George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the much needed energy security legislation that is before the Senate. This week, at the very moment we debate this very important landmark legislation, we are seeing a confluence of factors in our energy supply and demand that amounts to what one might call the ``perfect storm.'' There have been few other times in the history of our nation where we have seen such a stark demonstration that our national security interests are synonymous with our energy security. And here are--in this ``perfect storm''--the various storm fronts that are coming together and colliding to produce some very ominous results for the American people, their families, and small businesses. The travel season is heading into its annual peak as more and more Americans hit the road, and those numbers are higher than usual because of people's fear of flying or the aggravation, the stress of commercial air travel due to security concerns and desires. Refineries are also beginning their annual changeover from winter fuels to specially formulated, cleaner burning summer fuels that cost more to produce. Those increased costs at refineries, that are already running at near capacity, will be passed on to the American consumer. In recent weeks, the Israelis have taken strong action to defend themselves from the escalating growth of heinous suicide bombings in Israel. In response to all of this, the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has pledged to embargo Iraq's oil exports for 30 days or until Israel withdraws from Palestinian territories. The Associated Press quoted Saddam as saying: The oppressive Zionist and American enemy has belittled the capabilities of the [Arab] nation. Combine all of these factors together, and the price of gasoline has increased about 25 cents a gallon in just the last few weeks. This is the sharpest increase in a 4-week period since the year 1990, right before the gulf war. The price of a barrel of oil has risen to about $26 a barrel as of yesterday, and many projections indicate the price will spike to more than $30 a barrel. The problem is one of basic economics that a fourth grade student in Virginia would understand, or as the Presiding Officer would certainly agree, a fourth grade student in West Virginia as well. I hope that the Senate also understands this very basic, simple matter of high demand and inadequate supply. Even as the demand for oil is rising, supply is constrained this year because the nations in OPEC have cut production since the end of the year 2000 by a total of about 5 million barrels of oil per day. The result is financial hardship for families and enterprises that pay more out of pocket for their basic transportation needs. It is a loaded weapon aimed at our economy, which appears to be moving slowly on the road to recovery. I wholeheartedly support a balanced energy policy, including conservation and new, advanced technologies, such as hydrogen-fuel- cell-powered vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and clean coal technology. We are the ``Saudi Arabia of coal.'' I know the Chair shares my desire in working for clean coal technologies--and also solar photovoltaic technology. But at the same time, we must increase our American-based production to become less reliant and dependent on foreign sources of oil. Rising tensions in the Middle East will further increase our prices at the gas pump, damage job opportunities, and take more money from working people. This increased cost in fuel will ultimately cause an increase in the cost of goods and products, 95 percent of which come by truck to some store or directly to your home. Please be aware that the United States continues to import nearly 1 million barrels a day from Saddam Hussein. This is the same man who turns around and compensates the families of suicide bombers at a rate of $25,000. You could say that the compensation for 1 murderer is equivalent to about 900 barrels of oil that the United States and other nations buy from Saddam Hussein. We can no longer afford to let Saddam Hussein quite literally put us over the barrel. At a time when Iraq is calling for an OPEC embargo on oil sales to America, environmentally safe production in a small and desolate place on the barren Arctic Plain on the North Slope of Alaska could alone replace more than 35 years of Iraqi oil imports. The potential is enormous for large oil reserves relatively near that of the current production at Prudhoe Bay--about 16 billion barrels. Conservative estimates state that ANWR has more oil than all of Texas. I read that the Senator from Connecticut yesterday said it would take 10 years to get oil flowing from the North Slope of Alaska and this ANWR area. Let's assume it would take 10 years. Maybe this decision should have been made 10 years ago. Indeed, this Senate, in 1995, as well as the House, passed exploration permission legislation in 1995. Unfortunately, that legislation and that permission to explore ANWR was vetoed by the President in 1995. If that had not been vetoed, that oil would be flowing and we would not have as great a dependence on foreign oil, much less Saddam Hussein. Also, there are groups of opponents. Many of those groups were also the opponents who were against the Prudhoe Bay production several decades ago. Thank goodness, reason and security prevailed and we are getting oil through the pipeline from Prudhoe Bay. The reality is, with the infrastructure and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline less than about 50 miles away, just a few years of work are needed to get oil flowing from ANWR. The pipeline is already built. We just need to get that 50 mile span built from Prudhoe Bay to the exploration site at ANWR. It is not quite the magnitude of a project back in the 1970s. The amount of oil we will be getting from there is about the same as what we could replace from 30 years of Saudi Arabian imports. And on top of it all, there are estimates--I will admit this is on the high side--of the creation of as many as 735,000 new jobs. The estimated oil at ANWR is valued at more than $300 billion, which could replace a large portion of foreign oil imports and clearly create hundreds of thousands of jobs for our economy. Again, the North Slope of Alaska, the Arctic Plain, or ANWR, is not some mountainous, beautiful sanctuary. It is a flat, barren, cold, inhospitable place, and the small local population nearby is virtually unanimous in its desire to see the utilization of the resources beneath that frozen tundra. As it is very nearby, and similar to Prudhoe Bay, and as has been seen from studies, there will be no adverse impact on caribou or mosquitoes, which are plentiful in the summer, or other flora and fauna. I support environmentally responsible exploration and production at ANWR to help at least ameliorate our dependence on OPEC. The announcement of curtailed exports by Iraq should remind us more than ever that our economy and national security will remain bound together as long as we allow tyrants and despots to control our destiny. In addition to the Middle East, the political dispute in Venezuela has left their oil industry crippled as labor groups have staged a nationwide strike. Simply put, we are entirely too dependent on foreign oil and we must expand our domestic production. We must also improve our energy security by identifying and developing new energy opportunities. Diversification of energy supplies is basic to our comprehensive national energy policy. We should encourage new, cooperative trade arrangements and new resources in willing prospects throughout the world. All of these initiatives, discussions, and cooperative efforts are aimed at fulfilling just one part of our national energy policy, which is the diversification of our international sources of supply. A commonsense, comprehensive, long-term energy plan will get us off this roller coaster of restrictive supply and demand that we have ridden for the past several decades. We must not allow the Saddam Husseins of the world to jerk us around and actually run that roller coaster. President Bush's energy plan is comprehensive. It combines conservation and incentives for the development of alternative energy sources. I look forward to voting for tax incentives for alternative- fueled vehicles. It also includes increased domestic production. An energy policy without all of these components will not be effective. We have a responsibility to the American people to address these challenges head on. If you think the situation is dire today, take a look just a short time from now into the future. Over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption is projected to increase by 33 percent and demand for electricity is projected to increase by 45 percent. Our dependence on foreign sources of oil will grow from 55 percent today to 64 percent by the year 2020. This compares to just 42 percent from foreign sources less than 10 years ago. Clearly, we can see that something must be done, and soon. I am committed to working for commonsense solutions based upon sound science and the best available technologies so that all Americans can have affordable, reliable access to energy to fuel our motor vehicles, our homes, our farm operations, and our business operations across America. I am also committed to making fuller use of the resources we have within our own borders in States that are supportive. While there may be oil off the coast of California, the people of California are opposed to oil development off their coast. Therefore, I respect their desires and would not support oil exploration off California. In Alaska, Republicans, Democrats, Eskimos, Indians, all people are overwhelmingly in favor of production in ANWR. There are other groups that support production on the North Slope of Alaska--groups such as the Vietnam Veterans Institute. I quote from them: War and international terrorism have again brought into sharp focus the heavy reliance of the U.S. on imported oil. During these times of crises, such reliance threatens our national security and economic well-being. . . . It is important that we develop domestic sources of oil. Organized labor. This is from Jerry Hood of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters: America has gone too long without a solid energy plan. When energy costs rise, working families are the first to feel the pinch. The Senate should follow the example passed by the House and ease the burden by sending the President supply- based energy legislation to sign. The Hispanic community. I quote from Mario Rodriguez, president of the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce: We urge the Senate leadership to pass comprehensive energy legislation. This is not a partisan issue. Millions of needy Hispanic families need your support now. From Jewish organizations, Mort Zuckerman, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations: The [Conference] at its general meeting on November 14th unanimously supported a resolution calling on Congress to act expeditiously to pass the energy bill that will serve to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil. African-American groups. Harry Alford, chairman of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, states: Our growing membership reflects the opinion of more and more Americans all across the political spectrum that we must act now to end our dependence on foreign energy sources by addressing the nation's long-neglected energy needs. And Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated: The events of September 11 lend a new urgency to our efforts to increase domestic energy supplies and modernize our nation's energy infrastructure. The point of all this is that it has broad, bipartisan support across the country, not just in Alaska. I also add that this is not simply a matter of our economic security our physical security is also at stake. I challenge my colleagues to join Americans in this effort. Let's make America the most technologically advanced nation in the world for new sources of energy to propel our motor vehicles and to provide clean, efficient electricity. Let's also make sure we are less dependent upon unpredictable and, in some cases, threatening foreign sources of oil. Let's control our own destiny more than we have in the past. Let's move forward united for America's bright future. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes on the energy bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the Senator from Arizona on the renewable energy matter. I was looking at the information he has provide and saw that under the Bingaman provision electricity bills in Virginia would increase by 5.5 percent on average--some, for example at Virginia Power, would go up by 4.8 percent. Having served previously as Governor of Virginia, we would take a bunch of businesspeople up to New York City. We called it a report to top management. We talked about the attributes of coming to Virginia and locating businesses in our State. We talked about taxes, right-to- work laws, and regulations. But a key factor was the cost of electricity. Virginia's electricity costs are generally lower than those of the national average. A Governor heads up economic development efforts. Do I understand your amendment correctly that a Governor who knows how to attract more jobs into a State, as that usually is a priority for a Governor, if he or she saw this was harmful for creating jobs in his or her State, could waive out of this Federal mandate if it was harming the competitiveness of the State and businesses?

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator. In view of this, we ought to trust the people in the States. The Governors can determine whether this is adversely affecting their consumers and the ability of their citizens to get good jobs. The definition of consumers is not restricted just to individuals. They are also business enterprises. We ought to trust the people in the States who have the same concerns as everyone in this body to make this determination as to how it may affect their respective States. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the forty-sixth anniversary of Tunisian Independence from France. The Republic of Tunisia is a great ally of the United States. Since her independence, Tunisia has become a model for economic development. The Tunisian economy has been opened up to the outside world, and in 1995, Tunisia became the first country south of the Mediterranean to sign a free-trade agreement with the European Union. Tunisian President Ben Ali has been instrumental in implementing a stable and effective constitutional government, protecting democracy and increasing political participation by all citizens. The Republic of Tunisia also has a commendable record on human rights, protecting all citizens. In addition, Tunisia has actively contributed to the search for a lasting peace in the Middle East, offering unwavering support to the Middle East peace process. While Tunisia has become a great contributor to the world both economically and culturally, as Americans, we must also remember the tremendous role Tunisia played during World War II as part of the Allied Force and the support Tunisia offered the United States during the Cold War. For this, we will always be grateful. The United States was the first country to recognize Tunisia's independence in 1956, and it is only fitting that we take the time to reflect on Tunisia's contributions to the world. I congratulate the Republic of Tunisia and its citizens, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 90th anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the USA. Girl Scouting began on March 12, 1912, when founder Juliette Gordon Low assembled 18 girls from Savannah, GA. She believed all girls should be given the opportunity to develop physically, mentally and spiritually. Girl Scouts of the USA was chartered by the U.S. Congress on March 16, 1952. That belief in personal development has evolved into today's Girl Scout mission; to help all girls grow strong. The Girl Scouts have grown leaps and bounds from that first meeting of 18 girls in 1912. There are more than 233,000 troops throughout the United States and Puerto Rico available to all girls ages 5-17. Today, there is a membership of 3.8 million worldwide, making it the largest organization in the world for girls. More than 50 million women are Girl Scout alumnae, including my wife, Susan, and our daughter, Tyler. We celebrate today the principles on which the Girl Scouts were founded: Empowering girls to develop their full potential; teaching girls to relate well with others; developing values that provide the foundation for sound decision-making; and making positive contributions to society. Girl Scouting continues to apply these principles to current issues with programs that encourage girls to bridge the digital divide; pursue careers in science, math and technology; learn how to manage money; and to grow into healthy, resourceful citizens. Troop meetings take place without regard to socioeconomic or geographic boundaries. Meetings take place in homeless shelters, migrant farm camps, and juvenile detention facilities. There are even meetings which assist girls who are relocating, whether across the State or around the world, with support and help them adjust to new locations. The Girls Scouts mobilized immediately following September 11 to provide resources for girls and their families dealing with fear and loss. Let us commend this organization for the positive role it has played in the lives of million of girls and women in Virginia, across the Nation, and around the world. I applaud their efforts and wish them the best for another tremendous 90 years of Girl Scouting in the USA.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his eloquent remarks, his strong leadership, and his understanding that with freedom come innovation and improvements in our lives. I now yield to Senator Bennett of Utah who was chairman of this task force previous to me but is still a leader on our task force and someone who is greatly respected in the area of technology and, as I mentioned earlier, he has provided the key leadership in the Senate on cyber-security. I yield to the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett.

Mr. ALLEN. I now yield to the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, who has been a strong and knowledgeable advocate and leader of improving technology. The Commonwealth of Virginia has rural areas, but not as many as Montana. One of the ways that rural areas, whether out West, or in the South, or in Hawaii, can benefit from technology and communication is with leadership of people such as Senator Burns. I yield to Senator Burns.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about the Senate Republican high-tech task force. Today is an important day for our high-tech task force, as we are unveiling our policy agenda and principles for the upcoming session and the rest of the year. First, I express my gratitude to Senator Reid and Senator Daschle for allowing us this half hour of time to address our colleagues on the very important issue of technology and the policy issues that we have faced, are facing, and will face this year. The purpose of the high-tech task force is to advise Republican leadership and, hopefully, others on the other side of the aisle on issues important to the technology community. We look at ourselves as a portal to the technology innovators and entrepreneurs to get their ideas and messages to the Senate so that we are well informed as to the impact of any potential changes in laws, or there may be laws that are outdated and need to be updated or upgraded. The advancement of technology in the United States is important. It is important for our quality of life, for our competitiveness as a nation. It is also very important for providing good-paying jobs for Americans. Technology improvements benefit our lives and our businesses and our competitiveness in many ways. For example, in manufacturing, it allows manufacturers to manufacture whatever the good or product is, more efficiently, with greater quality, with less waste, and fewer toxins. In a distribution center, if you went to a Dollar Tree or a Family Dollar or Dollar General distribution center, you would see how they use technology to pick different items for their various stores and then loading them on trucks. Technological improvements help our communications systems within our country. It also helps education opportunities, life sciences, and biological advancements that are allowing people to lead better, healthier, longer lives. It can help in law enforcement and coordination of law enforcement efforts at the State, local, and national level. And it can provide for a better transportation system with smart roads and smart cars, and the concept of telecommunicating, teleworking, allowing people to have a better quality of life while not having to fight traffic every day and have more time with their families. It improves in so many ways our quality of life, our efficiency, and also our environment. On the high-tech task force, in addition to myself, I am joined on the task force by Senators Allard, Bennett, Brownback, Burns, Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ensign, Sessions, and Gordon Smith, as well as ex officio members who are the ranking members of the various important committees that deal with technology, including the Armed Services Committee with John Warner, Banking Committee, Phil Gramm; Senator McCain of Commerce; Senator Grassley of Finance, and Senator Orrin Hatch, a great leader of our Judiciary Committee. We had many accomplishments last year. The education bill was an important one. No child left behind. Education is the key--making sure we have a capable population in our country so youngsters can seize the opportunities not just of the silicon dominion of Virginia, but technology jobs all across the country. That was a very important bill. The clean 2-year extension of the Internet access tax moratorium was important. I don't think there should be access taxes on the Internet, but we were able to get a 2-year extension to prevent Internet taxes, which would only exacerbate the digital divide. We also passed the Export Administration Act in the Senate. We updated those laws so computers can be sold from this country as opposed to other countries getting them from France, Germany, or Japan. We can compete. The House has a different view. There was a proposed merger of ASML, a Dutch company, with SBG, which is a Silicon Valley group. The importance of this was helping with the next generation of microchips. ASML has the extreme ultraviolet lithography tools which are important for the smaller geometries on microchips. We were able to advocate appropriations of additional funds for justice for anti-piracy prosecution. Intellectual property rights is very important, and we need to enforce those. We also turned back efforts to change the current encryption export rules--again, very important. Now, for the upcoming session, one of the successes was the 3-year, 30-percent bonus depreciation measure, which was finally passed last Friday as part of the economic stimulus bill. That is important for all businesses, but especially the technology community so businesses can upgrade their technology and other equipment. Senator Gordon Smith was the lead for our high-tech task force in getting that accomplishment, which will help stimulate the economy, save and create more jobs. Now, the agenda is really one based on principles. The principles we have this year are the same as last. We have added a few issues that have arisen recently. We want a Federal Tax Code that is appropriate for the 21st century. That means several different things. We want to, No. 1, continue working to make the research and development tax credit permanent. Secondly, we want to accelerate and reform the depreciation schedules for technology equipment. We also want to encourage capital formation for small technology companies. And also of recent importance we are going to work to preserve the current tax treatment for stock options. Just yesterday, the high-tech task force urged Leaders Daschle and Lott to oppose any effort to consider S. 1940, which is a bill to require above-the-line expensing of stock options. Not to get into all the minutia of tax laws, but the fact is, passage of such legislation would dramatically deter companies from providing rank and file employees with stock options, and they are an important part of compensation. That proposal will certainly be harmful for technology companies. We also are going to work to enhance free trade, in that it is important for opening up fair and free trade. We will open up new markets for our technology and our services. One must recognize that, while computers are fairly prevalent in this country, they are not all that prevalent in the rest of the world. Nearly half of the people in the world have yet to make their first telephone call. Only about 2 percent of the world's population has a computer. That tells us there are great opportunities for our technologies, as well as construction equipment, and so forth, all over the world; and tearing down barriers will help our jobs in this country and our technological advancements to continue. Also, it would not only benefit our country, but it would increase the standard of living for those who tear down those barriers so that their citizenry can have the opportunities of advanced technology for their quality of life, a better environment, and more opportunities. So we are going to continue to advocate trade promotion authority. We will also continue working to protect Internet security, and we will continue combating terrorism. To that end, we are going to seek advancement of the Bennett-Kyl legislation to allow information sharing between private companies and the Government by codifying a limited Freedom of Information Act exemption. We are going to support the Bush administration's budget, as far as funding for cyber-security issues. We are going to continue working to safeguard copyrights in the digital age. That is very important. The private sector needs to work together with a variety of companies to do it, rather than worry about an inept Federal Government dictating standards in that regard. We are going to continue promoting education and technology in a variety of ways. There are some good ideas that we are supporting-- particularly, the President in his effort on education, proposing that families of students who are in failing schools get a tax credit. A $2,500 tax credit could go toward purchasing computers, peripherals, books, and also tuition. Personally, I am for a tax credit focusing on computers and peripherals, educational software and tutoring. It should not just be for kids in failing schools, but for all schools, in order to bridge the digital divide. We are going to work to expand broadband technologies. The Patent and Trademark Office funding is important. Those fees ought to go to the Patent and Trademark Office and should not be diverted to other efforts. We want to keep government out of competition with e-commerce businesses. Digital decency. We are for it. We want the private sector to look at ways to put in a filter so people can enjoy the Internet as they see fit, as opposed to the government censoring it. In the area of legal reform, there are several areas--especially class actions. We have these class action lawsuits filed all over the country. The diversity of that jurisdiction, at the option of the defendant, ought to be more easily removed to Federal court to get a better, more expedited and fair judgment. Also, spectrum reform is very important, particularly in rural areas. I am going to yield in a minute to the Senator from Montana. Before I do that, I ask unanimous consent that endorsements of these policy principles and ideas by the Information Technology Association of America, Information Technology Industry Council, the Business Software Alliances, the Electronic Industries Alliance, TechNet, and ACT be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, it is with great relief that I rise today in commendation for approval of the ``Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002,'' which I believe represents a job security, job creation and balanced response by the Federal Government to the economic challenges faced by families and businesses. With the signing of this Act into law, on March 9, 2002, by the President, Americans finally received the economic stimulus relief that should have been passed many months ago. During the past months, all Americans have been deluged with grim news of recessions, plummeting consumer confidence and rising unemployment. Last March, which is widely believed to be the beginning of the current recession, unemployment totaled 6.2 million, or 4.3 percent. Just under a year later, February unemployment rate equaled 5.5 percent, a number representative of the 1.4 million jobs lost since March of last year. These numbers represent much more than just mere statistics, the 5.5 percent represents 7.9 million people who are without a job, a steady paycheck and the security of knowing that bills will be paid and food will be on the table. Even more worrisome for many families is that they have begun to exhaust their State unemployment benefits: in January 2002 alone, 373,000 displaced workers ran out of the financial support they need to simply survive as they look for a job. This is why ending the obstruction by passage of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 is so important. This bill not only includes targeted tax incentives that will increase capital investment and spending, ensuring that the weak recovery underway will not be derailed, but it provides the economic security the families of displaced workers so desperately need to get by until new jobs can be found. I would like to take this opportunity to talk briefly about two provisions that I am particularly pleased are included in the economic stimulus package. First, this recession is notable for the sharp plummet in the level of capital investment in new equipment and technologies by companies, coupled with a decrease in consumer demand. Until such capital expenditures increase, our economy will not fully recover from the recession. Accelerated depreciation is a top priority of Virginia's and America's technology industry. It will spur capital expenditures for new advanced equipment and technology. This incentive will create and save more jobs for working men and women involved in producing, creating, fabricating and transporting such capital equipment from computers and construction equipment to airplanes and locomotives. By providing for a 30-percent bonus depreciation rate over a 3-year period, the economic stimulus package will encourage enterprising businesses and people to invest and grow, promoting capital expenditures that would not have occurred but for the passage of this act, eventually increasing job growth and consumer spending. Second, the bill includes a provision, similar to legislation I introduced in September 2001, which provides displaced workers with an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits after they have exhausted their State-provided unemployment benefits. Recently, we have received good news on the economy and the prospects of its recovery from the recession. February was the first month in which jobs were added since July 2001, and the unemployment rate is finally beginning to inch down from its high of 5.8 percent in December 2001. Yet, even with the good news, Chairman Greenspan is still maintaining his earlier forecast of relatively weak economic growth in 2002 of between 2.5 percent and 3 percent. It will take time for the economy to fully recover and to create the jobs that will get workers back on the payrolls. News of eventual recovery is of little relief for the 1.4 million workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits since September 2001. Without the immediate financial life-line that the additional 13 weeks of benefits provides, these families, at the minimum, risk ruining their credit ratings and, in the worst-case scenario, could lose their home or car. Hard-working Americans, facing such a harrowing situation, ought to have a response to help them get through the early stages of the economy recovery until jobs become more readily available and workers can provide for their families. The 13 weeks of extended benefits provides the temporary financial assistance for displaced workers to get back on their feet and successfully get a new job. In sum, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 is the appropriate combination of immediate financial relief and security to American families and tax incentives for businesses to make the capital investments necessary for economic growth and job creation. I am confident that the new opportunities made available with the passage of this act will go a long way toward ensuring a more secure future for American working men, women and families.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize C. Stewart Verdery, General Counsel to the Assistant Republican Leader, Don Nickles, and a staffer for the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force, of which I serve as Chair, for his dedicated service to the Senate. After more than 6 years of serving the U.S. Senate, Stewart Verdery will depart today to join the team at Vivendi Universal here in Washington, D.C. He first served as counsel to my friend from Virginia, Senator John Warner. Stewart then served as counsel to the Senate Rules Committee, as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and currently serves as General Counsel to Senator Don Nickles. Let me take this opportunity to also thank Senator Nickles for allowing Stewart to dedicate time to the High Tech Task Force and the broader goal of advancing constructive technology policy in the Senate. As Chairman of the High Tech Task Force, I have come to know Stewart very well over the last year through his role as an advisor to Task Force and to the Republican leadership on technology issues. From the beginning, I have been impressed by his extraordinary command of complex technology issues and, perhaps more important, his ability to succinctly explain the issues to others. His advice and counsel were always sound and thoughtful, and through his effective and friendly manner, he instantly earned the respect of those with whom he worked. Stewart Verdery played a key role in the transformation of the High Tech Task Force into a lead advocate for the technology-friendly policies in the Senate. With his assistance, my colleagues and I were better prepared to advance a positive technology policy agenda in the Senate last year, including: the passage of a clean, two-year Internet tax moratorium extension; passage of the upgraded Export Administration Act reauthorization; securing additional funding for anti-piracy prosecutions; and the hard-fought effort in the economic stimulus debate to make the Research and Development tax credit permanent, to provide enhanced expensing and to include the broadband tax credit. I speak for many in the U.S. Senate when I say that we will miss Stewart and his talents. I wish Stewart, his wife Jenny and their two young children, Isabelle and Chase, all the very best health and happiness in their future endeavors.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Harry F. Byrd, Jr., for his lifelong commitment to principles and honestly serving the people of Virginia and the United States of America. The Virginia General Assembly recently honored U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr., of Winchester, VA, and celebrated his accomplishments. Some present members of the Senate had the pleasure of serving and working with Senator Byrd of Virginia. Having the privilege of serving in the seat once held by Senator Byrd, I wish to share with all my colleagues those positive sentiments expressed in the resolution adopted by the General Assembly of Virginia, and ask that the related article be printed in the Record. The article follows: Text of Senate Resolution Honoring Harry F. Byrd Jr. senate joint resolution no. 179 Whereas, Harry Flood Byrd, Jr., of Winchester has served the Commonwealth and the nation with great distinction, continuing a Byrd family tradition that dates to the earliest days of the Republic; and Whereas, educated at the Virginia Military Institute and the University of Virginia, Harry Byrd, Jr., followed his father Harry Byrd, Sr., into public service, thus forming a father-son combination that was the most influential in 20th century Virginia politics; and Whereas, Harry Byrd, Jr., served as a member of the Democratic State Central Committee from 1940 to 1965 and served as a lieutenant in the U.S. Naval Reserve during World War II; and Whereas, following distinguished service in the Senate of Virginia from 1948 to 1965, Harry Byrd, Jr., succeeded his father in the United States Senate on November 12, 1965; and Whereas, for the next 18 years, Harry F. Byrd, Jr., maintained the family tradition of fiscal conservation, unquestioned integrity, and a distaste for political expediency; and Whereas, Harry F. Byrd, Jr., continued his father's insistence on ``pay as you go'' government, and his aversion to debt still reverberates in Virginia's continued recognition as a fiscally sound, well-managed state; and Whereas, Senator Byrd is the oldest living former United States Senator from Virginia; and Whereas, the influence of Harry Byrd, Jr., on the political life of Virginia during the 20th century was profound, beneficent, and lasting, and the ideas and ideals he espoused continue to ring true as the Commonwealth enters the 21th; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the General Assembly hereby honor Harry Flood Byrd, Jr., for his dedication, commitment, and integrity over a long and meritorious political career; and, be it Resolved further, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this resolution for presentation to Harry Flood Byrd Jr., as an expression of the admiration and respect of the General Assembly.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. It is not a hopeless situation. Sometimes it can be cumbersome, and it is time consuming for the Governor as well as those in the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office, the attorney general's office, the Governor's staff and others to assemble this information, and also for the petitioner, as well. That is part of the price one pays when they commit a felony and they are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a judge and a jury of that crime. This is one of the many rights one gives up. I heard this being compared to slavery. It is not like slavery. Slavery is wrong and the worst thing that has ever occurred in this country. It is a willful act. Many of the felony cases were vile, premeditated, deliberate acts to commit a felony--not a misdemeanor, a felony--and this is one of the prices and penalties that one pays. A person loses their liberty, obviously, while incarcerated. To get all of their liberties and rights back, they have to demonstrate good behavior. In each State, that demonstration may be slightly different. But these are State laws being violated. It is a proper role of the people in the States to determine when these rights should be restored, as well as, under what conditions and circumstances the rights are restored.

Mr. ALLEN. Ex-felons. I don't think the proponents want to go so far as felons but ex-felons, which would be, I think, a nightmare and insulting, as well.

Mr. ALLEN. Correct.

Mr. ALLEN. I say to my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, and I expect the President may have done this, as well when he served as Governor of Indiana, as Governor, at least in our State, you get many petitions. Some are to restore rights, and also some to say that they never committed a crime and they want an absolute pardon. Every Governor has a conscience to do his or her duty properly. Those governors have the record of the individual telling what he or she has done since the time of serving.

Mr. ALLEN. In some States, it is not by the Governor. In Virginia, they amended the laws, and nonviolent felons can go to the circuit court for petitioning to have their rights restored.

Mr. ALLEN. Absolutely, there is a procedure.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, we are now debating the issue of voting rights. Let's put it in perspective. Yesterday evening, an amendment offered by Senator Allard of Colorado, which I cosponsored, was adopted. It is a very good amendment. It improves and clarifies the laws surrounding voting by those who serve in the military. Senator Allard's amendment is certainly needed. We saw in the 2000 election that some voters in our armed services were not able to participate or have their votes counted; in effect, not being able to vote for their prospective Commander in Chief. The issues we are discussing today are very important, but one of the more important improvements was addressing the needs of our military voters. These are people who honorably serve our country, and we want to make sure the votes they cast for their elected officials are counted. Indeed, their service to protect our freedoms should not diminish their rights to participate in representative democracy. Senator Allard's amendment is an effort to make sure those votes are cast. Some of the postmark problems make no sense when people are overseas and on ships. It also makes sure State and local jurisdictions are better informed of performing their important duties in administering elections fairly. All of this recognizes the important role of the localities and the States in making sure the elections are administered fairly and, indeed, making sure those who serve overseas can exercise their constitutional right to vote in Federal elections. Who does the Allard amendment apply to? It applies to over 2.7 million members of the military and their families who are stationed away from their home today in service to the people and the principles of our Republic. Many of these men and women are residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the birthplace of American liberty and indeed home of the first legislative body in the western hemisphere which was formed in 1619, long before this body was formed. I was proud to lend my name and my voice to Senator Allard's amendment because it ensures that those who serve our country honorably and with distinction have their voices heard, not just in Virginia but in every State of the Union. We go from protecting those who honorably serve to a debate on this pending amendment, which advocates undesirable Federal meddling into the so-called voting rights of convicted felons. Indeed, throughout the Senate, our colleagues care about people across the spectrum of responsibility, from those citizens who are more responsible to even those who are less responsible. I refer my colleagues to an article recently published in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star on February 5 of this year which deals with the issue of voting rights for felons in Virginia and has been mentioned by both its proponents and its opponents. The various States have differing approaches to the restoration of voting rights or any rights to those who have been convicted of felonies. Now I will say that in Virginia--before I get to this article--having been Governor of Virginia, I took the responsibility very seriously when reviewing the petitions of those who had been convicted of felonies. It struck me in a very interesting way. In the midst of a campaign, I was down in Buchanan County, which is far southwestern Virginia. It is on the Kentucky/West Virginia border. It is a coal county. I was campaigning early in my campaign for Governor at this country store called Pentley's, which, sadly, has since closed down. At any rate, I went in there shaking hands, handing out cards. It was such a memorable event in that Mrs. Pentley, the lady who ran the store, thought it was wonderful that a candidate for statewide office actually came to her store, in Buchanan County. She said: You are the most famous person who has come here since the guy who invented 10,000 flushes came here, because he was on TV and we did not have enough money at the time to be on TV. As I left that store all charged up because she put my little card up, there was a fellow leaning up against the drink machine where the ice is kept, and he said: I like you. You are a good guy. I said: Well, thank you. I hope you will vote for me. He said: Well, I cannot. I said: Well, why not? Are you not registered? No, I am not registered. I said: Why not? He said: I cannot get registered. I said: Of course you can. What is your excuse? What are you, a convicted felon? He said: Yes. I said: Okay. Well, talk to your friends and neighbors and folks you might influence. With this, I left and I told this story all around Virginia. Fortunately, I was elected by the good people of Virginia to serve as Governor, and I thought it was always important to take the Governor's office to the people, so I said: Let's go back to Pentley's Store and thank Mrs. Pentley for all her inspiration. Mrs. Pentley does not know how much I would talk about her. We were in an RV. As we got out of the RV--this was 2 or 3 years later--there was this same fellow who looked as if he had grown some teeth and had a nicer shirt, one that did not have a hole in it. He said: Do you remember me? I said: I sure do. I do remember you. You are looking good today. He said: I voted for you. When you win an election, everyone says they voted for you. I said: I do remember you. You told me you were a convicted felon. I know you could not have voted for me. He said: But I did. I said: What happened? Did Governor Wilder restore your voting rights? He said: Yes, he did, and I voted for you. That is a personal story about treating everyone with dignity and respect. Who would have known that Governor Wilder, who is not in the same party I am, would have restored this gentleman's right to vote before the election and he voted for me? In Virginia, I would look at these situations very seriously, not just because of this gentleman in Buchanan County but because those who petitioned me would talk about their sacred right to vote. Let's look at how Virginia is compared to other States. Virginia is 1 of 10 States that permanently prevent--and this is according to the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg--ex-felons from voting. Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming are others. Maryland cuts it off for second-time felons. That does not mean their rights can never be restored. Their rights can be restored. In Virginia, this is not an issue of first impression. It is being debated now as it has been for many years. In fact, in 1982, in Virginia, there was a referendum asking voters to let the State legislature, rather than the Governor, restore the voting rights of felons. The people of Virginia voted on whether or not to ease this process, which I will say is fairly cumbersome and it failed by nearly 300,000 votes. This amendment, if it were to become law, would abrogate the express will of the people of Virginia and also the will of many other States, whether it is by a referendum or by their elected State legislatures. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the legislature recommended streamlining the petition process for nonviolent felons who did their time, finished probation, and waited another 5 years. It would have allowed the local circuit court to restore those rights, taking that burden off the Governor. Of course, many ex-felons did get their rights back. There is the record of my successor, he restored the rights of 210 people during his 4-year term. That is less than half of what was restored during the previous three administrations. While I was Governor, I restored 459 ex-felons' rights to vote. The understanding of who is best in a position to administer these laws and determine when ex-felons ought to have their rights restored, clearly lies with the States. This amendment, if passed, would preempt the States with regard to this important function. The Ford-Carter Commission agrees with this assessment. The Commission concluded: We doubt Congress has the constitutional power to legislate a Federal prescription on States prohibiting felons from voting. Virginia allows ex-felons to petition for restoration of voting rights 5 years after they have completed all of their probation or all of their parole. If they have been convicted of a drug offense, it is 7 years, because there are people who not only commit crimes, but they repeat crimes. Also, if the offense is related to drugs, you want to make sure they are completely off their addiction to drugs. The things most Governors would look at, regardless of party, is what kind of life has the ex-felon led since serving their time? I would consider whether or not they were involved in wholesome community-based activities, or just leading the life of a law-abiding citizen and not committing any crimes. Governors will want to see what kind of a positive life the person has led since leaving prison. The petitioner would oftentimes write to me explaining why they wanted their rights restored. As Governor I considered that in my assessment of each individual case as well. Another thing missing from this amendment is the issue of restitution and court costs. I always looked at restitution and court costs in my assessment. In Virginia, I cared a great deal about restitution and court costs. With regard to some of these folks, you would say, well, these are not important crimes. But embezzlement, to the extent there can be restitution, that is usually ordered by a judge in sentencing. You would want to see if restitution has been made. You would want to see if they have paid back their court costs. If it were a robbery or a burglary, you would want to see if restitution has been made. There are certain situations where, as a condition of probation or suspension of a sentence, they want medical costs associated with the rape or malicious wounding to be paid. None of that is in this amendment. It is only probation and the parole. But restitution and the payment of court costs ought to be considered. At least I considered it as Governor. The reason why people want rights restored is interesting. Generally, there are three categories. One is they want to feel like a full- fledged citizen again. They have led a good life. They want to be part of the community. Some of it was job-related. They have not had their rights restored. They wanted their kids to feel better about themselves. A second reason they want to vote is to participate in elections. The third reason, as often as the rest, is to go hunting. When you lose your rights, you lose your right to carry a firearm. I suppose you could throw rocks at deer, but usually people want a shotgun or a rifle to go deer or duck hunting. Now the Federal Government in this amendment is saying that the States will have to restore rights, notwithstanding the will of the people, notwithstanding the prerogatives of their duly elected representatives in the legislature. For Federal elections only, you will have to allow them to vote. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and maybe a few other States, our State elections are different than Federal elections. You will need two sets of registration for the State elections and local elections. To keep the laws in place in Virginia or any other State, there are dual roles for registered voters that would be a cost to the States and localities. In Virginia, where Federal elections do not run at the same time as State elections, this is probably not too big of an issue. But imagine in the States where Federal elections and State elections are conducted at the same time. That is undoubtedly true in over 40 States. There will be two sets of ballots for people to use when they vote. If they want to keep their rights and prerogatives and reflect the desires of the people of their State, two ballots will be needed. When you have Federal and State elections, there are names of Presidential candidates, candidates for Congress, maybe the Senate, along with State legislators, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, whoever else is being elected. We will need a separate ballot for those who have the right to vote in State and Federal, and a separate ballot for those only in Federal elections. In effect, what we would need at the polling place is a separate voting booth. I guess we would have an ex-felon voting booth where they would only vote in Federal elections, while the vast majority of the other voters would vote in the others. This causes a great deal of unnecessary cost and imposes many impractical problems on the State. The goal of the bill is to help voting fairness in the States, respecting the rights of States, not putting on unfounded mandates as has been done previously. This amendment will cause consternation and confusion. Most importantly, understanding the basic jurisdiction, I object to this amendment in that it usurps the rights of the States. It usurps and preempts and dictates contrary to the will of the people not only of the Commonwealth of Virginia but it exceeds the scope and breadth of what the Federal Government should be involved in. I hope my colleagues will allow this issue to be properly debated in the way the framers of our Constitution thought it should be debated and decided. That is, in the State legislatures, as opposed to meddling from the Federal Government. We care about the voting of military personnel overseas. I don't see where we have any business meddling in trying to get ex-felons the right to vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. I say to the Senator from Kentucky, my good friend from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, born in Virginia, formerly a part of the Commonwealth of Virginia and voluntarily seceded, as well as the President's State of Indiana, regardless, the States, for a variety of reasons, have State elections different from Federal elections. So not to have undue Federal influence or national issues affecting issues that matter most to people in those communities and localities, you would still have a problem. Over 40 States run Federal elections at the same time as they run State and local or perhaps even municipal elections. In the event that the people in the States who are perfectly capable of debating and deciding this issue as they see fit for people who have raped, murdered, robbed, or maliciously wounded individuals in their States and been convicted in their State courts. In the event they want to keep their law in effect, what will have to happen is you will have to have a role of registered voters for Federal elections only and a role of voters who are registered for all elections. Then when you go into that election, assuming the States--once you actually conduct the election on election day--want to keep their rules where restitution is important, in a period of years to show they are leading a good life. Whatever the reasons, they want to do what they think is right, as opposed to what people in Washington think is right for them. Assuming they want to do it, you have to have a separate voting booth. The ballots in those States, where you have Federal and State elections the same year, all the names on there--Members of Congress, a President in Presidential year, as well as, the Governor, State representatives, and so forth--so you will need a separate voting booth.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. You have my agreement.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I wish to speak to my amendment, the Terrorist Zone Tax Exemption Act, which I believe will be the next measure on which we will be voting. Last fall the attack on our country represented the worst of mankind, but at the same time it demonstrated the best of the American spirit. While we as a nation are united and resolved to combat terrorism, unfortunately other things have changed as a result of these attacks. As my colleagues know, this war on terrorism has changed our definition of combatants. For terrorism targets not only military personnel and equipment but innocent men, women, and children at work in office buildings and, as we have seen, on civilian aircraft. So it is also with those tasked to respond to these attacks. Under the threat of terrorism, not only are military personnel tasked to locate and eradicate potential terrorist threats, but civilian fire, police, and rescue personnel are charged with maintaining public safety after a terrorist attack. We read about and heard about the heroic acts of firefighters, rescue personnel, and police officers--whether at the Pentagon or at the World Trade Center--who risked their lives with burning debris, toxic gases and fumes who tried and indeed did save hundreds if not thousands of lives. And like their military counterparts, they too are subject to attack and risks themselves. As my colleagues know, our tax laws recognize that the income of those brave men and women in military uniforms fighting overseas and serving in a zone designated as a combat zone is exempt from taxation. Recognizing that the war on terrorism has sadly changed the way we look at war, and recognizing that our local and State fire police and rescue personnel are now pressed into homeland defense, we ought to similarly change our tax laws to reflect this new reality. My Amendment would allow the income of those who are working in designated terrorist attack zones--for example, at the World Trade Center or at the Pentagon, if so designated by the President--to be exempt from Federal taxes. The fiscal implication of this is about $205 a month for the September attack--a cost of a little over $7 million to the federal government. And it is retroactive to September 11, although we pray we will never need to use this again. It is supported by many groups--from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Fraternal Order of Police with nearly 300,000 members, the National Association of Police Organizations which represents over 220,000 police officers, the Detectives' Endowment Association which represents 7,500 City of New York Detectives, and other organizations, including the Capitol Police Labor Board. These firefighters and police and rescue personnel are heroes. They are super heroes. Let us give them this recognition to boost their morale and show our appreciation to them as they protect us here in our homeland. I hope in a bipartisan nature we can work and vote in favor of this logical, commonsense amendment and I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, as I was stating, the educational opportunity tax credit, empowering parents with a $500 tax credit for a 3-month period to buy computers and educational software and peripherals for their children, as we see from the States, works very well. It is not just the computers themselves. Again, South Carolina realized about a 664 percent increase in monitor sales and a 700 percent increase in printer sales, with only a 5 percent tax break. Pennsylvania had a similar experience. The impact of this will be at least $5 billion of stimulus into this sector of the economy while also helping out the education of children in this country. We know that this will have much more of an impact than that because whoever is fabricating the chips, the semiconductor chips, whoever the contractors and vendors may be, whoever the sales folks are, all of them, the computer software writers, all of those people will benefit from more business investment, more sales in the tech sector. This idea is supported by Information Technology Industries; Global Learning System; ITIC, which is the Information Technology Industry Council; John Chambers with CISCO, who is well known for his efforts in education and technology, Gateway Computers, who have seen the impact of this in the States, the Consumer Electronics Association, Radio Shack, and Circuit City. This is a good, balanced, pro-family, pro-taxpayer, pro-jump starting, and ``stimulating this economy to create more jobs" idea. I hope we will find bipartisan support for this idea that will really allow families to keep more of their money, help educate their children, and also provide the job placement and financial assistance needed to workers during this economic downturn while also making sure that businesses have the capabilities to make investments with accelerated depreciation. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move this country forward in a way of trusting free people and free enterprise. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, if I may, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors of the Sessions-Allen amendment Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas and Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, for his support. I look forward to further discussion. If there are some amendments that need to be made in the definitions, we have been working on this for several months, but nevertheless we will continue to work together on it. I conclude by saying very strongly that we need to adapt our tax policy and properly and logically provide similar tax benefits for the fire, rescue, and police personnel who are serving here in our homeland. This is where these terrorist attacks have occurred and we all agree that these heroes have responded in the true spirit of America. Please stand with our heroes, our firefighters, and police and rescue workers. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.