Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2001, along with my distinguished colleagues Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, and Senators Warner, Allen, Hagel, Helms, Grassley, and Santorum. I introduced this bill in the 106th Congress, and today, we again are taking a commonsense step to reduce gun violence and help make our communities safer and more secure. Often, in the heat of the rhetoric, the real issue in gun control debate has become lost in the flurry of words. We must not, however, lose sight of the real issue, that is the need to reduce gun violence. While gun control efforts are often controversial, there is nothing controversial about protecting our children, our families, our communities by keeping guns out of the wrong hands, not those of law- abiding citizens, but those of criminals and violent offenders. Criminals with guns are killing our children. They are killing our friends and our neighbors. I am very troubled by gun violence. However, I firmly believe that the Bush Administration will aggressively go after those who commit crimes with a gun. Right now, current law makes it a federal crime for a convicted felon to ever possess a firearm. It is also against federal law to use a gun to commit any crime, even a State crime. Under federal law, the sentences for these kinds of crimes are mandatory, no second chance, no parole. In the late 1980s, President George Bush made enforcement of these gun laws a priority. His Justice Department told local sheriffs, chiefs of police, and prosecutors that if they caught someone committing a crime in which a gun was used, or even caught a felon with a gun, the Federal Government would take the case, and put that criminal behind bars for at least five years, no exceptions. During the last 18 months of the Bush Administration, more than 2,000 criminals with guns were put behind bars. Unfortunately, consistent, effective enforcement ended once the Clinton administration took office. Between 1992 and 1998, for example, the number of gun cases filed for prosecution dropped from 7,048 to about 3,807, that's a 46 percent decrease. As a result, the number of federal criminal convictions for firearms offenses has fallen dramatically. For 6 years, the Clinton Justice Department refused to prosecute those criminals who use a gun to commit State crimes, even though the use of a gun to commit those crimes could be charged as a Federal crime. The only cases they would prosecute were those in which a federal crime had been committed and a gun was used in the commission of that crime. Even worse, some federal gun laws were almost never enforced by the prior administration. For instance, while Brady law background checks have stopped nearly 300,000 prohibited purchasers of firearms from buying guns, less than .1 percent have actually been prosecuted. I questioned Attorney General Ashcroft during his recent confirmation hearing, as well as in private, about the aggressive prosecution of gun cases. He shared our view that current law prohibits violent felons from possessing guns, and so we should aggressively enforce the laws that take guns away from violent criminals. We should take those guns away before they use them to injure and kill people. We have often heard that 6 percent of the criminals commit 70 percent of the crimes. Well, if you have a violent criminal who illegally possesses a gun, I can bet you that he is part of that 6 percent! He's one of the bad guys, and we should put him away before he has a chance to use that gun again. Our goal should be to take all of these armed criminals off the streets. That is how we can reduce crime and save lives. And, we can do it now, before another student, or any American, becomes a victim of gun violence. This bill offers the kind of practical solution we need to thwart gun crimes, now. It would provide $100 million in grants over 5 years to those States that agree to enact their own mandatory minimum five-year jail sentences for armed criminals who use or possess an illegal gun. As an alternative, a State also can qualify for the grants by turning armed criminals over for Federal prosecution under existing firearms laws. This would be done in the same manner in which it was done in the prior Bush administration. In our bill, however, a State wishing to participate in this program has the option of prosecuting armed felons in either State or federal court. Qualifying States can use their grants for any variety of purposes that would strengthen their criminal or juvenile justice systems' ability to deal with violent criminals. This approach works, as Senators Warner and Allen can tell you first- hand. In Virginia, for example, the State instituted a program in 1997, also called ``Project Exile.'' Their program is based on one simple principle: Any criminal caught with a gun will serve a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison. Period. End of story. As a result, gun-toting criminals are being prosecuted six times faster, and serving sentences up to four times longer than they otherwise would under State law. Moreover, the homicide rate in Richmond already has dropped 50-percent! Every State should have the opportunity to implement Project Exile in their high-crime communities. The bill that we have introduced will make this proven, commonsense approach to reducing gun violence available to every State. It will take guns out of the hands of violent criminals. It will make our neighborhoods safer. It will save lives. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2001, along with my distinguished colleagues Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, and Senators Warner, Allen, Hagel, Helms, Grassley, and Santorum. I introduced this bill in the 106th Congress, and today, we again are taking a commonsense step to reduce gun violence and help make our communities safer and more secure. Often, in the heat of the rhetoric, the real issue in gun control debate has become lost in the flurry of words. We must not, however, lose sight of the real issue, that is the need to reduce gun violence. While gun control efforts are often controversial, there is nothing controversial about protecting our children, our families, our communities by keeping guns out of the wrong hands, not those of law- abiding citizens, but those of criminals and violent offenders. Criminals with guns are killing our children. They are killing our friends and our neighbors. I am very troubled by gun violence. However, I firmly believe that the Bush Administration will aggressively go after those who commit crimes with a gun. Right now, current law makes it a federal crime for a convicted felon to ever possess a firearm. It is also against federal law to use a gun to commit any crime, even a State crime. Under federal law, the sentences for these kinds of crimes are mandatory, no second chance, no parole. In the late 1980s, President George Bush made enforcement of these gun laws a priority. His Justice Department told local sheriffs, chiefs of police, and prosecutors that if they caught someone committing a crime in which a gun was used, or even caught a felon with a gun, the Federal Government would take the case, and put that criminal behind bars for at least five years, no exceptions. During the last 18 months of the Bush Administration, more than 2,000 criminals with guns were put behind bars. Unfortunately, consistent, effective enforcement ended once the Clinton administration took office. Between 1992 and 1998, for example, the number of gun cases filed for prosecution dropped from 7,048 to about 3,807, that's a 46 percent decrease. As a result, the number of federal criminal convictions for firearms offenses has fallen dramatically. For 6 years, the Clinton Justice Department refused to prosecute those criminals who use a gun to commit State crimes, even though the use of a gun to commit those crimes could be charged as a Federal crime. The only cases they would prosecute were those in which a federal crime had been committed and a gun was used in the commission of that crime. Even worse, some federal gun laws were almost never enforced by the prior administration. For instance, while Brady law background checks have stopped nearly 300,000 prohibited purchasers of firearms from buying guns, less than .1 percent have actually been prosecuted. I questioned Attorney General Ashcroft during his recent confirmation hearing, as well as in private, about the aggressive prosecution of gun cases. He shared our view that current law prohibits violent felons from possessing guns, and so we should aggressively enforce the laws that take guns away from violent criminals. We should take those guns away before they use them to injure and kill people. We have often heard that 6 percent of the criminals commit 70 percent of the crimes. Well, if you have a violent criminal who illegally possesses a gun, I can bet you that he is part of that 6 percent! He's one of the bad guys, and we should put him away before he has a chance to use that gun again. Our goal should be to take all of these armed criminals off the streets. That is how we can reduce crime and save lives. And, we can do it now, before another student, or any American, becomes a victim of gun violence. This bill offers the kind of practical solution we need to thwart gun crimes, now. It would provide $100 million in grants over 5 years to those States that agree to enact their own mandatory minimum five-year jail sentences for armed criminals who use or possess an illegal gun. As an alternative, a State also can qualify for the grants by turning armed criminals over for Federal prosecution under existing firearms laws. This would be done in the same manner in which it was done in the prior Bush administration. In our bill, however, a State wishing to participate in this program has the option of prosecuting armed felons in either State or federal court. Qualifying States can use their grants for any variety of purposes that would strengthen their criminal or juvenile justice systems' ability to deal with violent criminals. This approach works, as Senators Warner and Allen can tell you first- hand. In Virginia, for example, the State instituted a program in 1997, also called ``Project Exile.'' Their program is based on one simple principle: Any criminal caught with a gun will serve a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison. Period. End of story. As a result, gun-toting criminals are being prosecuted six times faster, and serving sentences up to four times longer than they otherwise would under State law. Moreover, the homicide rate in Richmond already has dropped 50-percent! Every State should have the opportunity to implement Project Exile in their high-crime communities. The bill that we have introduced will make this proven, commonsense approach to reducing gun violence available to every State. It will take guns out of the hands of violent criminals. It will make our neighborhoods safer. It will save lives. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. No. 69, which is now at the desk.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Monday, March 26. I further ask that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period for morning business not to extend beyond 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes, with the following exceptions: Senator Byrd, or his designee, controlling the time between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., and Senator Thomas, or his designee, controlling time between 11 a.m. and 12 noon. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon the Senate resume consideration of S. 27 and that Senator Wellstone be recognized for an amendment.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate this afternoon to urge Senate passage of House-Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 69. The resolution will be in front of us shortly, either later this afternoon or next week. I thank my friend and my colleague from the State of Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot, as well as Representative Nick Lampson from the State of Texas, for introducing and gaining approval of this resolution in the House of Representatives. It is unfortunate, however, that we need to be here today taking up this resolution. It is unfortunate because that fact acknowledges that we have made little progress in getting the return of American children who have been abducted and taken abroad, usually by a parent. This resolution addresses the serious issue of international child abduction and the importance of The Hague Special Review Commission on International Child Abduction which formally began its work yesterday and will continue meeting until March 28. This commission is raising the importance and the necessity of compliance with The Hague Convention on the International Aspects of Child Abduction. The Hague convention is in place to facilitate the return of internationally abducted children to their countries of ``habitual residence'' for custody determination. This means, according to the Hague convention many countries have signed, when there is a dispute about the custody of a child, the child's place of ``habitual residence'' is the country where that determination should be made. Sadly, it has been clear for some time that all countries that have signed the convention do not take their obligation seriously. Certain countries in particular--allies of ours such as Germany, Austria, Sweden--have performed especially poorly in returning children and allowing family visitation options. What are we talking about? What is the situation that brings about this international parental kidnapping? Usually it is a case such as this: An American citizen falls in love, marries someone from another country, they decide to live in the United States, and a child is born. Then one day the spouse who is the American citizen, the spouse who was one of the two parties to this union, wakes up and finds the other spouse gone and the child gone. That mother, that father, takes that child back to where that mother or dad came from originally, and now the parent in the United States is looking for their child. This is a human tragedy, a tragedy that is repeated in this country many times every year. As many of my colleagues know, this is not the first time I have come to the Senate floor to talk about this issue and to raise the tragic problem of international child abduction. In fact, exactly 1 year ago today, I came to the Senate floor to discuss this issue. I came to the floor and a year ago introduced a similar resolution urging compliance with the Hague convention. While the House and the Senate both passed that resolution, regrettably I have to be back here again this afternoon because, tragically, we have seen very little, if any, progress in gaining signatory compliance and ultimately in getting our children back. Specifically, the resolution before us today identifies key problems with the current Hague convention. What are these problems? No. 1, a lack of awareness about international parental kidnappings among policymakers and the general public in the signatory nations. This is just not an issue that people really understand, and it is not an issue to which the governments of the signatory countries are paying any attention. No. 2, a lack of awareness and training of judges who hear these cases, who hear these international abduction cases, training that would enable them to interpret and rule on these cases fairly and would enable them to appreciate the importance of these cases. No. 3, different interpretations of the Hague convention by signatory nations. We see that all the time. There is no uniformity or consistency. No. 4, one of the problems with the Hague convention is the failed enforcement of parental access rights and a lack of enforcement of court orders for the return of children. Finally, we see a narrow exception to the requirement of returning children, which prevents them from being returned if they are perceived to be, upon return--and this is the language that is in the Hague convention--in grave risk of being exposed to psychologically damaging or physically harmful situations. Instead of being the exception, this loophole has really become the rule. It has become standard procedure and is frequently used as a justification for not returning children at all. Basically, all the court has to do is to make a determination that if the child were returned to his or her parent in the country where the child was originally brought up, if the court finds that this would place the child in grave risk of being exposed to a psychologically damaging or physically harmful situation, the court does not have to abide by The Hague convention. There is nothing wrong with the intent, but it is abundantly clear that this language is being used as a loophole, particularly in the area of finding a grave risk of psychological damage being done. These are some of the problems. Additionally, our resolution calls on this special session of The Hague that is now meeting to determine practice guidelines, practice guidelines that would build on expert opinions and research-based practices in handling international child custody disputes and kidnappings. Why do we need these guidelines? We need these guidelines because currently set standards are not in place telling signatory nations what to do when a court rules that a child should be returned. By implementing these guidelines, we would be telling nations that they could no longer hide behind the vagueness of The Hague convention articles anymore. They would not be able to use a lack of guidelines as a reason to keep children from a parent and from their homeland. The reality is, we cannot understate nor can we ignore the importance of getting these children returned to their homes in the United States. Sadly, our previous administration, the Clinton administration, did not put these children at the top of its priority list. As a result, the number of international abductions has continued to increase. In 1997, 280 abducted American children were living in foreign countries. That is the official number. I happen to believe, based upon anecdotal evidence, based upon conversations I have had with my colleagues and with other individuals, that the number in 1997 was much higher than that. The official number is 280 in 1997 who were abducted children who were living in foreign countries. In 1998, that number increased to 398. And in 1999, the official number was 441. Last year, it was a staggering 775. Quite candidly, our inability to resolve these cases has been due to, in part at least, our Government's lack of attention to this issue. According to the State Department, each year the United States sends an estimated 90 percent of kidnapped children back to foreign countries. In other words, this country, the United States, that has signed The Hague convention, complies in 90 percent of the cases. We make determinations in our courts that in 90 percent of the cases these children should in fact be returned to the place they were resident when they were abducted and taken from these countries. So the United States is in compliance. We are following The Hague convention. As the lawyers would say, we come to this issue with clean hands. The sad fact is, though, that even though we do it 90 percent of the time, and even though we are in compliance with the Hague, the rate of return of American children by other nations belonging to the Hague convention is much lower. A State Department report singles out several countries for their noncompliance with the accord, including Mauritius, Austria, Honduras, Mexico, and Sweden. Notably absent from this report, however, was Germany, which, as I have already mentioned, has also established a disturbing pattern of noncompliance. Because of Germany's noncompliance record, an American/ German working group on child custody issues has been established to help encourage Germany to return abducted children. However, essentially no progress has been made regarding open cases--either in the return of children to the United States or in allowing left-behind parents adequate visits with their children in Germany. To that end, we must not allow Germany--or any other signatory nation--to ignore their convention obligations and turn blindly against the parents who have suffered unbelievable heartache due to the loss of their children. What we have to remember when a parent abducts a child is that each abduction involves the destruction of a family. Yes, it is unfair for the mother or father who is left behind, but much more importantly, it is unfair for that child. A good illustration of this is what happened to Tom Sylvester of Cincinnati, OH. I have talked to Mr. Sylvester about his case, about his child. I have seen the desperation on his face. Tom is the father of a little girl named Carina, whom he has seen for a total of only about 18 days since his ex-wife abducted her from Michigan, where they lived, in 1995. The ex-wife took this little girl to Austria. The day after the kidnapping, Mr. Sylvester filed a complaint with the State Department and started legal proceedings under the Hague convention. An Austrian court heard his complaint, and the court ordered the return of Carina to Mr. Sylvester. However, this court order was never enforced, and Carina's mother took the child into hiding. Eventually, though, when Carina's mother surfaced with the child, the Austrian courts reversed their decision on returning her to the father, finding that she ``resettled into her new environment''--a decision clearly contrary to the terms of the Hague convention. Sadly, Mr. Sylvester is still waiting to get his little girl back. The bottom line is this, Mr. President: We must make the return of America's children a top priority with our State Department, a top priority with our Justice Department. Governance and policymaking are clearly about setting priorities. It is my hope that the new leadership in our State Department and the new leadership in the Justice Department will make that issue a top priority and will start trying to get these kids back. I raised this issue with Attorney General Ashcroft during his Senate confirmation hearings, and I have written to the Secretary of State as well about the urgency of this issue. Today, I again say to our Justice Department and to our State Department: We must begin to prioritize these cases. Yes, it is important to worry about trade issues. Yes, there are many other issues on the desks of the State Department and our embassies. But what could be more important than a child? If we can say that foreign trade is important, we should also say that our children are important as well. It is a question of setting priorities, and we must begin to prioritize these cases, and our State Department and our Justice Department must do this. No excuses should be accepted by the parents of these children, nor by the Senate, nor by the House of Representatives, nor by the American people. This must be a priority. These kids must be a priority. As a parent and a grandparent, I cannot begin to imagine the nightmare so many American parents face when their children are kidnapped by a current or former spouse and taken abroad. It is hard to imagine. But, tragically, this is a very real and daily nightmare for hundreds of parents right here in this country. That is why the resolution we have introduced is critical to encouraging the safe return of children to the United States. It gives us an opportunity to help make a positive difference in the lives of children and their families. In the end, if we are to succeed in bringing parentally abducted children back to their homes in the United States, the Federal Government must take an active role in their return. Ultimately, our Government has an obligation to these parents, but much more importantly, to these children. We must place our children first. They must become our priority. I urge my colleagues to join in support and passage of this very important resolution.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations reported by the Foreign Relations Committee today: Executive Calendar Nos. 21 and 22, Marc Grossman and Richard Armitage. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the campaign finance reform bill at noon this coming Monday. Senator Wellstone will be recognized to offer an amendment during Monday's session. Debate on S.J. Res. 4, the Hollings constitutional amendment, will begin at 2 p.m. by previous consent. Debate will continue on that issue until 6 p.m., with a vote scheduled on passage of S.J. Res. 4 at 6 p.m. Any votes ordered with respect to amendments to the campaign finance legislation will be stacked to follow the 6 p.m. vote. Therefore, several votes will occur in a stacked sequence beginning at 6 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me briefly respond to my friends and colleagues from Connecticut, South Dakota, and Nevada in regard to this amendment. I certainly respect their opinions and respect their comments. Mr. President, the fact is that this amendment will enhance free speech. It is true this amendment will move toward a more level playing field and does address a problem that has arisen in the last few years when, because of a constitutionally protected loophole, the wealthy candidate is the only person in the country who can put an unlimited amount of money in a particular campaign--his or her own campaign. Everybody else is limited to $1,000 but not the candidate. So what has happened is there has become a great search every election cycle, where both the Republicans and the Democrats go out and they don't look for people with great ideas. Some mechanics may have great ideas. They don't look necessarily for people with a great deal of experience or who bring other attributes, although a mechanic may have all of those things. What they look for and what the great search around the country is for is people who have money--the more the better. If you can find someone who has that money and is articulate, and they are from a key State or from a State that is getting ready to elect a U.S. Senator, then you have found what you were looking for. There is an inequity in the current system. But that is not why this amendment is being offered, and that is not why we should vote for this amendment. We should not be concerned about the candidate who is running against the millionaire, not directly concerned about that candidate. It is not just to level the playing field or to make it more equal. What we should be concerned about is the public and whether the public will have the benefit of a free debate, free-flowing debate, a debate where both candidates have the ability to get their ideas out. This amendment enhances free speech, and it does it in a very rational way. Again, I point out to my colleagues who have come to the floor to criticize this amendment, this amendment does not allow soft money. This amendment deals with very regulated, very much disclosed hard money. It basically builds on the current system. Where there is the most accountability in the system today, and where we have had the fewest problems today is with hard money and with individual donors. That is what this amendment builds on. It simply says that a person who is faced with a millionaire putting his or her own money into the campaign has the opportunity, because of this amendment, to go out and raise money from many people. When they raise that money, in each case it will be disclosed very quickly. It will be open to public scrutiny. It will all be very much above board, and the end result will be not that the candidate who is the millionaire will have a smaller megaphone--that millionaire who is putting in his or her own money will have the same megaphone they had before this amendment--but what it means is that the candidate who is facing that multimillionaire will also have the opportunity to have a bigger megaphone, to grow that megaphone if, in fact, he or she can go out and convince enough people to make individual contributions. That is what this amendment does. Will it put more money into the political system? Yes, it will put more money into the political system. I maintain, however, that the effect of that money will be to enhance the first amendment and not diminish the first amendment. It will be to enhance people's ability to communicate and get a message across without in any way hurting someone else's ability--namely, the millionaire--to get their message across. My colleague and friend, the minority leader, talked about the differences between the States. I understand what his perspective is, but I think, based upon the State he is from, he understands there is a fundamental difference between the expenditure of $1 million, or let's say half a million dollars, in South Dakota and a half a million dollars in the State of Ohio. The half a million dollars in South Dakota has a lot more impact than a half a million dollars in the State of Ohio. It seems to me it is incumbent upon us to make that distinction. How do we do it? First, I will talk about how we do not do it. We do not make any difference in regard to whether there is a multiple of three or multiple of six. We do not change that among the States. We do not change the categories among the States, but what we do say is that in a smaller State, when the millionaire puts in a certain amount of money, that money does have more of an impact in that smaller State than it has in a larger State and, therefore, we start the process earlier and we kick it in earlier. For example--and this is the chart my colleagues have--I will take the first State, and that is the State of Wyoming. Recognizing the difference that money has in Wyoming versus Ohio, we provide that the first threshold, which means you can raise $3,000 from a donor instead of $1,000 from a donor, that is triggered in Wyoming when the millionaire, the person who is self-financing their campaign, puts in $328,640. The candidate who is running against the millionaire in Wyoming would then have the opportunity to raise three times the limit for each donor, which is $3,000. In Ohio, we do not reach that threshold until that self-financed candidate has put in $974,640. There is a difference in the impact that money has in one State versus the impact in another State. We do not even kick that in until that person has put in close to $1 million in the State of Ohio. It makes eminent sense to do it this way. It has been well thought out, and, frankly, it enhances the chance that a court will look at this and say, yes, that is a rational approach. Again, this is an amendment that has a lot of protections built in, and probably the most important one was added last night. That was the concept that a wealthy candidate should not in any way be disadvantaged by the fact that he or she is exercising their constitutional right to put their own money into a campaign. How do we ensure that? We ensure it by simply saying that the amount of money the nonwealthy candidate can raise above the normal caps will be limited to the amount of money that the wealthy candidate puts in. If the wealthy candidate puts in $5 million, the nonwealthy candidate can only raise, with the enhanced caps from individuals, a total of that up to $5 million. It guarantees the wealthy candidate will not be disadvantaged, that he or she will not have a smaller megaphone and there will not be a disincentive for them to actually put their own money into the campaign. They will still have the ability to do that. They will not be penalized if they do that, but what it says is when that does happen, when the wealthy candidate does contribute a significant amount of money to his or her own campaign, then the nonwealthy candidate can go back, as a practical matter, to previous donors and try to get them to give an additional $1,000, $2,000, or $3,000, depending on where they are. It is a lot of work. It is something that is not easily done. It is something that will make sure there are more and more people involved in giving money, will involve more people in the process, and will enhance freedom of speech. In summary, this is a well-crafted amendment. It is an amendment that deals in a constitutional way with a problem of perception, and that perception is that someone today who is wealthy enough can buy a seat in the Senate. We know that may or may not be true in a particular case, and we also know that many people who are wealthy and who are self-financed are fine people and fine candidates. That is not the issue. What this amendment is aimed at dealing with is the perception, and the perception that someone can buy a seat in the Senate with their own money. It begins to level that playing field. It makes it more competitive. It enhances free speech, and it does not diminish in any way what that wealthy candidate can say or do or their ability to get their message out, but enables the person who is not wealthy to also get their message out. We have done it, I think, in a rational way. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this chart we will discuss in a moment was prepared last night by my law clerk, Susan Bruno. She has been working on that, and we thank her for it. I congratulate and thank my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for their work on this amendment. The amendment we have now is the result of weeks of discussions and negotiations among Senator Domenici, Senator Durbin, and myself. That culminated last night in further discussions involving more Senators, both Republican and Democrat. I thank the members of our staff who worked long into the night after we had set the basic parameters ourselves for what this discussion would be. The amendment we have in front of us is bipartisan, and it is the work product of a great number of people. But let me particularly thank Senator Domenici for taking the lead and for being one who had this idea, frankly, over a decade ago, and who has been talking about this idea year after year. We are now to the point where we have the ability to see this amendment enacted into law. Let me, again, thank Senator Domenici, Senator Durbin, Senator Collins, Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, and others for their input, their suggestions, and their work during these negotiations. I believe the amendment, with their help, is a consensus approach that will help make our election process more fair and more equitable. It is unfortunate that we need such an amendment at all. But the sad reality is in campaigns today we are moving down a road where personal wealth is becoming the chief qualification for candidates seeking office. The reality is in the last several election cycles, both parties have looked around the country to try to find wealthy candidates who can self-finance their own campaigns. This is no reflection on those candidates. But it is the reality of life today. This amendment attempts to bring about equity and fairness and also, quite candidly, to increase the opportunity for all candidates to get their ideas to the public. This amendment is truly about the first amendment--it is about free speech--and it is about allowing candidates to have the opportunity to take their ideas into the marketplace, to broadcast them, to be able to pay for the commercials, and to have their exchange of ideas in that political marketplace that our Founding Fathers deemed so very important. The reality is, though, personal wealth has changed the whole dynamic of today's Federal elections. It has changed it in a way that no one in 1976, when the Supreme Court handed down it's decision, could have envisioned. No one could have envisioned the amount of money individual candidates now pour into their own campaigns. The fact is, as I said on the Senate floor last night, there currently exists a loophole, but a constitutionally protected loophole, for candidates to use their own personal money to finance their own campaigns. This loophole, of course, resulted from the 1976 Supreme Court case, Buckley v. Valeo. In that case, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. In the Buckley case, the United States Supreme Court struck down limitations on the following: One, campaign expenditures; two, independent expenditures by individuals and groups; and, three, expenditures by candidates from their personal funds. The Buckley decision has effectively created a substantial disadvantage for opposing candidates who must raise all campaign funds under the current fundraising limitations. Current fund limitations, of course, are $1,000 per donor. So you have the situation where the candidate who cannot self-finance has to raise money in a maximum of $1,000 increments but has to then go up against another candidate who can put in maybe an unlimited amount of money--millions and millions of dollars. The fact is, because of the Constitution, because of the Supreme Court's decision, and because of the statutes we have written, we now have what, for the general public, would appear at least to be a rather ludicrous situation. That situation is that everyone in the country is limited to $1,000 they can put into a candidate's campaign--everybody in the country except one person. That one person who has the ability to put money in, in an unlimited fashion, in an unlimited amount, is, of course, the candidate. That, I think, to most people would seem to be an absurd situation. But this is a constitutional issue. This is, if it is a loophole, certainly a constitutionally protected loophole--unlimited personal expenditures from rich candidates but limited personal contributions for everyone else. That is the reality today. This reality has resulted in enhanced personal wealth in campaigns to such an extent that I think no one even 10 years ago could have imagined its importance. The whole dynamic of political campaigning has fundamentally changed in this country because of this Court decision and because of the ability in the last few years of candidates to self-finance their own campaigns. It has made it more difficult for nonwealthy opponents to compete and to get their messages and their ideas across to the public. Our amendment tries in a constitutionally acceptable way to correct this. It would create greater fairness and accountability in the Federal election process by addressing the inequity that arises when a wealthy candidate pays for his or her campaign with personal funds-- personal funds that are defined, by the way, to include cash contributions and any contributions arising from personal or family assets such as personal loans or property used for collateral for a loan to the campaign. The agreement we reached this morning and that was hammered out last night--the amendment we will be offering in just a moment--has very important implications for our democracy, as I will explain. The basic intent of our amendment is to preserve and to enhance the marketplace of ideas--the very foundation of our democracy--but giving candidates who are not independently wealthy an opportunity to get their message across to the voters as well. Specifically, our amendment would raise the contribution limits for candidates facing wealthy opponents to fund their own campaigns. The contribution limit increases are based, as my colleague from New Mexico has said, on a sliding scale depending on the size of each State and the amount of the wealthy candidate's personal expenditures. The amendment creates a simple three-tiered threshold test to determine the contribution limit increases. This threshold test is based on the individual voting age populations of each state, in recognition that the cost of elections vary greatly between the states. The actual calculation of the thresholds uses a baseline formula and multiples of that baseline. Our population-based calculation allows the individual contribution limit increases to kick in sooner in states with smaller populations, where candidates get more bang for the buck. A half million dollars in a campaign in Wyoming, after all, goes a heck of a lot farther and can buy a lot more television air time and direct mail pieces than it can in Ohio or in California. Simple put, this formula recognizes that a one-size fits all approach won't work for all states. The baseline is based on the following formula: $.04 the voting age population + $150,000. The first threshold starts at double the baseline. When a wealthy candidate crosses the first threshold, the opposing candidate's hard money cap for individual contributions, which currently is $1,000, goes up three times to $3,000. The second threshold is a double the first threshold--and the hard money cap increases to $6,000. So when you get to that second threshold, when the wealthy candidate puts in that second amount of money or hits that level, the second one kicks in, which means then the nonwealthy candidate who was not being self-financed can raise six times what the current law is. The current law, of course, is $1,000. That would take it up to $6,000 you can raise from an individual donor. Finally, the third threshold begins at ten times the baseline; once a wealthy candidate exceeds the third threshold, it removes the caps for State party coordinated expenditures of hard money. Our amendment also, as my colleague from New Mexico has indicated, includes a proportionality provision, a provision that means for all cap increases, a less wealthy candidate can use increased caps to raise only--only--up to 110 percent of the amount contributed by the wealthy candidate. This applies to all three of these thresholds. Proportionality is important because it really helps level the playing field from both directions so the wealthy candidate is not punished or is not inhibited from putting his or her own money into the campaign, which is very important. What this means, in plain language, is that we try to increase free speech; we give that nonwealthy candidate the opportunity to get his or her message out. We do not punish the wealthy candidate. And we take care of that in this well- crafted amendment by saying we will limit how much that nonwealthy candidate can raise above the caps, above the limits, and we limit it to, logically, how much money has been put in by the wealthy candidate. So the wealthy candidate, again, is not punished, is not inhibited, is not discouraged from putting in his or her own money. I think this makes a great deal of sense. This was a provision that was worked out, again, last night. Finally, our amendment includes a notice provision. This requires candidates to notify the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of crossing a threshold. Candidates also must notify the FEC within 24 hours of any additional contributions totaling $10,000, once they are over a threshold. That is our amendment in a nutshell. The fact is, the Supreme Court has ruled that personal expenditures cannot be limited. Let me say this very clearly: Our amendment is not trying to change nor challenge that. We accept that. It is the interpretation of the Supreme Court, in interpreting the first amendment to the Constitution, which we must and do respect. This amendment is not an attempt to undo what the Court decided. It is not an attempt to limit personal expenditures, nor in any way to inhibit those expenditures, nor in fact to punish people for making those expenditures. Rather, it is an attempt to correct for the unintended effects of the Court's decision. Again, no one--no one--when the Buckley case came out in the mid- 1970s, could have envisioned what we have seen today. This amendment is based upon our additional experience--25 years of experience--in seeing how this has played out. It is an attempt to correct the inequities in the system and establish fairness in the process. I believe the courts are likely to uphold this provision because it addresses the public perception that there is something inherently corrupt about a wealthy candidate who can use a substantial amount of his or her own personal resources to win an election--not that there is anything corrupt about that particular candidate. It is the perception. It is the perception that the public looks at this and, frankly, says something is just wrong with this. The Supreme Court has said Congress has a compelling interest in addressing this perception. This amendment is narrowly tailored, and closely related to such concerns about that perceived corruption. The reality is the courts carved out a constitutional protection for wealthy candidates. Our provision offsets that without infringing on the rights of the wealthy candidates. Our provision expands the rights of the opposing candidate. Our amendment expands free speech. In fact, this sort of approach to campaign financing actually bolsters first amendment rights of candidates who do not have extensive personal resources. Finally, the proportionality provision is key to ensuring that a wealthy candidate is not punished by the less wealthy candidate's ability to raise funds with lower hard money caps. Candidly, our amendment does not completely level the playing field. I think in most cases that would simply be impossible. We cannot do that. However, it is a step towards increasing fairness and accountability in our election process. And it is a step, again, to expanding the individual's rights, those who do not have that independent wealth, giving them the opportunity to take their ideas out into the marketplace and to share them with the public, and giving them the resources to share them. It is a reasonable approach. It is a reasonable thing to do, especially now that we are reforming our Nation's campaign finance laws. This is a great opportunity for us. We are today, with this amendment, fine-tuning the process, correcting something the Court could not have foreseen 25 years ago in Buckley; and that is that the unlimited personal expenditures can hurt an opposing candidate's ability to compete fairly. When that happens, when huge funding disparities exist between a wealthy candidate's unlimited personal expenditures to their own campaigns and a less wealthy candidate's limited individual contributions from others, it is the voters and our democracy that suffers the most. In conclusion, wealthy candidates have an easier time communicating today with voters. That is just the reality of our current process. They have the money it takes readily at their disposal to get their messages out. When running up against such self-financed machines, less wealthy opponents have less chance to challenge those messages, less chance to get their own ideas on the table, less chance to communicate with the voters, and to give them an alternative point of view. As a result, it is the voters who have less chance to make informed choices in elections. And that is just not good for our democracy. In essence, this struggle between rich and not so rich candidates really is a struggle for the soul of democracy. I say that because the free flow of ideas and information is the basis--the very foundation--of our political system. The exchange of ideas is a prerequisite for democratic governance. And it is ``ideas,'' as John Maynard Keynes once said, that ``shape the course of history.'' The more robust the marketplace of ideas, the better the political process. For our democracy to fully function and thrive, we need many ideas--ideas competing with each other. That is the basis for the critical thinking process, the basis for debate and challenges to societal norms. That is the basis for how we make changes in our society, for how we make the world a better place. When there are fewer ideas being disseminated, there is a greater likelihood of political and societal stagnation. And when there is such stagnation, there is no social change, and the world is worse off for it. Thomas Mann once said: It is impossible for ideas to compete in the marketplace if no forum for their presentation is provided or available. That, unfortunately, seems to be the case for many less wealthy candidates who face the power of the self-financed candidates. Our amendment is a move away from that kind of inequity. It is a step toward providing candidates the forum for the presentation of their ideas. By taking that step, the free flow of ideas, the spirit, the essence, the foundation of our democracy is preserved and emboldened. We have charts on the floor which we can share with all Members of the Senate. We have a breakdown that shows State by State exactly where those thresholds are and at what point they would kick in. We would be more than happy to share those with any Members of the Senate who would like to take a look. Again, it makes eminent sense to have a distinction between when the thresholds kick in between the State of Wyoming and the State of Ohio. It just makes eminent sense. Again, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, my colleague from Illinois, and my other colleagues who have worked long and hard on this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my law clerk, Susan Bruno, be granted floor privileges during the pendency of the campaign finance reform debate.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me just follow up on what my colleague and friend from New Mexico has said. I think it was a shame that we were not given the opportunity to modify his amendment. The Senate has spoken. I think it is too bad. I think it is very unfortunate. Having said that, I do believe we are fairly close in negotiations. The Senator from New Mexico and I had reached an agreement that would deal with this problem. It would have been, I think, very positive. I am confident, from talking to some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, as well as friends on this side, that we still can, within a relatively short period of time, reach agreement and come back to the Senate with an amendment to which we can in fact agree, and we intend to do that. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from New Mexico. Let me urge the Members of the Senate not to vote in favor of tabling the Domenici amendment. The Senator has outlined very clearly what modification he and I wanted to make. It is a modification that is very logical. It turns this into an amendment that improves the amendment. It deals with the proportionality question. If Members do look at it--and they have just had the opportunity a moment ago to hear the Senator outline exactly what it is--they will find it is very rational; it is very reasonable. It is going to be held to be constitutional, and it is going to begin to deal with this tremendous problem the Senator and I have been outlining, with others. I urge my colleagues not to vote in favor of tabling. Give us the opportunity to come right back and make the changes and get this amendment passed.

Mr. DeWINE. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DeWINE. That is absolutely correct. We are working on it now. We hope to have something in the next half hour.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I rise this afternoon to congratulate my friend, Senator Domenici. He has identified a real problem. Let me notify Members of the Senate, we have received calls asking about our amendment. For the last several weeks, Senator Domenici and I have been engaged in discussions and negotiations between the two of us to try to come up with an amendment on which both he and I could agree. Let me notify my colleagues that we are getting closer at this late hour and we hope to have something resolved in the next few minutes. I will withhold any comments about the specifics of that agreement. The point is, Senator Domenici has identified a real problem. He has identified a constitutional loophole. It is a constitutional loophole that needs to be confronted. What am I talking about? I think it would come as a surprise to the average American to know the current state of the law is this: Every citizen in this country is limited to how much money he or she can contribute to a candidate for the Senate--every person in this country, except one. That one person is a candidate himself or herself. Based on the Supreme Court's Buckley case, and based on their interpretation of the first amendment, Congress cannot limit how much money an individual puts into his or her own campaign. We have what for most people, the average person, would seem to be a crazy situation. Everyone in this country is limited to only giving $1,000 or up to $1,000 to a candidate for the Senate or a candidate for the House of Representatives. However, an individual candidate, if he or she has the wealth to do it, can put an unlimited amount of money into his or her campaign. We have seen now in the last several election cycles this phenomenon. Most people find it obscene. Most people find it a ridiculous situation that someone can spend $10 million, $20 million, $30 million, $50 million, or $60 million of their own money. As a practical matter, a person who has that much money spent against them has a very difficult time competing, making it a level playing field or even close to being a level playing field. I congratulate my colleague for his concern about this problem. The solution, quite candidly, is not to, of course, limit what a person can put into the campaign. We cannot do that. We cannot stop someone from putting an unlimited amount in their campaign. The only way to do that is to change the Constitution. What we can do is give the other person, the person who is faced with doing battle with that person who is putting $10 million, $20 million, or $30 million of their own in the campaign, we can give their opponent some ability to compete. Senator Domenici does this in several different ways. The amendment I have will also do so. The amendment I will be proposing raises the dollar amounts a person can give to an individual candidate. We raise it on a sliding scale based on two factors. One, the size of the State; the other, based upon how much money that individual millionaire puts into his or her own campaign. At one level, we raise the donor limits for the other person to one amount, and we keep racheting it up. I believe it fits the constitutional requirements of proportionality. We have cases we can supply to any Members of the Senate who want to look at that. We believe it therefore is, in fact, constitutional. The reality is each Member who has gotten to the Senate knows how much they can raise in their individual State under the current limits. I will take the Chair's home State and my home State of Ohio. In the past election cycles, going back to 1988, no one has raised more than $8 million in the State of Ohio for any of those campaigns for the Senate. It stayed fairly constant over that period of time. Taking our State as an example, if someone was running against a millionaire in the State of Ohio and they wanted to put in $20 million, that person who put in their own $20 million would have a tremendous advantage over another candidate who did not have his or her individual wealth. Based on what we have seen in the last 12 years in Ohio, $8 million is about all you can raise. So you have one candidate with $20 million of their own, another candidate with $8 million maximum that he or she can raise. The DeWine and Domenici amendments--and we do it in different ways-- begin to level the playing field, making it easier for that candidate running against the millionaire to raise money. You still have to get it from individuals, but it makes it easier to do it. It would not level the playing field. I don't think there is anything to do to level the playing field, but it moves it a little closer and makes that race a lot more competitive. I thank my colleague from New Mexico for yielding me time, and I congratulate him for identifying a real problem. I notify Members of the Senate and those who have asked about the DeWine amendment we have shared with Members, Senator Domenici and I, as well as others, are involved in negotiations and we hope to work out those differences. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleagues, including Senators Warner, Levin, McCain, Lieberman, Helms, Miller, Hutchinson from Arkansas, Cleland, Inhofe, and Landrieu, to introduce the ``Reserve Component Tax Assistance Act of 2001.'' We are introducing this bill today because it represents one way we can help retain the brave men and women who serve in our military's Guard and reserve components. Our bill would offer much-needed support for them and their families by restoring a tax deduction to our reservists for travel expenses incurred getting to and from duty assignments. The bill also would provide a tax credit to employers who support employees serving in the reserve component. As my colleagues are well aware, the security of our nation hinges on all the men and women who serve in uniform, both active duty and reserves. That became very clear a decade ago, when members of our active duty and reserve forces came together to drive Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Republican Guard out of Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm was one of the largest and most successful military operations since the inception of the all-volunteer force of the early 1970's. Its success was due in large part to the efforts of reserve component personnel. Since then, our reservists and Guardsmen and women have contributed in every U.S. military and humanitarian operation. This increased reliance on our reserve personnel came at a time when U.S. military forces were downsizing in response to the ``peace dividend'' linked to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Despite the end of the Cold War, the tempo of our military's operations remains at a steady beat. In fact, the military's dependence on our reservists and Guardsmen and women has remained at near Gulf War levels. The military has placed greater training and participation demands on our reservists, taking them away from family and civilian employment. This increased demand does not occur without cost, particularly financial costs to our reserve military components and their full time employers. The bill we are introducing today is an attempt to provide some additional compensation for these dedicated men and women. It is a small step, but one that is necessary. I urge my colleagues to support our bill and demonstrate our commitment to supporting the proud and dedicated reservists, Guardsmen and women, and employers who play such a pivotal role in our national defense. I am pleased that this legislation already has the support of the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association, the Military Coalition, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the illicit drug trade in the Andean region of South America is thriving. Lagging economies, weak law enforcement, and corrupt judiciary systems among many countries in the region have created an environment ideal for drug trafficking. The chaotic situation in Colombia illustrates this. The nation is suffering its worst recession in over 70 years. The unemployment rate is at nearly 20 percent. Not surprisingly, as the Colombian economy has worsened, the country's coca cultivation has skyrocketed, becoming the source of nearly 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United States. To make matters worse, as the illicit drug money has poured in, violent insurgent groups in Colombia have used it to fund their guerilla movements, movements creating instability not only within Colombia, but also across the entire Andean Region. Because of the dangerous and increasingly chaotic situation in the region, my colleagues--Senators Graham, McCain, Hagel, Breaux, Dodd, and Thompson--and I are introducing the ``Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act,'' a bill that will help establish much-needed stability and security in the Andean Region by promoting a strong economic environment for enhanced trade throughout the Western Hemisphere. This legislation is timely and important. The current Andean Trade Preference Act, which authorizes the President to grant certain unilateral preferential tariff benefits to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, is set to expire on December 4, 2001. We need to renew and expand this trade act not only because of its benefits for U.S. companies trading in the region, but also because it encourages economic development in Andean countries and economic alternatives to drug production and trafficking. I fear, Mr. President, that if the Andean Trade Preferences Act is not renewed by the end of this year, the economic and political situation in the Andean Region likely will destabilize further, threatening to expand an already booming illicit drug trade. The economic situation in the Andean Region is growing worse by the day. The nations within the region have been struggling to pull themselves out of one of the worst economic crises in decades. The recession has been more severe than anticipated, and the Andean Development Corporation recently forecast negative rates of growth for next year in Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Only Peru and Bolivia will grow at all, and marginally at best. The Colombian civil war and its spillover effect have further weakened domestic economies. Political instability has deterred foreign investment, and increased capital flight has put pressure on domestic currencies. While there are a few signs of possible recovery--including an increase in oil prices that will be helpful for Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela--there is concern that the Andean region could experience a destabilizing financial crisis similar to the recent one in Asia. Last year, Congress and the Clinton Administration tried to address political instability in the Andean region through passage of ``Plan Colombia''--the emergency supplemental plan developed to address the political and social instability in the Andean region. The Plan established programs to strengthen Colombian government institutions and promote alternative crop development programs throughout the region. A key element of Plan Colombia is that it recognizes that if we fight only the Colombian drug problem, we risk creating a ``spillover'' effect, where Colombia's drug trade shifts to adjacent countries in the region. For Plan Colombia to succeed, it is crucial that we help bolster the faltering economies of the Andean countries--namely Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador--so they don't turn to the drug trade as an means for economic livelihood. The legislation we are introducing today--the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act--will help embolden Plan Colombia and will help it succeed by increasing trade and economic opportunities within the region. Let me explain. The recent implementation of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which provides enhanced trade benefits to nations trading with Caribbean countries, is having the unintended consequence of shifting economic opportunities away from the Andean Region to the Caribbean Basin. Such a shift is further shrinking the economies within the Andean Region. Colombia, for example, stands to lose up to 100,000 jobs in the apparel industry because of the CBI. The simple fact is that companies, including U.S.-based businesses, are moving production to the Caribbean Basin to capitalize on the significant cost savings associated with the new CBI law. Already, at least 10 U.S.-based companies that purchase apparel from Colombian garment manufacturers have indicated their intentions to shift production to the Caribbean. Our Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act would help correct for this unintended economic displacement by working in tandem with the CBI, so that we don't rob one region in our hemisphere to pay another. Specifically, our bill extends duty-free, quota-free treatment to apparel articles knit, assembled, or cut in an ATPA beneficiary nation that use yarns and fabrics wholly formed in the United States. This creates a measure of parity with Caribbean nations that currently receive trade preferences under the CBI. In addition, goods other than apparel that previously were not eligible for trade preferences under the current Andean Trade Preference Act would receive the NAFTA tariff rate. Although our bill provides benefits to all ATPA beneficiaries, it is particularly critical to Colombia, which, in 1998, exported to the United States 59 percent of all textiles and apparel from the Andean region. Two-thirds of those exports were assembled and/or cut from U.S. yarns and fabrics. We cannot allow Colombia's economy to take this kind of hit. Plan Colombia simply cannot be effective unless Colombia can improve its economy and create and maintain job opportunities. I believe that our new legislation will help prevent further economic destabilization and stands to promote future economic growth. Ultimately, we--as a nation--stand to lose or gain, depending on the economic health of our hemispheric neighbors. A more aggressive trade policy in the hemisphere is not only important for increasing markets for U.S. companies, but it also enhances stability and promotes security in the hemisphere. It is important to remember that a strong, and free, and prosperous hemisphere means a strong, and free, and prosperous United States. It is in our national interest to pursue an aggressive trade agenda in the Western Hemisphere to combat growing threats and promote prosperity. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act. It is the right thing to do for our neighbors and for our businesses here at home.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, along with my friend and colleagues Mr. Kohl, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Reid of Nevada, called the ``High-Density Airport Competition Act of 2001.'' We are introducing this legislation in an effort to increase and maintain competition in the domestic aviation industry. If the traveling public is to have access to affordable, quality air service, real competition is essential. The need for this legislation stems from our belief that the recent surge in proposed mergers among our nation's major airlines is a threat to competition. Let me explain. Less than a year ago, United Airlines and US Airways announced their plans to merge, creating an airline that would be nearly 50 percent larger than its next closest competitor and a network significantly more extensive than other carriers. Most industry observers believed at that time that if the United/US Airways merger were allowed to go forward, those airlines would gain a dominant position at several key airports throughout the country, including airports such as New York LaGuardia and Reagan National airport here in Washington. At the time the merger was announced, I expressed my concern that this merger would provoke further airline consolidation and potentially could leave the country with as few as three large domestic carriers. I continue to be concerned about additional mergers, and for good reason. In early January of this year, American Airlines announced that it was joining in the United/US Airways deal by acquiring certain assets from US Airways and also by entering into agreements with United, including an agreement to jointly operate the lucrative Washington/New York/Boston shuttle. So, if the deal is successful, instead of having one dominant carrier, our country would face the prospect of having two airlines that are significantly larger than their competitors. Quite frankly, American Airlines saw the writing on the wall. Its leaders understood how difficult it would be to compete effectively in an industry where one airline was so much larger and so dominant in certain key business markets. As a result, American decided that, in order to survive, it had to join the deal and grow much bigger, as well. If these deals are allowed to go forward, I am certain we will see even more consolidations. As policy-makers, we are faced with a daunting question: Will the airline industry remain sufficiently competitive in the wake of the proposed United and American deals? We have concluded that unless action is taken, competition very likely will be harmed. But we cannot just sit idly by and let competition in this critical industry waste away. It is vital that other airlines have the opportunity to compete, and a big part of that is having access to airports that are essential in a network business, such as the aviation industry. Two of these key airports, Reagan National and LaGuardia, are subject to government slot controls, which limit the number of take-off and landing slots during a day. If the United and American deals are permitted, those two airlines will control roughly 65 percent of the slots at Reagan National and New York LaGuardia. These are key resources that other airlines need reasonable access to if competition is to be maintained. Simply put, competition is not served if we allow two airlines to dominate these airports. More important, consumer interests are not served if any airline is permitted to gain such a position through mergers. That's why my colleagues and I are introducing the ``High- Density Airport Competition Act.'' This bill represents one way to maintain a competitive environment in the airline industry. Specifically, our bill would limit the percentage of slots that large national carriers can control at Reagan National and New York LaGuardia airports. The legislation would ensure that no single airline gains an anticompetitive advantage at these slot controlled airports. It would do so by prohibiting any large airline from controlling more than 20 percent of the slots over any 2-hour period. If such an airline did have more than 20 percent of the slots, that airline would be required within 60 days to either return the slots to the Department of Transportation or sell the slots in a blind auction. This procedure would preserve competition by giving all airlines equal opportunity to bid for the slots and gain access to these airports. Again, our overriding concern is the welfare of the traveling public. We have seen, first-hand, the frustration of many travelers about service, delays, and high air fares. The answer to those and other challenges is not more consolidation. The answer is effective competition. We are concerned the airline industry is moving in the wrong direction, toward a consolidated industry, away from a truly competitive, consumer-friendly environment. That's not good for the industry. And, that's certainly not good for consumers. That is why I hope my colleagues will join us in support of our legislation. We need to move back to real competition in our domestic aviation industry, an industry that we all recognize plays a vital role in our Nation and our economy.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the illicit drug trade in the Andean region of South America is thriving. Lagging economies, weak law enforcement, and corrupt judiciary systems among many countries in the region have created an environment ideal for drug trafficking. The chaotic situation in Colombia illustrates this. The nation is suffering its worst recession in over 70 years. The unemployment rate is at nearly 20 percent. Not surprisingly, as the Colombian economy has worsened, the country's coca cultivation has skyrocketed, becoming the source of nearly 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United States. To make matters worse, as the illicit drug money has poured in, violent insurgent groups in Colombia have used it to fund their guerilla movements, movements creating instability not only within Colombia, but also across the entire Andean Region. Because of the dangerous and increasingly chaotic situation in the region, my colleagues--Senators Graham, McCain, Hagel, Breaux, Dodd, and Thompson--and I are introducing the ``Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act,'' a bill that will help establish much-needed stability and security in the Andean Region by promoting a strong economic environment for enhanced trade throughout the Western Hemisphere. This legislation is timely and important. The current Andean Trade Preference Act, which authorizes the President to grant certain unilateral preferential tariff benefits to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, is set to expire on December 4, 2001. We need to renew and expand this trade act not only because of its benefits for U.S. companies trading in the region, but also because it encourages economic development in Andean countries and economic alternatives to drug production and trafficking. I fear, Mr. President, that if the Andean Trade Preferences Act is not renewed by the end of this year, the economic and political situation in the Andean Region likely will destabilize further, threatening to expand an already booming illicit drug trade. The economic situation in the Andean Region is growing worse by the day. The nations within the region have been struggling to pull themselves out of one of the worst economic crises in decades. The recession has been more severe than anticipated, and the Andean Development Corporation recently forecast negative rates of growth for next year in Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Only Peru and Bolivia will grow at all, and marginally at best. The Colombian civil war and its spillover effect have further weakened domestic economies. Political instability has deterred foreign investment, and increased capital flight has put pressure on domestic currencies. While there are a few signs of possible recovery--including an increase in oil prices that will be helpful for Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela--there is concern that the Andean region could experience a destabilizing financial crisis similar to the recent one in Asia. Last year, Congress and the Clinton Administration tried to address political instability in the Andean region through passage of ``Plan Colombia''--the emergency supplemental plan developed to address the political and social instability in the Andean region. The Plan established programs to strengthen Colombian government institutions and promote alternative crop development programs throughout the region. A key element of Plan Colombia is that it recognizes that if we fight only the Colombian drug problem, we risk creating a ``spillover'' effect, where Colombia's drug trade shifts to adjacent countries in the region. For Plan Colombia to succeed, it is crucial that we help bolster the faltering economies of the Andean countries--namely Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador--so they don't turn to the drug trade as an means for economic livelihood. The legislation we are introducing today--the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act--will help embolden Plan Colombia and will help it succeed by increasing trade and economic opportunities within the region. Let me explain. The recent implementation of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which provides enhanced trade benefits to nations trading with Caribbean countries, is having the unintended consequence of shifting economic opportunities away from the Andean Region to the Caribbean Basin. Such a shift is further shrinking the economies within the Andean Region. Colombia, for example, stands to lose up to 100,000 jobs in the apparel industry because of the CBI. The simple fact is that companies, including U.S.-based businesses, are moving production to the Caribbean Basin to capitalize on the significant cost savings associated with the new CBI law. Already, at least 10 U.S.-based companies that purchase apparel from Colombian garment manufacturers have indicated their intentions to shift production to the Caribbean. Our Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act would help correct for this unintended economic displacement by working in tandem with the CBI, so that we don't rob one region in our hemisphere to pay another. Specifically, our bill extends duty-free, quota-free treatment to apparel articles knit, assembled, or cut in an ATPA beneficiary nation that use yarns and fabrics wholly formed in the United States. This creates a measure of parity with Caribbean nations that currently receive trade preferences under the CBI. In addition, goods other than apparel that previously were not eligible for trade preferences under the current Andean Trade Preference Act would receive the NAFTA tariff rate. Although our bill provides benefits to all ATPA beneficiaries, it is particularly critical to Colombia, which, in 1998, exported to the United States 59 percent of all textiles and apparel from the Andean region. Two-thirds of those exports were assembled and/or cut from U.S. yarns and fabrics. We cannot allow Colombia's economy to take this kind of hit. Plan Colombia simply cannot be effective unless Colombia can improve its economy and create and maintain job opportunities. I believe that our new legislation will help prevent further economic destabilization and stands to promote future economic growth. Ultimately, we--as a nation--stand to lose or gain, depending on the economic health of our hemispheric neighbors. A more aggressive trade policy in the hemisphere is not only important for increasing markets for U.S. companies, but it also enhances stability and promotes security in the hemisphere. It is important to remember that a strong, and free, and prosperous hemisphere means a strong, and free, and prosperous United States. It is in our national interest to pursue an aggressive trade agenda in the Western Hemisphere to combat growing threats and promote prosperity. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act. It is the right thing to do for our neighbors and for our businesses here at home.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, along with my friend and colleagues Mr. Kohl, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Reid of Nevada, called the ``High-Density Airport Competition Act of 2001.'' We are introducing this legislation in an effort to increase and maintain competition in the domestic aviation industry. If the traveling public is to have access to affordable, quality air service, real competition is essential. The need for this legislation stems from our belief that the recent surge in proposed mergers among our nation's major airlines is a threat to competition. Let me explain. Less than a year ago, United Airlines and US Airways announced their plans to merge, creating an airline that would be nearly 50 percent larger than its next closest competitor and a network significantly more extensive than other carriers. Most industry observers believed at that time that if the United/US Airways merger were allowed to go forward, those airlines would gain a dominant position at several key airports throughout the country, including airports such as New York LaGuardia and Reagan National airport here in Washington. At the time the merger was announced, I expressed my concern that this merger would provoke further airline consolidation and potentially could leave the country with as few as three large domestic carriers. I continue to be concerned about additional mergers, and for good reason. In early January of this year, American Airlines announced that it was joining in the United/US Airways deal by acquiring certain assets from US Airways and also by entering into agreements with United, including an agreement to jointly operate the lucrative Washington/New York/Boston shuttle. So, if the deal is successful, instead of having one dominant carrier, our country would face the prospect of having two airlines that are significantly larger than their competitors. Quite frankly, American Airlines saw the writing on the wall. Its leaders understood how difficult it would be to compete effectively in an industry where one airline was so much larger and so dominant in certain key business markets. As a result, American decided that, in order to survive, it had to join the deal and grow much bigger, as well. If these deals are allowed to go forward, I am certain we will see even more consolidations. As policy-makers, we are faced with a daunting question: Will the airline industry remain sufficiently competitive in the wake of the proposed United and American deals? We have concluded that unless action is taken, competition very likely will be harmed. But we cannot just sit idly by and let competition in this critical industry waste away. It is vital that other airlines have the opportunity to compete, and a big part of that is having access to airports that are essential in a network business, such as the aviation industry. Two of these key airports, Reagan National and LaGuardia, are subject to government slot controls, which limit the number of take-off and landing slots during a day. If the United and American deals are permitted, those two airlines will control roughly 65 percent of the slots at Reagan National and New York LaGuardia. These are key resources that other airlines need reasonable access to if competition is to be maintained. Simply put, competition is not served if we allow two airlines to dominate these airports. More important, consumer interests are not served if any airline is permitted to gain such a position through mergers. That's why my colleagues and I are introducing the ``High- Density Airport Competition Act.'' This bill represents one way to maintain a competitive environment in the airline industry. Specifically, our bill would limit the percentage of slots that large national carriers can control at Reagan National and New York LaGuardia airports. The legislation would ensure that no single airline gains an anticompetitive advantage at these slot controlled airports. It would do so by prohibiting any large airline from controlling more than 20 percent of the slots over any 2-hour period. If such an airline did have more than 20 percent of the slots, that airline would be required within 60 days to either return the slots to the Department of Transportation or sell the slots in a blind auction. This procedure would preserve competition by giving all airlines equal opportunity to bid for the slots and gain access to these airports. Again, our overriding concern is the welfare of the traveling public. We have seen, first-hand, the frustration of many travelers about service, delays, and high air fares. The answer to those and other challenges is not more consolidation. The answer is effective competition. We are concerned the airline industry is moving in the wrong direction, toward a consolidated industry, away from a truly competitive, consumer-friendly environment. That's not good for the industry. And, that's certainly not good for consumers. That is why I hope my colleagues will join us in support of our legislation. We need to move back to real competition in our domestic aviation industry, an industry that we all recognize plays a vital role in our Nation and our economy.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 56, submitted earlier by Senator Voinovich and myself.

Mr. DeWINE

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