George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I send to the desk amendment No. 285.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself, Senators Warner, Helms, Specter, Brownback, Feinstein and Tim Hutchinson. This bill will grant citizenship to a Chinese woman, Gao Zhan, who has been living in Virginia and is a researcher at American University. Early this year, Gao Zhan, her husband, Dong Hua Xue and their 5- year-old son, Andrew, went to the People's Republic of China to visit the parents of Gao Zhan and Dong Hua. On February 11, 2001, Gao, Dong Hua, and Andrew were detained as they were leaving the People's Republic of China. They were separated, blindfolded and taken incommunicado to unknown locations. After 26 days of separated detention, Chinese authorities released Dong Hua and Andrew. Dong Hua and Andrew returned to their home in Virginia. Gao Zhan has remained in a Chinese prison. We do not know where she is and no one has been permitted to visit her. The U.S. Department of State has made over a dozen protests to the government of the People's Republic of China about this matter but the government of the People's Republic of China has refused to permit access to Gao Zhan. The requirements to become a U.S. citizen are: Establishing residency for five years prior to application; Passing the INS test on U.S. history, government and language; Passing the FBI background investigation; and Taking the oath of renunciation and allegiance. Gao Zhan and her husband, Dong Hua, have been permanent resident aliens of the United States since September 28, 1993. They filed applications to become citizens on August 3, 1998. Their applications to become citizens were granted on November 24, 1999. The only step that remained before they could become citizens was to take their oath of renunciation and allegiance. Gao Zhan and Dong Hua had completed the first three of these requirements before they visited the People's Republic of China. Last Friday, March 30, Dong Hua took his oath of renunciation and allegiance. This legislation would permit Gao Zhan to become a U.S. citizen without her having to take the oath. In addition, the legislation provides that the Attorney General may deliver the certificate indicating that Gao Zhan is a citizen to her husband if it cannot be delivered personally to her. This bill will be referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I have spoken with Senator Brownback, chairman of the Subcommittee, as well as Senator Feinstein ranking member, and Senator Hatch, chairman of the full Committee, and urged them to move this bill as rapidly as possible. The first step that will be taken by the Subcommittee on Immigration is to request a report on this case from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, which will provide the Subcommittee with a factual record from which to operate. I have been told that this report may take about two weeks to prepare. When the Deputy Prime Minister of the People's Republic of China visited the United States last month, President Bush raised the issue of Gao Zhan's continued detention and the refusal to permit officials of the U.S. government to visit her. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently called for the release of Gao Zhan on humanitarian grounds and criticized the People's Republic of China for holding Andrew, Gao Zhan's 5 year old son and a U.S. citizen, without notifying our Embassy in Beijing as required by treaty. It has been reported that this past Tuesday, the People's Republic of China formally accused Gao Zhan of ``accepting money from a foreign intelligence agency and participating in espionage activities in China.'' If Gao Zhan is tried on this charge, she is likely to be convicted and given a long prison sentence. China tries such security cases in secret and allows little chance for defendants to respond to the charges. I hope the introduction of this bill and its consideration by the Congress will improve Gao Zhan's conditions in the People's Republic of China, afford her protections and rights that she doesn't currently have as a permanent resident alien and hopefully lead to her release. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself, Senators Warner, Helms, Specter, Brownback, Feinstein and Tim Hutchinson. This bill will grant citizenship to a Chinese woman, Gao Zhan, who has been living in Virginia and is a researcher at American University. Early this year, Gao Zhan, her husband, Dong Hua Xue and their 5- year-old son, Andrew, went to the People's Republic of China to visit the parents of Gao Zhan and Dong Hua. On February 11, 2001, Gao, Dong Hua, and Andrew were detained as they were leaving the People's Republic of China. They were separated, blindfolded and taken incommunicado to unknown locations. After 26 days of separated detention, Chinese authorities released Dong Hua and Andrew. Dong Hua and Andrew returned to their home in Virginia. Gao Zhan has remained in a Chinese prison. We do not know where she is and no one has been permitted to visit her. The U.S. Department of State has made over a dozen protests to the government of the People's Republic of China about this matter but the government of the People's Republic of China has refused to permit access to Gao Zhan. The requirements to become a U.S. citizen are: Establishing residency for five years prior to application; Passing the INS test on U.S. history, government and language; Passing the FBI background investigation; and Taking the oath of renunciation and allegiance. Gao Zhan and her husband, Dong Hua, have been permanent resident aliens of the United States since September 28, 1993. They filed applications to become citizens on August 3, 1998. Their applications to become citizens were granted on November 24, 1999. The only step that remained before they could become citizens was to take their oath of renunciation and allegiance. Gao Zhan and Dong Hua had completed the first three of these requirements before they visited the People's Republic of China. Last Friday, March 30, Dong Hua took his oath of renunciation and allegiance. This legislation would permit Gao Zhan to become a U.S. citizen without her having to take the oath. In addition, the legislation provides that the Attorney General may deliver the certificate indicating that Gao Zhan is a citizen to her husband if it cannot be delivered personally to her. This bill will be referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I have spoken with Senator Brownback, chairman of the Subcommittee, as well as Senator Feinstein ranking member, and Senator Hatch, chairman of the full Committee, and urged them to move this bill as rapidly as possible. The first step that will be taken by the Subcommittee on Immigration is to request a report on this case from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, which will provide the Subcommittee with a factual record from which to operate. I have been told that this report may take about two weeks to prepare. When the Deputy Prime Minister of the People's Republic of China visited the United States last month, President Bush raised the issue of Gao Zhan's continued detention and the refusal to permit officials of the U.S. government to visit her. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently called for the release of Gao Zhan on humanitarian grounds and criticized the People's Republic of China for holding Andrew, Gao Zhan's 5 year old son and a U.S. citizen, without notifying our Embassy in Beijing as required by treaty. It has been reported that this past Tuesday, the People's Republic of China formally accused Gao Zhan of ``accepting money from a foreign intelligence agency and participating in espionage activities in China.'' If Gao Zhan is tried on this charge, she is likely to be convicted and given a long prison sentence. China tries such security cases in secret and allows little chance for defendants to respond to the charges. I hope the introduction of this bill and its consideration by the Congress will improve Gao Zhan's conditions in the People's Republic of China, afford her protections and rights that she doesn't currently have as a permanent resident alien and hopefully lead to her release. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Let me say in a few seconds--and I want to yield the remainder of the time to the senior Senator from Virginia--the Senator from Kansas has it exactly right. We want to have an insurance policy for the people of this country, the taxpayers. We understand their budgets are strained. If there is a surplus--and we are optimistic there will be because we think reducing taxes helps create jobs, improve our economy, and has a dynamic, positive impact on our country. So if you want to make sure the taxpayers of this country get any of the excess money they have the first claim on, then you should support this amendment because it supports the people of America and will help strengthen our economy. I yield the remainder of my time to the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I bring forth this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Brownback, Senator Craig, and Senator Hutchison of Texas. This measure is the tax cut accelerator amendment which will help provide the assurance that we live up to our obligation to American families and make sure they receive the tax relief they deserve. The way this works is if the Congressional Budget Office's January report projects higher than expected on-budget surpluses over the previous year, then this amendment would require the Budget Committee to make the appropriate budgetary adjustments by reducing the on-budget revenue aggregate by the same amount as previously unaccounted for--the unaccounted for on-budget surplus. It instructs the Finance Committee to increase the amount of tax relief by the same amount, and the bottom line is it sends money back to the people and not to fund increased Government spending. We hear many issues and ideas about triggers and brakes and circuit breakers designed to slow down tax relief and not enough about a tax cut accelerator in the case that on-budget surpluses are higher than expected. If you look at the Congressional Budget Office projections over the years, they are generally very pessimistic about what revenues will be coming in and, therefore, surpluses will not be there. But, in fact, they are right about the deficits. They err on the side of caution. I understand that. That is probably a good way of looking at things. However, if the economy is doing better, if the budget surpluses appear on a year-to-year basis, who ought to have the first claim on those surpluses? In my view, it ought to be the taxpayers. The Finance Committee and Budget Committee may not want to use the entire surplus for tax cuts being accelerated. They may want to say they want to take care of priorities--let's say expenditures in health, or scientific research, or national defense. They will say: Well, we will use half this for these priorities and half for accelerated reductions in taxes. The point is, that identified surplus is not spent--not rolled over-- but it is determined as a definite, identifiable amount of money that the Budget Committee will act upon, that the Senate Finance Committee will act upon, and then this whole body will act upon and have that scrutiny. I think it will, of course, in my view, help speed up tax relief to the people. Because any view is more optimistic than the pessimistic views of the Congressional Budget Office. There is plenty of evidence, and other projections have been too low over the years because they use static estimates--not dynamic estimates. It is understandable why in 1-year budgets you would use static analysis because you do not have the full impact of tax reductions or any measures until a few years or maybe more than a few years down the road. If you want to look at what the impact of static analysis has on underestimates in the revenue impact because of tax cuts, the Kennedy tax cut under President John F. Kennedy was 12.6 percent of Federal revenues. They reduced rates from 90 to 70 percent. The rate reduction resulted in a return of all expected revenue losses plus an additional 4 percent. The Reagan tax cut, at 18.7 percent of Federal revenues, reduced rates, tax rates from 70 to 50 percent. The static models predicted a revenue impact of a negative $330 billion. The actual fiscal impact on the Treasury was about $78 million--less than one- fourth of the expected impact. These numbers, coupled with CBO's past inaccuracies, make it reasonable to believe that the on-budget surpluses will come in higher than projected. I am convinced more than ever that we need a tax cut accelerator. Over the past few days, the Senate has chipped away on the on-budget surplus. The Senate has reduced drastically the available money for tax relief. Hiding behind the arguments over process about how many reconciliation instructions per budget resolution is really to get in the way of real tax relief for American families. Real people do not care about reconciliation. They think it is a domestic matter, if you ever bring up reconciliation. It means, at best, some sort of family squabble being resolved. They care about providing for their families. People in the real world care about their future. This tax relief accelerator will hold Congress accountable to the American people, which I think is very good. This budget represents a promise to the people of America. It protects Social Security and Medicare. Tax cut accelerator does not affect Medicare or Social Security; it is only the on-budget surplus. This budget helps pay off all available debt. It funds current Government obligations and programs. It provides a $26 billion increase, or 4 percent raise, over last year's budget for Government spending. It ensures for future contingencies. And this budget promises to provide the people of America with the tax relief they deserve. I generally support this budgetary framework, and I strongly believe we should honor all of its promises. The tax cut accelerator provides the assurance that Washington will fulfill its promise to return excess on-budget surpluses to the people, to the taxpayers, instead of permitting their hard-earned dollars to be spent away by Government bureaucracies. The accelerator does not--does not--touch Social Security or Medicare funds. It does not threaten funding for current programs. It allows for increases in funding for new and existing priorities, such as defense, education, science, and medical research. And it does not bring back deficit spending. Today we have a choice. Our choice is, Do we keep our promises? Do we trust the American people and adopt this amendment which provides the necessary mechanism to ensure the return of unexpected on-budget surpluses back to our families and businesses or do we allow Government to keep this money from them? I say we ought to let the people decide how to best spend their hard- earned dollars. Families must be better able to save and spend for their children's education, to make a downpayment on a new home, to invest in their business, or to prepare for their retirement years. It is my view that we ought to trust people in our free enterprise system. People, better than Government, know how best to allocate their own dollars. When there is excess money here in Washington, and in an on-budget surplus--money that has not been appropriated; it is not promised, it is just coming in at a greater rate than anticipated--the first claim on that, the first lien, so to speak, the first mortgage, ought to be to the taxpayers of this country with accelerated tax reduction. So with that, I see my friend from Kansas has risen. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mr. ALLEN. OK. I will yield the floor and allow the opposition to make any statements they so desire.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to have just a final closing comment, and then I will yield to the senior Senator from Virginia.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment with Senator Brownback and others, No. 201.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, under section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive section 305 of the Budget Act for the consideration of this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Brownback, Hutchison, Craig, Warner, and myself, the tax cut accelerator ensures that unexpected on-budget surpluses are used to accelerate tax cuts rather than accelerate more Government spending. The tax relief accelerator provides a tax relief insurance policy so that the Federal Government will fulfill its promise to return excess tax collections to the taxpayer. The tax cut accelerator does not touch Social Security or Medicare. It does not threaten funding for current programs. It allows us to set priorities in education, national defense, and scientific research. It does hold the Government accountable to the American people, setting priorities, determining the amount and type of tax relief, taking action, and justifying our decisions to the American people. I respectfully ask my colleagues to please say yes to the taxpayers of America and improve our economic vitality.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I echo the words of the senior Senator from Virginia, John Warner. Norman Sisisky was a man who was loved all across Virginia. As the Senator said, he started his career in the Depression and served in the armed services. He also was a very successful businessman in the private sector. While he was a strong advocate for the armed services and the strength of our Nation, he also brought forth commonsense business principles of logistics and efficiency, whether it was in the days he was in the general assembly or in his many years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives. He clearly was one of the leaders to whom people on both sides of the aisle would look. When there was a need for getting good, bipartisan support, obviously, folks would go to Senator Warner. On the Democrat side, they looked to Norm Sisisky. Norm Sisisky cared a great deal, as Senator Warner said, about the men and women who wear the uniform. He wanted to make sure they had the most advanced equipment, the most technologically advanced armaments for their safety when protecting our interests and freedoms abroad. He was a true hero to many Virginians, not just in his district but all across the Commonwealth of Virginia, always bridging the partisan divides, trying to figure out what is the best thing for the people of America and also freedom-loving people around the world. I will always remember Norm Sisisky as a person. I will always remember that smiling face, and he had that deep voice and that deep laugh, hardy laugh. He was one who was always exuberant, always passionate, no matter what the effort, what the cause. You could be standing on the corner waiting for the light to change, and Norm would be carrying on with great passion and vigor about whatever the issue was. He would thrive on figuring out: Here is the way we will maneuver through the bureaucracy to get this idea done. He truly was a wonderful individual. Everyone here speaks of him as a fellow Member of the House of Representatives. When I was Governor, this man went beyond the call of duty. We were trying to get the department of military affairs to move from Richmond to Fort Pickett to transform that base which had been closed. Norm Sisisky spent weekends talking with members on the other side of the aisle in the Virginia General Assembly, beyond the call of duty, to make sure we could move the headquarters to Fort Pickett and that the environmental aspects were cleaned up at no expense to the taxpayers, keep the facility open, and transform it to commercial use to benefit the entire Blackstone community. The people in Southside Virginia will be forever grateful for what Norm Sisisky did in making sure Fort Pickett is there as a military facility for guard units in the Army, as well as private enterprise efforts and helping protect the jobs and people of that community.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. That is a great idea.

Mr. ALLEN. I will yield shortly. Congressman Norm Sisisky was a great Virginian. He was a great American. I know our thoughts and prayers are there for his wife Rhoda. I know at least two of his sons very well, Mark and Terry, as well as Richard and Stuart. Our prayers and thoughts go out to them. We tell them: Please realize Norm still lives on in you, in your blood, and also his spirit. We also share our grief with his very dedicated and loyal staff who shared his passion for the people of Virginia and the people of America.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, I rise in support of the Thompson amendment. I have listened to the debate on this issue for the last several days, and I have listened to the many different points of view expressed here. There is quite a spectrum of opinion. On one side of the spectrum, there are those--and they had 40 votes--who want to limit First Amendment rights and, in fact, voted for a Constitutional amendment to do just that. I actually commend the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, for at least recognizing that many of these proposals, including the McCain-Feingold bill, have the effect of restricting First Amendment rights, which is part of the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, that is their view. On that side of the spectrum, there are also those who want the taxpayers to pay for elections, which would be the result if you actually limited First Amendment rights. They honestly believe that is the approach to take. I find myself on the other end of the spectrum, as one who believes very much in the Bill of Rights. After all, it was first authored by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights. I think the First Amendment, as well as all of the Bill of Rights, is very important for all Americans. My view is that what we ought to have is more freedom; the maximum amount of individual freedom, and the maximum amount of accountability and honesty in elections, and having contributions made voluntarily as opposed to being taken out of tax money. All the various amendments that have been offered today, and probably will be offered in the next few days, have as their purpose various restrictions or subterfuge to these two different points of view. I have been a candidate for statewide office in Virginia twice. Last year, I ran statewide for the U.S. Senate under the Federal election laws. I also ran for Governor statewide, obviously, under Virginia's laws that are based upon the principles of freedom. In my view, the current Federal election laws are overly restrictive. They are bureaucratic, antiquated, and they are contrary to the principles of individual freedom, accountability and, yes, contrary to the concepts of honesty. I have been working on an amendment with the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, on what we call the Political Freedom and Accountability Act. I don't know if we will offer that amendment, but this looks like an opportunity to be in support of something that is at least going in that same direction. I have stood by my guiding principles on vote after vote during this debate. Sometimes I do not agree with the Senator from Kentucky on an amendment; to his and my chagrin, because I consider the professor someone very knowledgeable on this subject. Nonetheless, I am trying to advocate greater freedom and greater accountability. What I am trying to do is make sure that in this debate we are advancing the ideas of freedom of exchange of ideas, freedom of political expression and increasing participation to the maximum extent possible. And equally important are the concepts of accountability and honesty. First, the issue of freedom. The current laws and limits are clearly out of date. There is no one who can argue that these laws, the current restriction on direct contributions to candidates, are anything but completely antiquated and out of date. Let's take some examples. When TV reporters ask me what kind of reforms do I want, I tell them greater freedom, greater accountability, and to get these Federal laws up to date. I ask the TV reporters: Will you please, in your reporting of this issue, say what it cost to run a 30-second ad in 1974 when these laws were put into effect versus what you charge today for a TV ad. Well, I am never home enough to watch TV anymore since I have joined the Senate, so maybe they told us. Nevertheless, we did our own research. The average cost of just producing a 30-second commercial has increased seven times, from $4,000 to $28,000. The cost of stamps-- because we do send mailings out has increased. The cost of a first- class stamp in 1974 was 10 cents. Today, it is 34 cents, and rising. So that is over three times as much. The cost of airing a 30-second television advertisement per 1,000 homes has escalated from $2 in 1974 to $11 in 1997. That is fivefold increase. Candidates are today running in larger districts. There are more people in congressional districts, obviously, than before. There are more people in the United States of America. The voting-age population increased from 141 million in 1974 to over 200 million in 1998. The reality is that the limits in the Thompson amendment don't even catch up with the increase in costs. The Thompson amendment is a very modest approach of trying to get the Federal election laws more in line with what are the costs of campaigns. The accountability and honesty aspect of this amendment is important because I think the current situation has improper disclosure; very poor disclosure and subterfuge. As far as disclosure is concerned, one can get a contribution of $1,000 on July 2 and it is not disclosed until late October under the current law. I very much agree with the efforts of the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, to get more prompt disclosure, and that needs to be done. The contribution limits also force a greater use of soft money. People are all so upset about soft money going to political parties. Why is that being done? Because the cost of campaigns are increasing for all those demographic features and facts I just enunciated. The fact is, you need more money to run campaigns to get your messages out. If an individual desired to part with $5,000, which is right much money for most people, but they believe so much in a candidate that they want to give $5,000, right now they would have to give $1,000 to the candidate. That would be disclosed, maybe belatedly but it would be disclosed. Then they would have to give $4,000 to a political party that would run ads, run mailings, whatever they would do to help that candidate. The point is that $4,000, in this example, would not have the same accountability. It would not have the same scrutiny. Fred Smith may be a controversial character. It is one thing for him to give $1,000 and then $4,000 to the party, but it is all $5,000 to candidate B and you say: Gosh, candidate B has gotten all this money from Fred Smith. But really it only shows up as $1,000 because the rest has gone to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or some other organization. Therefore, you are losing that accountability and the true honesty in a campaign that you want to have and the scrutiny that a candidate should have for getting contributions from individuals. It is my view that we need to return responsibility for campaigns to the candidates. We are getting swamped. At least we were swamped--and I know this was not unique to Virginia last year--with these outside groups that are contributing to our campaigns. Mr. President, $5 million, at least the best we can determine, was spent not just by the Democratic Party running ads contrary to my campaign or Republicans running ads in favor of my campaign or in opposition to my opponent, but these independent expenditures--handgun control, attack TV ads, donor undisclosed; Sierra Club running attack ads, radio ads, voter guides, donors undisclosed; pro-abortion groups, dirty dozen ads against us--all these ads and they are all undisclosed. There are people all upset with this. That is part of democracy. That is part of free expression. It would be nice if there would be a constitutional way to disclose those individuals, but that is apparently unconstitutional. The point is, you end up having to answer those ads. People think: You want to do all sorts of sordid things I will not repeat, but nevertheless you have to get the money to make sure you are getting your positive, constructive message out or setting the record straight. With these limits, you end up having to raise money through political parties to combat these ads which, as much as I did not like them, they have a right to do. And I will defend the rights of these groups or any other groups to run those ads and have their free expression and political participation. The point of the Thompson amendment is people are allowed to contribute more directly to a candidate. The candidate is held more responsible and accountable, and to the extent that you can get more direct contributions, it alleviates, negates, and diminishes the need to be using political parties as a subterfuge or a conduit to get the money you need to set the record straight. Current Federal laws in many cases--one says: Look at how wonderful they are. It is amazing to me people think that, but nevertheless that is their view. They are so unaccountable in so many ways, and by limiting hard dollars, so to speak, or direct contributions, you are back with PACs.

Mr. ALLEN. Ten minutes.

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. As I alluded in my remarks, sometimes you might as well not have been receiving a large contribution because the negative connotations and everything wrong that person or corporation may have done is somehow besmirching you. You have to be careful with it in trying to get contributions, whether for yourself or for political action efforts.

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator from Kentucky is correct and there are no limited contributions from corporations, which I am not arguing at this point, but it is purely on Jeffersonian principles of freedom and disclosure and honesty.

Mr. ALLEN. You can have that situation if you are not credible.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I think the contribution limits definitely create a dependency on soft money, thereby the corollary logically is that by increasing the direct contributions on hard limits, it decreases the necessity. It is pure commonsense logic, at least for those of us who have run under a system of freedom such as that in Virginia. The other matter is contribution limits also prohibit candidates, except those with personal wealth, from acquiring a stake from which to launch a campaign. We went through this whole debate about what happens when you have millionaire candidates and thereby raise the limits for those candidates, and so forth. Gosh, if you did not have any limits, you would not have to worry about this. Again, at least the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee addresses that in that we want to encourage more political participation in speech rather than limiting it. We ought to be promoting competition. We ought to be promoting freedom and a more informed electorate, which we would get with the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee. We want to enable any law-abiding American citizen to run for office. Had the current limits been in place in 1968, Eugene McCarthy never would have been able to mount his effort against President Johnson. Today's system has failed to make the elections more competitive. The current system hurts voters in our Republic by forcing more and more committees and contributions and political activists to operate outside the system where they are unaccountable and, consequently, more irresponsible and less honest. I, of course, want to repeal the hard limits, but nevertheless, by increasing these limits, we can open up the political system. Challengers need to raise a great deal of money as quickly as possible to have any real chance of success. The current system, with its very stringent limits, prevents a challenger from raising the funds he or she needs, and I saw that in 1993 when I was running for Governor. One may say: Gosh, this is all wonderful theory from the Senator from Virginia. You can look at Virginia as a test case of freedom and accountability. People say, sure, they have plenty of disagreements between the legislative and executive branch and between Democrats and Republicans, but you have honest Government in Virginia. If there is anybody giving large contributions, I guarantee you, boy that is scrutinized and there is a lot of answering to do for large contributions. Indeed, it may not be worth the bad press you get for accepting a large contribution. Again, if you look at Virginia--which has a system where we have no contribution limits and better disclosure--Virginia right now has a Governor whose father was a butcher. His predecessor was a son of a former football coach. The predecessor to that Governor was a grandson of slaves. Virginia's system gives equal opportunity to all. Virginia has a record of which we can be proud. The amendment of the Senator from Tennessee, while not ideal and exactly like Virginia, it is one that at least increases freedom-- freedom of participation, freedom of expression, and coupled with other amendments, such as the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana on disclosure, brings greater honesty. I urge my fellow Senators to support this amendment. It is a reasonable improvement, it is greater freedom, it is greater accountability, and it is greater honesty for the people of America. I yield back what moments I have remaining.

Mr. ALLEN. May I have an additional 5 minutes?

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the education opportunity tax credit on behalf of myself as well as Senators Warner, Craig, and Allard. This is a measure that was introduced last Thursday, March 8. What the education opportunity tax credit would do is increase the amount and the quality of available academic services and technology- related resources for parents and for students. This measure does several very good things. No. 1, it increases education spending with greater parental involvement. No. 2, it is a tax cut for families. And, No. 3, it brings forth more funds available for technology and specialized tutoring-type teaching. I know the Presiding Officer and other Members of the Senate recognize how important education is for our children and for the future of our Nation. It is essential for our children's futures because the best jobs will go to those who are the best prepared. The education opportunity tax credit helps in that regard. In education, good quality classrooms and good teachers, able to impart knowledge to our children, are important. Academic standards and accountability and the measurement of those high academic standards in the basics of English, math, science, social studies, and economics are all important, but also as important as teachers and administrators in the education of our children are the parents; and parents need to be empowered. Their involvement is key for the academic success of their children. Indeed, parents know their children's names. They know the specific needs of their children much more than any bureaucracy in Washington, DC. Finally, children need to have computer skills to be able to compete and succeed in the future. Computers and wiring in schools and access to the Internet in schools and in libraries is a good idea and is very important. Community centers are important. Last week, the Republican Senate High-Tech Task Force visited an Intel clubhouse. It is working in conjunction with the Boys and Girls Club here in Washington, DC. There are many good ideas in these community centers, but we need to make sure there are computers and software programs and educational programs at home because homework is done at home and on weekends. This is what the education opportunity tax credit does. It provides families with a $1,000-per-child education opportunity tax credit. It is capped at $1,000 per year per child, and capped at $2,000 per year per family if they have more than one child. It defrays the cost of education-related expenses for computers and computer-related accessories and technology. Educational software, Internet access, and tutoring services could be expenditures that would thereby get the tax credit. It does not apply to private school tuition. And as introduced, it is refundable. This is a family-oriented education tax incentive that will have a very real impact on the ability of parents to better afford education- related services and technology resources. This is the financial situation of a family with an income of $38,900. That is the median family income in the United States. After a family pays all the money in taxes to the Federal Government, the State Government, the local government, and after they pay for their housing, their clothing, their food, their medical care, and their transportation--these are all absolutely essential for the survival of a family--the real disposable income gets down to about $2,100. Now, educational expenses normally are going to be school supplies and a variety of other items that are important. But you realize, with that amount of money, if you bought a computer, purchased a used printer, software, and Internet access, that totals over $2,400. So the amount that would be added to credit card debt would be $241 a year. The reality is, once you pay your taxes to all levels of government, once you pay for food and clothing and housing and putting gas in the car, and a car payment, and all the rest, the average family has about $180 left a month for everything else. And the average cost of a computer is going to be about 70 percent of that. You can have the statistics, but real people in the real world, folks such as Jim and June Meadows, support this proposal because it would help them afford specialized software for their daughter Morgan, who has dyslexia, without sacrificing the education needs of their other daughter, Meghan, who is age 10. You do not have to go outside the beltway to find these working folks. In fact, right here in the Capitol you will find people who are working who recognize the value of this. In fact, Milton Salvadore, who I ran into in the Senate restaurant a few weeks ago, is such a working family man--he works, his wife works, and they have young children--I asked him: Do you all have a computer for your young school-aged children? He said: No. No. I said: Why not? He said: Look, we have all these bills, and so forth. My wife and I are working hard, but we do not have enough money for that. We do not want to go into debt to go get a computer and Internet access for our children. He said it would help him and his hard-working wife afford a computer for his family, if this education opportunity tax credit were in effect. The tax impact on the average family of three with an adjusted gross income of approximately $39,000 a year, if they took the full $1,000 tax credit for their children's education expenses, that would save nearly 34 percent on their yearly Federal tax bill. A family of four with an income of $39,000 taking the full $2,000-per-family tax credit would realize a savings of 95 percent on their taxes owed for the year. If we are going to seriously address the digital divide--and the digital divide is a divide in opportunities--we must act to provide families and children with the financial means to take advantage of education opportunities. Closing the digital divide is important. The education opportunity tax credit provides the financial resources to achieve this goal by making the tax credit fully refundable so that lower income families who owe the Government less money than the maximum available tax credit--say they owe $700--or if they have no tax liability at all, would get the full credit. Everyone would be able to take full advantage of this opportunity. The digital divide is a function of many factors, including geography and educational levels of parents. Hence, the most salient and determinative factor is family income. According to numbers released in October of 2000 by the U.S. Department of Commerce--these figures are borne out by studies by Virginia Commonwealth University--we find that of the 92 percent of people who are computer owners, 29 percent have Internet access. So these figures do match in that regard with Virginia. If we look at households with less than $15,000 in annual income, 12.7 percent of them have Internet access, which is pretty much equal to computer ownership. Families falling within the $15,000 to $24,000 per year range have a 21-percent rate of Internet access. Families with incomes of $75,000 per year or more have about a 77- percent Internet access rate. These numbers show how this bill will help all people, but that the main value will be to those of middle income and lower middle income who will be able to purchase computers, Internet access, and educational computer software for their children. This is more than just a purely personalized education tax and parental involvement technology issue. This is about--the digital divide and making sure people are getting a good education and access to technology so they are literate and capable. It is vital to the future of the United States in a global economy. It is important for our domestic economy, and it is obviously important for individual families. In maintaining our economic growth, the Department of Commerce estimates that information technology industries accounted for 30 percent of the country's total real economic growth between 1995 and 1999. Between just 1997 and 1999, there were over 1.2 million new jobs. The average wage of technology jobs in the Nation was $58,000 compared to $32,000 in the overall economy. What we need to understand is, without a continued influx of qualified, competent workers, the growth in the technology industries will stall and Americans, if not properly educated, will not be able to seize the opportunities. Whether it is in the Silicon Valley of California, the silicon Dominion of Virginia, or whether it is in Idaho, Pennsylvania, Florida, Iowa, or anywhere else, it is important that our youngsters are getting a solid education. The number of U.S. college graduates with high-tech degrees in the country is declining. Since 1990, the number of high-tech degrees has dropped by 2 percent. Undergraduate degrees in math have declined by 21 percent, computer science degrees have declined by 37 percent, and electrical engineering degrees by 45 percent. Although, this wasn't the trend we saw in Virginia in the 1990s. Actually, there was a big increase of jobs and degrees--Virginia having the third fastest growth in technology jobs--however there was the same income differential between technology-related jobs and other forms of employment. The studies from Virginia showed that the average technology job paid $66,000 a year versus $31,000 in the overall economy. As a country, unless we better prepare all students, they will not be able to meet the high-tech job demand; the number of innovations and new technology developments will decline, and businesses and jobs will move offshore. I say to my colleagues in the Senate, it is time for us to act to make sure we keep these well-paying jobs, these high-tech jobs, in America for Americans. There is broad-based support by Virginia voters for the education opportunity tax credit. This is not a conservative versus liberal, or Democrat versus Republican, or men versus women type issue; it is a commonsense, good for families, education spending and tax cut issue. What we found in Virginia with this idea--and it did get pretty well debated in the recent campaign--is that--and this was from polling--61 percent of liberals liked the idea; 69 percent of conservatives liked it, and moderates actually liked it the best, 71 percent. Men liked it at over 70 percent. It was supported by nearly 70 percent of women. It didn't matter someone's race, where they lived, ideology or political persuasion, or if they were not involved in any organized political party. It was very strongly supported by everyone in Virginia. The people of Virginia recognize that it helps them with their own children. In fact, at the Flying J truckstop in Caroline County, I was going in to pay my bill, and the woman who was there taking my credit card said: I like your education tax credit. I said: That's great, ma'am. I am glad you know what is going on with this measure. Do you like it? She said: I am a tutor in Caroline County schools in mathematics. It is a county with many people who cannot afford a tutor, and she saw that those students who needed help in math and their families could better afford her or other tutoring services so they could get up to speed in mathematics with the support of this tax credit. This is an idea that is appreciated by people in Virginia. As we work to make sure our fellow Senators know about this idea, they will realize it is something on which we will need to have to take action very soon, to make sure our students have the highest quality and most appropriate education possible. We need to trust parents to be involved in their schools. They know their children's needs. They know their specific areas that will be of interest and what will best benefit them. Through this substantial tax benefit, all families will have access to a full spectrum of available education opportunities and related technologies. I hope my colleagues will look into this matter. The Education Opportunity Tax Credit Act will provide families with choice and opportunity. I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senator Warner of Virginia, Senator Craig of Idaho, and Senator Allard of Colorado, as well as other Members, in making sure that we ensure the passage of the education opportunity tax credit to empower parents, to increase education spending, and also to reduce taxes while providing more technology capabilities to the children of America.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator, Mr. Warner, for allowing me to make a few remarks about technology. It is a great honor to be chairman of the Senate Republican high-tech task force, where we are looking at a variety of issues to allow the technology community to continue to improve our lives. Senator Warner has been a tremendous leader in this regard, especially as far as security is concerned. We all on the task force very much look forward to his further contributions. The people in this country are benefiting a great deal from the technology in communications, and in commerce there is tremendous potential, as well as in education, in biotechnology, in transportation, and elsewhere. Just for people to understand our philosophy, we trust free people and free enterprise. People should not be limited or hampered in their creativity, and it should be the marketplace, free people making free choices as to whether or not someone's technological invention or innovations are worthy of their purchases. So we think those are the principles that should be guiding us in determining the success determined by the people in the marketplace. Mr. President, in recognizing how much technological opportunity we have, we need to make sure that our rural communities have access to high-speed Internet capabilities. But these technologies not only have not reached all the areas of our country, which is important, but they certainly haven't reached all corners of the world. Consider this: If the entire world population was reduced to 100 people, with the current ratios staying the same, here are a few examples of how the world would look: Out of the 100; 57 would be Asians; 21 European; 14 would be from the Western Hemisphere, North and South America; 8 would be Africans; approximately 80 out of the hundred would live in substandard housing; about 60 to 70 would be unable to read; 50 would suffer from malnutrition; 50 would not have made their first telephone call; about 1 would have a college education; and maybe 1\1/2\ out of 100 of the world's population would have a computer. As you can see, we have a long way to go. So we need to understand that this country is the technology leader. It is what is allowing us to compete in the international marketplace, to improve our methods of manufacturing and production in an efficient, top-quality approach, as well as reducing emissions and toxins. I think as long as we continue to foster the proper tax, regulatory, and educational policies in this country, and as long as the invigorating breeze of freedom continues to blow into new markets and places in the world, technology will improve construction, communications, education, life sciences, medical sciences, and transportation. I very much look forward to the leadership of the President and Senator Warner in the Senate to allow the technological revolution to continue to improve our lives and those of our fellow human beings here on earth.