rates of job losses due to international competition. When these workers are displaced, meager savings and temporary unemployment benefits are frequently not enough to cover expenses that had previously fit within the family budget. Without immediate help, these families, at the minimum, risk ruining their credit ratings and, in the worst-case scenario, could lose their home or their car, or both. The Homestead Preservation Act would provide families a vital temporary financial assistance that would enable them to keep their homes and protect their credit ratings as they work toward strengthening and updating their skills and continue their search for a new job. Hard-working Americans, facing such a harrowing and uncertain situation, ought to have a remedy available to help them. People need transitional help now. The Homestead Preservation Act provides the temporary financial tools necessary for displaced workers to get back on their feet and succeed-- it is a logical and responsible response. This measure garnered strong bipartisan support the last time it was considered by the Senate. I respectfully urge my colleagues to recognize the value Americans place on owning a home and support this caring and needed initiative.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to address the European Commission's antitrust action against Microsoft. It is my understanding that antitrust authorities for the European Union member nations have given European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti their unanimous backing for a formal commission finding that Microsoft abused its market share of its Windows operating system for personal computers to leverage its way into related markets for networking and multimedia software. It is expected that the European Commission will hand down a formal decision finding that Microsoft is in violation of European Union antitrust laws. By imposing harsh, unprecedented penalties upon Microsoft, the Commission has extended its view of competition and regulation beyond Europe and onto the United States--to the detriment of U.S. laws, industry and consumers. For many years, the European Union and its member states have criticized the United States for adopting laws and regulations that, in the view of European policymakers, have had an extraterritorial reach. The European Commission in particular has consistently urged the United States to ensure that its legal determinations do not intrude into European affairs. We now have a clear example of the European Union not practicing what they preach. If the Commission rules that Microsoft is in violation of European Union antitrust laws, it will undercut the settlement that was so carefully and painstakingly crafted with Microsoft by the U.S. Department of Justice and several state antitrust authorities. There can be no question that the U.S. Government was entitled to take the lead in this matter--Microsoft is a U.S. company, many if not all of the complaining companies in the EU case are American, and all of the relevant design decisions took place here. I would hope that if the Commission were cognizant of America's legitimate interests in this matter, it would act in a manner that complemented the U.S. settlement. I fear the Commission has selected a path that places its resolution of this case in direct conflict with ours. This is not the only example of the Commission's overreaching in this case. In recent negotiations with Microsoft, the European Commission demanded that Microsoft agree to ensure that computer manufacturers who sell pre-installed versions of Windows also install three competing media players--an obligation that the Commission insisted on imposing not just within the EU, but globally. In spite of its objections to these requirements, Microsoft agreed to the Commission's approach in order to reach a settlement. I understand the Commission proposes to impose a fine of over $610 million on Microsoft--higher than any fine in the Commission's history. It has been suggested that the amount of this fine was based not only on Microsoft's conduct in the EU, but in the United States and elsewhere as well. One can only conclude that the Commission was not satisfied with how U.S. antitrust authorities and courts resolved the case against Microsoft, and therefore decided to act as a kind of supra-national competition authority by fining Microsoft for its conduct worldwide. The Commission's proposed ruling, as well as its negotiation tactics, is unprecedented in its scope. By proposing to fine Microsoft for purported anticompetitive conduct and injuries in the United States, the European Commission is directly challenging the adequacy of the United States' own antitrust laws, including the settlement that Microsoft and U.S. authorities reached in the U.S. proceedings. In fact, the obligations proposed to be imposed on Microsoft by the Commission are precisely the type that the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Department of Justice rejected as undermining consumer welfare. It is incumbent on the Departments of State and Justice to stand up not only for an important American company but more importantly for legitimate U.S. jurisdiction over alleged anticompetitive behavior in the United States. The U.S. and the EU are signatories to a 1991 comity agreement on antitrust issues which requires that one government defer to the other if the principal issues being investigated involve companies of one of the parties. Here, the EU is investigating a U.S. company based on complaints from other U.S. companies. If the U.S. Government does not make a clear and strong statement objecting to the EU's extraterritorial approach, we will lose influence and credibility for years to come to the detriment of all U.S. industry, as well as to U.S. consumers.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank our leader, Senator Frist, the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and also my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, all of whom worked together on this resolution. As chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee, I share the resolve of my colleagues. The American people have experienced our September 11. For the people of Spain, March 11 is a day they will not forget. We, the Senate, express our outrage and shock and that of our fellow American people over these terrorist attacks that occurred today. The Senate of the United States joins with President Bush in expressing our deepest condolences and in saying that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends, the people of Spain, in this war on terrorism. The Senate also, in unity, expresses our solidarity with the people of Spain in these very difficult hours. We especially send our sincere condolences to the families whose have lost loved ones and the well over 1,000 who have been severely injured by these despicable terrorist acts. We call on other nations to join with us once again in condemning such monstrous acts and attacks on the innocent people wherever they may be, whether they are in the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, or in transportation facilities in Madrid, Spain. We need to help identify the perpetrators of these attacks and bring them to swift justice. We express, as Senators, our readiness to consult with the King of Spain, the President of the Spanish Government, Jose Maria Aznar, the Spanish Cortes, and other public authorities about our joint efforts to combat terrorism. President Aznar said ``We shall not forget.'' We in the United State say to President Aznar and the people of Spain: Siempre recordaremos. We will not forget either. We will always remember.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, S. 1805, which we are in the midst of debating, is good legislation and I am a cosponsor of this bill. It will help curb frivolous litigation against a lawful American industry and the thousands of workers it employs. Imagine if General Motors were to be held liable for every accident caused by a reckless or drunk driver. Likewise, businesses legally engaged in manufacturing, importing or selling firearms should not be liable for the harm caused by people who use that firearm in an unsafe or criminal manner. This legislation does carefully preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions for injury or danger caused by negligence or defective product, a standard in product liability law. Adding amendments such as an extension of the assault weapons ban threatens the chances of this important legislation ever becoming law. This bill is too important to be saddled with ``poison pill'' amendments. Four years ago, in the midst of the 2000 election, I said that my goal in fighting criminals was to enforce, not repeal, existing laws. And, indeed, in Virginia we have seen that incarcerating violent felons is the best crime reduction policy. I would support reauthorization of the assault weapons ban in its current form if this legislation had proven effective in reducing violent crime. I have reviewed the thoughtful claims and extensive assertions of proponents and opponents of this law. I have concluded, after a review of the evidence, that this symbolic ban of 19 firearms chosen for cosmetic reasons is a meaningless, toothless law that has virtually no impact on crime. I have decided, therefore, to vote against extension of the assault weapons ban. Police reports and Federal felon surveys have consistently shown that so-called assault weapons are used in only 1 to 2 percent of violent crimes. Crime victim surveys indicate the figure is only one-quarter of 1 percent, 0.25. Murders with knives, clubs and hands outnumber those with assault weapons by over 20-to-1. Put another way, notwithstanding this 10-year ban of 19 firearms, criminals continue to commit criminal acts, they just do so with other weapons; with other guns, knives or objects. The simple fact is that the assault weapons ban only attacks the cosmetic features of a gun, banning some guns even though they function exactly the same as hundreds of other semi-automatic firearms. It is also worth noting that we are not talking about the fully automatic firearms or machine guns that many Americans view as assault weapons--the Uzi and the AK-47--they were already banned by previous laws. Nor are we talking about any firearms that are readily or easily converted to fully automatic firearms. Sale of such firearms is already banned under current federal law. I recently watched a CNN interview that showed an individual firing a gun that was banned under the 1994 law and a gun that is readily available today. Both guns produced the same results with the same impact. The only difference is that one had a different type of grip, stock or bayonet lock than the other. Therefore, the banning of these accessories is purely cosmetic. The focus should be on criminals not guns, and it should be on programs that work, like Project Exile and the Abolition of Parole. I am also concerned that by reauthorizing this gun ban legislation, it will serve as a platform inviting added restrictions on Second Amendment rights. The current law, then, only makes sense if the ultimate goal it is to ban more and more guns in the future, something I cannot support. This can be seen in several proposals and amendments now before Congress to expand the current assault weapons ban proposals that permanently ban a large number of guns that citizens lawfully use for competition, hunting or self-defense. I have a long and consistent record of supporting the rights of Virginians and Americans to protect their families and themselves, and I am committed to protecting those rights of law-abiding American citizens.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the amendment submitted by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent. I, like him, have been inundated with phone calls and letters by small business owners throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia expressing great concern with the moving provisions included in the Safety Title of the TEA-21 reauthorization legislation. I believe the intentions for mandating these changes to current regulations governing the moving industry are well-intentioned. We have all heard horror stories about families having their belongings held hostage by a rogue moving company attempting to extort further revenues. This is a serious problem and the Federal Government needs to make sure regulations are in place to protect consumers and the vast majority of moving companies that act in good faith and provide a valuable service to millions of American families. My constituents that move Virginia families from their old homes to their new ones have expressed their belief that these moving provisions go too far to try and reform an industry that is largely composed of law-abiding small businesses. By crafting broad language to target the small minority of ``bad actors'' in the moving industry, the Safety Title will unnecessarily and significantly burden those that follow existing regulations and go to great lengths to ensure consumers are satisfied with the outcome of their move. We cannot ask small businesses, which often cannot absorb large additional costs in the services they provide, to have no recourse when a consumer inaccurately describes the services required. A small moving company cannot provide additional and often labor-intense services without appropriate recourse to collect for those services. By forcing movers to relinquish shipments for the initial price quoted provides no effective recourse to seek payment when other services are requested or required. This amendment would allow movers to collect any added expenses at the time of the delivery, or if there is disagreement about those charges, allow movers to recoup expensive attorneys' fees if it is determined that the mover was correct in assessing the additional charges. Additionally, we should carefully consider the language we include with regard to providing States the authority to enforce Federal regulations. I understand that the moving industry is fully supportive of permitting State attorney generals to hold rogue movers accountable for consumer protection violations. However, it may be ill-advised to leave open the possibility that issues beyond consumer protection will be interpreted in varying ways by the States. If a moving company cannot be confident that there is a consistent application of these regulations, it will make it difficult for them to implement uniform practices. As we consider the highway bill and continue to refer to it as a jobs measure, I believe we must make sure all provisions are appropriately measured and do not injure legitimate small businesses. Rogue movers are no more likely to adhere to the rules outlined in this legislation because they do not adhere to current statutes regarding the shipment of citizens belongings. I will state again, I believe the vast majority of U.S. movers abide by our laws and go to great lengths to ensure that they provide a quality service to consumers. The Safety Title legislation was crafted with a noble purpose, but I believe it would unduly hurt legitimate small businesses and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment, which provides a more measured and even-handed response to a small, but high-profile problem of unscrupulous movers.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I surely will.