Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I want to ask the Senator from Wisconsin a question. Would the Senator be open to a question? This amendment will create a less level playing field in one area; that is, when the incumbent has the large campaign fund, say, of $5 million, and the challenger then puts in $1 million of his own, this opens it up to the incumbent to have the higher contribution limits, which is a tremendous advantage, on top of the incumbency advantage. Is the Senator from Wisconsin committed to an amendment which would try to correct that deleveling of the playing field that is created by this amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. No. I am not intending to prevent Republicans from offering the next first-degree amendment at all. I am not sure I want to offer a second-degree amendment. With an amendment this complex, I want there to be an opportunity for Members to read it, consider it, and decide whether or not to offer a second-degree amendment. I may try to offer a second-degree amendment along the lines that we talked about. In no way am I trying to prevent Republicans from offering amendments.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me say the current version of this amendment represents a significant improvement over where it was last night for a number of reasons. First, last night's version did not keep a cap on contributions once the trigger was triggered. The extra contributions triggered on but did not trigger off. This version intends to trigger off the extra increased contributions when the limit of the declaration of the wealthy person is reached. That is a significant improvement. That is consistent with the purpose of McCain-Feingold--limits, trying to hang on to limits for dear life. Those limits have been blown by the soft money loophole and this current version--and it is an improvement over the earlier version--at least restores limits because you are not just triggering on the increases from $1,000 to $3,000 or $1,000 to $6,000. You then trigger off the increases when the declared amount by the wealthy self-financed person is made or is reached, either one. That is an improvement. Second, I think the variation among the States is an improvement. However, there is still a major problem, and I will address my friend from New Mexico and Ohio on this problem. In the effort to level the playing field in one area, we are making the playing field less level in another area under this language. As the Senators from Connecticut and Nevada, and the Democratic leader, have pointed out, the playing field will be less level for the challenger. For instance, the challenger, who might want to put $1 million into the campaign, is self-financed to that extent. He or she may mortgage a home to get the $1 million so that he or she is able to compete against the incumbent, where the incumbent has $5 million in a campaign account. We make that situation less level, not more level, because the incumbent is able to then raise money at the higher contribution levels. It seems to me that is a significant flaw which we should attempt to address, and we should attempt to address it in this amendment before we vote on it. Now, the only way we can offer a second-degree amendment to a pending amendment under our unanimous consent is if the motion to table is made and fails. That is the only way in which a second-degree amendment can be offered. Since this is complicated language which is being presented to the Senate at this hour with very little opportunity for many Members to read it or think through it, I suggest we do one of two things. We either amend the unanimous consent in this case so we can vote after we have had a chance to second degree it, or at least consider the language so we can determine if we want to second degree the amendment. If that is not acceptable to the proponents, it seems to me we should move to table, the motion to table will be defeated, and then it will be open to a second-degree amendment. Since that is the only way in which anybody who wants to offer an amendment in the second degree can offer it, it seems to me that is an appropriate way to proceed. Let me summarize, I think this amendment is an improvement over what we began with in a number of ways. We have a trigger off as well as a trigger on. That is a plus. And there is variety among the States. That is a plus. However, it creates an unlevel field. As the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, along with the Senator from Nevada, there is an unlevel playing field which is created, a greater lack of a level playing field in the case of the incumbent who has that campaign fund, who is then being challenged by somebody who can self-finance to the extent of $\1/2\ million or $1 million. The incumbent who already has the financial advantage and the incumbency advantage is then also given the advantage of having the higher contribution limits. The effort to level the playing field in a very appropriate way, as the Senator from Ohio is doing, makes the playing field less level against the challenger. This would be up to the managers of the bill. But I suggest that the Members of the Senate be able to read this amendment, either delay the vote, or make it open to a second-degree amendment. Or, in the alternative, I suggest that we have a motion to table, which then presumably would be defeated, but which would open up the amendment to being read and considered and to a second-degree amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. When he says ``agree to vote,'' are you assuming there is a vote to--a motion to table either side?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. So the first amendment that comes before us blows the caps on party contributions altogether in the case that somebody partly self- finances a campaign. Second, it has a procedure here which doesn't strike me as being either fair or workable. It is unfair because it is not graduated, giving candidates who run against somebody who is partly self-financing very different rights and opportunities, because the person who has a large number of hard money contributors gets a much greater opportunity to raise money than somebody who has a small number of hard money contributors, presumably somebody from a smaller State. Since there is no gradation in terms of the States, all the States are being treated the same, despite the fact that there are some very obvious differences. Finally, it seems to me this is an impractical approach because of the trigger, the trigger being the candidate has to file a declaration, when the declaration of candidacy is filed, to declare whether or not he or she intends to spend personal funds of a certain amount. That intention can be honestly ``no'' at the beginning of a campaign, but near the end of a campaign the temptation is great. If somebody near the end decides to borrow a half million dollars, then that person has a decided advantage which is not corrected by this amendment. Even though you have to file a notice within 24 hours, it could come far too late for the person who is disadvantaged by this large amount of money to do anything much about it. So it seems to me, for all these reasons, this amendment is not the right approach to a problem. But it is a problem. I want to acknowledge the Senator from New Mexico has identified, as have a number of people on this floor, a problem which is a real one, which is what happens in the case of somebody who is either partly self-financed or fully self- financed, as to what do you do about the person running against that individual. We have that problem now. I don't think this amendment solves it in a practical or a fair way or in an evenhanded way. But that does not mean the problem does not exist. I hope we will continue to try to work on some practical way, which doesn't blow caps, to address that problem.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 5 minutes if the Senator has it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I commend Senators McCain and Feingold for bringing us to this point, to this moment of truth. I also commend our leadership, both the majority leader and the Democratic leader and the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee, for helping to organize a time period which will allow us to have a free- wheeling and open debate. This is finally the moment of truth on campaign finance reform. The next few weeks will help us determine whether we recapture the faith which is at the heart of our democracy or whether we let it again slip from our grasp. Decades have transpired since our predecessors enacted the current campaign finance laws. It was not easy. It took a scandal of momentous proportions--the financial irregularities associated with the 1972 Presidential campaign--to bring Congress to action, but act it did. Now it is our moment of truth, our moment to decide whether we rescue the law which our predecessors had the good sense and courage to enact, or whether the moment is drowned in a sea of excuses. Let's begin with some basic truths. Truth No. 1: There are contribution limits embodied in our law, meaningful limits, and if the law were followed and interpreted as originally intended, we would not be here today. Let's look at those limits in the system which we put in place 25 years ago. Individuals are not supposed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate per election, $5,000 to a political action committee, $20,000 a year to a national party committee, $25,000 total in any 1 year for all contributions combined. Corporations and unions are prohibited from contributing anything to a candidate except through carefully prescribed political action committees. The limit of a corporate or union PAC contribution is $5,000 per candidate. Presidential campaigns are supposed to be financed just with public funds. Those are the laws on the books today. Truth No. 2: The Supreme Court has upheld the legality and constitutionality of those contribution limits in a number of cases, including Buckley v. Valeo and Nixon v. Missouri Government Shrink PAC. In those cases, the Supreme Court held that limits on contributions do not violate free speech. Truth No. 3: The soft money loophole has effectively destroyed those contribution limits. The loophole is huge. Since you cannot give more than a limited amount to a candidate, give all you want to his or her party and, of course, the party turns around and spends that money helping the candidate win election. Soft money has blown the lid off the contribution limits of our campaign finance system. As many commentators, colleagues, and constituents have said, practically speaking, there are no limits. The truth is, the public is offended by this spectacle of huge contributions, and well they should be, and we should be, too. Just one reason why we should not enjoy the spectacle--and the public certainly does not--is that in order to get these large contributions, access to us is openly and blatantly sold. We sell lunch or dinner with ``the committee chairman of your choice'' for $100,000. This is a bipartisan problem. Both parties do it. From an RNC, 1997 annual gala: For $100,000, you get a luncheon with the Senate and House leadership and the Republican House and Senate committee chairmen of your choice. We sell access to insiders meetings, strategy sessions, participation in congressional advisory groups, or trade missions. The open solicitation of campaign contributions in exchange for access to people with the power to affect the life or livelihood of the person being solicited creates an appearance of impropriety and a misuse of power. From the Democratic National Committee, for $100,000, you get a meeting with the President, you go on a trade mission with leadership as they travel abroad to examine current and developing political and economic issues, and a whole lot of other benefits--large contributions in exchange for access. The moment of truth is now. We must not let this moment pass without doing what we believe is right and necessary to restore public confidence in ways in which campaigns are financed and run. I thank both Senators McCain and Feingold for their extraordinary courage, their determination, their grit. I thank also our leadership and the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee for helping to schedule this debate in a way in which I think we can resolve this festering problem.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are facing a real crisis in campaign finance in this country. We have effectively no limits on campaign contributions, even though the law seems to provide that there be a $1,000 contribution limit from an individual, $5,000 from a PAC, and so forth. Because of the soft money expenditures, we in effect have no limits on campaign contributions anymore despite the law. The law has been evaded, avoided, bypassed, mainly now financing television ads, often negative, called issue ads. I think most of us who have seen these issue ads who have been in this profession long enough recognize that there is no difference between the issue ad which does not name the candidate and says that you should vote against him, and the issue ad which says this candidate is great or his opponent is awful but doesn't use the magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' and the candidate ad which uses the magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' At hearings we have held at the Governmental Affairs Committee, we put these television ads on the screen right next to each other. There is no reasonable person who could reach the conclusion that the ad which is paid for with soft money is anything different, in 95 percent of the cases, from the ad which is paid for in hard money. So we have now trashed the limits on contributions that exist in the law. Hopefully, McCain-Feingold is going to restore those limits. But the first amendment which is offered to this, it seems to me, goes in the wrong direction and opens up a number of loopholes, No. 1, but also, it seems to me, is not workable the way it is written. I can understand the frustration of running against somebody who is either partly self-financed or totally self-financed. It seems to me there is a way in which we ought to try to address that. But we surely should not try to address that by blowing the caps on party contributions, which is what this amendment does. I do not think we should do that by having a process here which is unworkable because it is not graduated from State to State. Somebody in a State with 30 million people is given the opportunity to raise these funds from all of the contributions from the people who contribute directly to the campaign in multiples, the same as somebody who comes from a small State, giving the person who comes from a larger State a much greater advantage over someone coming from a smaller State, although they are both running against the person who is putting in their own money. I wonder if the Senator will yield 3 more minutes?

Mr. LEVIN. So the first amendment that comes before the Senate is an amendment which is written in a way to eliminate any limit.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, once again the Senate will vote on a bankruptcy reform bill. In the last session of Congress, when the bankruptcy bill came before the Senate, I voted in favor of the bill. I said at the time that because of the amendments adopted in the Senate, the bill was a more reasonable approach to bankruptcy reform that had been reported by the Judiciary Committee. However, I further stated that if the legislation came back from conference, without those modest amendments, I would consider opposing the bill. In the end, the bankruptcy legislation came back from conference in a form that I could not support. The conferees who worked out the differences on the bill deleted or weakened many of the provisions I had supported. Today, I will vote for this bill with the hope that it does not return from conference in a form I cannot support. The Senate today adopted the Kohl amendment establishing a nationwide homestead cap. That provision must be retained in conference. The Senate has now spoken twice with respect to homestead abuse. We cannot legitimately reform the bankruptcy system if we do not prevent wealthy debtors from shielding luxurious homes while shedding thousands of dollars of debt in bankruptcy. In addition, the conferees should keep in the final bill, the amendment making debts arising from clinic violence nondischargeable, the amendment on landlord-tenant, the amendment on separated spouses, and the amendment on the means test with respect to high energy costs. It is also my hope that the conference will yield more protections for consumers. If the bankruptcy bill comes back from conference without these and some of the other reasonable amendments adopted in the Senate, I may once again be forced to oppose the final legislation.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senator knows, gas prices have fluctuated significantly in the last year. In my own state of Michigan, gas prices went from .80 cents a gallon in October 1999 to a high of $1.46 a gallon by June 2000. The Internal Revenue Service, IRS, Local Standards for Operating Costs and Public Transportation Costs, which includes costs for gasoline, are revised in October of each year but are often based on statistics from as long as 2 or 3 years before that. The IRS standards for gasoline costs can be out of date in a fast changing economy. In the event a debtor has experienced significant increases in the costs of buying gasoline for their car, how would the means test adjust for this?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last weekend, I joined members of the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence and the Michigan Million Mom March, part of the coalition of People Who Care About Kids to circulate petitions calling for a citizens' referendum on Public Act 381, the ``shall issue'' law. Passed by the Michigan Legislature in December 2000 and signed by the Governor, the Act takes discretion away from local gun boards and requires that authorities ``shall'' or must issue concealed weapons licenses to any one 21 years or older without a criminal record, with limited exceptions. People Who Care About Kids is collecting signatures to suspend implementation of the law, which would otherwise go into effect on July 1st of this year. If enough signatures are collected by the deadline, the issue will be put before voters in 2002. Petition organizers need only 151,356 valid signatures by the deadline, March 27th, but are seeking 225,000 signatures in total. The ``shall issue'' law is opposed by many law enforcement groups, religious leaders, child advocates and community leaders. They oppose the law because they believe if people are able to carry handguns into restaurants, stores, shopping malls, movie theaters, courtrooms, parks or in cars, our communities will be less safe. I also oppose the ``shall issue'' law. Last weekend, I signed the petition to put the issue before the voters and I urge others to sign it as well.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold so I may speak?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Utah. I was going to offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Feinstein and myself. It is amendment No. 91 at the desk. It is similar to an amendment adopted last Congress during debate of the bankruptcy bill, which was deleted during negotiations with the House of Representatives. I am not going to offer this as an amendment to this year's bankruptcy bill but, rather, introduce it as a freestanding bill because of the agreement of Senator Gramm, who is the chairman of the Banking Committee, to hold a hearing on our bill when it is filed as a freestanding bill. When it is introduced, it will be referred to his committee. However, I want to spend 1 or 2 minutes explaining what this amendment is all about. What credit card companies do now is charge interest to people, even though they pay part of their indebtedness on time. It would be fine if they were just charging interest on part of the indebtedness which was outstanding and not paid on time. That is perfectly appropriate. But if somebody, for instance, starts with a zero balance, charges $1,000 on their credit card, pays $900 on time by the due date, then that person is not only charged interest on the $100 owed, that person is charged interest on the full $1000, even the part of his bill that is paid by the due date. I don't know any other situation where somebody who pays an obligation on time is nonetheless charged interest on the part that is paid. Again, our bill will address this by addressing the imposition of interest for on-time payments during the so-called ``grace period.'' Currently, credit card lenders use complicated definitions of ``grace period'' to allow interest charges for payments even if they are made on time. Credit card lenders define ``grace period'' as applicable only if the balance is paid in full. Mastercard, for example, defines their ``grace period'' as ``a minimum of 25 days without a finance charge on new purchases if the New Balance if paid in full each month by the payment due date.'' That means that even if a person pays 90 percent of his balance, he is still charged interest on money which is timely paid. This is an overreach by the credit card companies. It should be corrected by the credit card companies. Most credit card customers, when they send in a check to pay their credit card on time, fairly assume they will not be charged interest on the money paid. But in fact they are, unless they happen to pay off the entire amount of their obligation. It is unfair. It is an overreach. It ought to be corrected by the credit card companies themselves. If it isn't, our bill will correct it for them. Credit card companies are adding new and higher fees all the time in the small print of their lending terms. According to Credit Card Management, late fees, balance transfer fees, over-limit fees, and other penalty fees were a source of $5.5 billion in revenue for credit card companies in 1999, up from $3.1 billion in 1995. Hopefully, the credit card companies will correct this overreach themselves, and this bill will not be necessary, but the chairman of the Banking Committee has indicated he is willing to hold a hearing on this bill and on similar practices by the credit card companies that might be brought to the attention of the Banking Committee, and based on that agreement by the Senator from Texas, I will not be offering this amendment on the bankruptcy bill but instead will be offering a freestanding bill on behalf of Senator Feinstein and myself. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding me this time. I will not offer the amendment, and I withdraw the amendment at this time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this week, the community of Santee, CA was struck by a horrible tragedy when a student opened fire on his classmates at Santana High School. Two people were killed and 13 others were wounded in the worst episode of school violence since the mass shooting in Littleton, CO almost 2 years ago. Although students returned to school yesterday, the grief over losing two of their classmates and the memories of what occurred will stay with them forever. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and the people of Santee, CA as they attempt to cope with this tragedy. In an interview on Monday night, Dr. Michael Sise, the Medical Director for Trauma at Mercy Hospital, where three of the victims were treated, offered his perspective on shooting. He said, ``We wouldn't be here tonight talking to you if this kid, this troubled kid, hadn't had access to a firearm. I think we have to start asking the tough questions about firearms, what they mean. Firearms turn shouting matches into shooting matches, if those two kids in Columbine had not had access to firearms they would be two weird kids still wandering around campus, instead of dead along with a lot of dead classmates. So, for us in trauma we want to get out in the community and ask our fellow members of the community the tough questions. How do we prevent this from happening again?'' The question raised by Dr. Sise is the same question that is being asked by people in Santee, CA and all over the country. After each of these shootings, we ask ourselves how we can prevent other such tragedies from happening in the future. One way to prevent this level of violence from occurring again is to make it harder for young people to gain access to firearms. By keeping guns out of the hands of children, we can help ensure that this type of deadly violence is not part of another child's school day. Since the tragedy at Santana High School just a few days ago, our Nation has experienced other acts of school violence. On Tuesday, not far from the Capitol, a 14-year-old allegedly shot another teenager at a Prince George's County high school. Yesterday, it was reported that an eighth-grader in Williamsport, PA shot and wounded one of her classmates, and a high school junior in Seattle, WA threatened his class with a handgun. The shooting at Santana High School was not an isolated incident and these other acts of violence should not be written off as ``copycat'' incidents. These acts of violence will continue to plague our Nation until we limit the access that young people have to guns.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Michigan and Minnesota in sponsoring the Taconite Workers Relief Act of 2001. This is an important piece of legislation for the future of our States' taconite iron ore mines and their employees which are facing a severe import crisis that is threatening to put them out of business. Enactment of this legislation will simply allow an industry providing a key input into finished steel to use existing trade laws to fight back against harmful import surges and dumped steel as other sectors of the steel industry may currently do under existing trade law. Taconite, iron ore, is an input into basic steel production and is displaced when semi-finished steel slab are imported. For example, one ton of semi-finished steel displaces 1.3 tons of iron ore in basic steel production. Unfairly traded steel imports are overwhelming U.S. production, threatening to endanger both our national defense and manufacturing base. Recently, steel producers have found it cheaper to import semi- finished steel slabs than to make it themselves using iron ore from Michigan's Upper Peninsula and Minnesota. Unfortunately, if our taconite mines are overwhelmed by cheap imports and driven to bankruptcy, we will lose our capacity to make steel without depending on foreign sources of semi-finished steel. In effect, if we lose our taconite mining industry, we lose our domestic integrated steel manufacturing capabilities. For national security reasons, I don't think that is something we want to do. This crisis particularly impacts Michigan and Minnesota. The taconite iron ore mines located there are a foundation of the economies in the communities where they are located. To make matters worse, the iron ore industry faces a unique problem in trying to combat these harmful and unfair trade practices. Although its workers are losing their jobs to cheap and probably illegally dumped imports, they cannot fight back using our trade laws that were specifically designed to deal with these situations. This is because of how our trade laws have been interpreted in the past and the failure to recognize the U.S. iron ore industry's standing to file import relief cases against foreign producers of semi-finished steel. For example, under previous interpretations of U.S. trade laws, iron ore is not considered an article that is ``like or directly competitive'' with an imported article that is found to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat, to the domestic industry, even though it is a key input in making finished steel. This is clearly an oversight that should be corrected. The bill we are introducing today will achieve that goal. This legislation would ensure that the taconite industry and its employees fully benefit from the protection of section 201, anti- dumping and countervailing duties laws as well as making its displaced employees eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance. It does this by designating Taconite pellets as ``like or directly competitive with semi-finished steel slab'' for the purposes of eligibility for TAA and Section 201 remedies. It also would consider imported semi-finished steel slab eligible for countervailing duties, CVD, which are duties intended to provide relief to a domestic industry, taconite, that has been injured by subsidized imports, such as semi-finished steel, and for anti- dumping remedies. I hope the Senate will recognize the fairness in giving parity to a critical sector of the steel industry that has been overlooked in the past and should not be forgotten now. There is too much at stake to let this industry go under.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Michigan and Minnesota in sponsoring the Taconite Workers Relief Act of 2001. This is an important piece of legislation for the future of our States' taconite iron ore mines and their employees which are facing a severe import crisis that is threatening to put them out of business. Enactment of this legislation will simply allow an industry providing a key input into finished steel to use existing trade laws to fight back against harmful import surges and dumped steel as other sectors of the steel industry may currently do under existing trade law. Taconite, iron ore, is an input into basic steel production and is displaced when semi-finished steel slab are imported. For example, one ton of semi-finished steel displaces 1.3 tons of iron ore in basic steel production. Unfairly traded steel imports are overwhelming U.S. production, threatening to endanger both our national defense and manufacturing base. Recently, steel producers have found it cheaper to import semi- finished steel slabs than to make it themselves using iron ore from Michigan's Upper Peninsula and Minnesota. Unfortunately, if our taconite mines are overwhelmed by cheap imports and driven to bankruptcy, we will lose our capacity to make steel without depending on foreign sources of semi-finished steel. In effect, if we lose our taconite mining industry, we lose our domestic integrated steel manufacturing capabilities. For national security reasons, I don't think that is something we want to do. This crisis particularly impacts Michigan and Minnesota. The taconite iron ore mines located there are a foundation of the economies in the communities where they are located. To make matters worse, the iron ore industry faces a unique problem in trying to combat these harmful and unfair trade practices. Although its workers are losing their jobs to cheap and probably illegally dumped imports, they cannot fight back using our trade laws that were specifically designed to deal with these situations. This is because of how our trade laws have been interpreted in the past and the failure to recognize the U.S. iron ore industry's standing to file import relief cases against foreign producers of semi-finished steel. For example, under previous interpretations of U.S. trade laws, iron ore is not considered an article that is ``like or directly competitive'' with an imported article that is found to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat, to the domestic industry, even though it is a key input in making finished steel. This is clearly an oversight that should be corrected. The bill we are introducing today will achieve that goal. This legislation would ensure that the taconite industry and its employees fully benefit from the protection of section 201, anti- dumping and countervailing duties laws as well as making its displaced employees eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance. It does this by designating Taconite pellets as ``like or directly competitive with semi-finished steel slab'' for the purposes of eligibility for TAA and Section 201 remedies. It also would consider imported semi-finished steel slab eligible for countervailing duties, CVD, which are duties intended to provide relief to a domestic industry, taconite, that has been injured by subsidized imports, such as semi-finished steel, and for anti- dumping remedies. I hope the Senate will recognize the fairness in giving parity to a critical sector of the steel industry that has been overlooked in the past and should not be forgotten now. There is too much at stake to let this industry go under.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to commemorate African American History Month. Each year, doing the month of February, we remember and reflect on the rich and extraordinary achievements of African Americans. We also remember and reflect on the suffering, degradation and brutality of slavery, which cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil. We remember and celebrate the brave and determined African American conductors of the Underground Railroad, like Harriet Tubman. In 1849, Tubman escaped from the Eastern Shore of Maryland and became known as ``Moses'' to her people when she made 19 trips to the South and helped deliver at least 300 fellow captives to liberation. We remember and celebrate John Parker of Ripley, Ohio who frequently ventured to Kentucky and Virginia to help transport by boat hundreds of runaway slaves across the Ohio River; and William Still, Robert Purvis and David Ruggles who in the 1830s organized and stationed vigilance committees throughout the North to help guide slaves to freedom destinations. And we remember and celebrate James Fairfield, who went into the deep South and rescued enslaved African Americans by posing as a slave trader, risking his life and property. We remember and celebrate the City of Detroit in my home state of Michigan where the Underground Railroad assisted over 40,000 slaves in reaching freedom in Canada. Let us not forget, that we celebrate African American History Month because in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, son of former slaves, proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving the history of the Negro and recognizing the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith and conviction, a people who rendered their achievements for the betterment and advancement of a Nation once lacking in humanity towards them. Throughout the Nation, we celebrate the many important contributions African Americans have made in all facets of American life. Lerone Bennett, editor, writer and lecturer recently reflected on the life and times of Dr. Woodson. In an article he wrote for Johnson's Publications, Bennett tells us that one of the most inspiring and instructive stories in African American history is the story of Woodson's struggle and rise from the coal mines of West Virginia to the summit of academic achievement: At 17, the young man who was called by history to reveal Black history was an untutored coal miner. At 19, after teaching himself the fundamentals of English and arithmetic, he entered high school and mastered the four-year curriculum in less than two years. At 22, after two-thirds of a year at Berea College, in Kentucky, he returned to the coal mines and studied Latin and Greek between trips to the mine shafts. He then went on to the University of Chicago, where he received bachelor's and master's degrees, and Harvard University, where he became the second Black to receive a doctorate in history. The rest is history--Black history. In keeping with the spirit and the vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, I would like to pay tribute to two courageous women, claimed by my home state of Michigan, who played significant roles in addressing American injustice and inequality. These are two women of different times who would change the course of history. Sojourner Truth, who helped lead our country out of the dark days of slavery, and Rosa Parks, whose dignified leadership sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the start of the Civil Rights movement are indelibly etched in the chronicle of not only the history of this Nation, but are viewed with distinction and admiration throughout the world. Sojourner Truth, though unable to read or write, was considered one of the most eloquent and noted spokespersons of her day on the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. She was a leader in the abolitionist movement, and a ground breaking speaker on behalf of equality for women. Michigan recently honored her with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, Michigan on September 25, 1999. I commend Dr. Velma Laws-Clay who headed the Monument Steering Committee and Sculptor Tina Allen for making their dream, a true monument to Sojourner Truth, a reality. Sojourner Truth had an extraordinary life. She was born Isabella Baumfree in 1797, served as a slave under several different masters, and was eventually freed in 1828 when New York state outlawed slavery. Truth continued to live in New York and became strongly involved in religion. In 1843, in an act of religious faith, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth and dedicated her life to traveling and lecturing. She began her migration West in 1850, where she shared the stage with other abolitionist leaders such as Frederick Douglass. In 1851, Sojourner Truth delivered her famous ``Ain't I a Woman?'' speech at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio. In the speech, Truth attacked both racism and sexism. Truth made her case for equality in plain-spoken English when she said, ``Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, cause Christ wasn't a woman? Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.'' By the mid-1850s, Truth had settled in Battle Creek, MI. She continued to travel and speak out for equality. During the Civil War, Truth traveled throughout Michigan, gathering food and clothing for Negro volunteer regiments. Truth's travels during the war eventually led her to a meeting with President Abraham Lincoln in 1864, at which she presented her ideas on assisting freed slaves. Truth remained in Washington, D.C. for several years, helping slaves who had fled from the South and appearing at women's suffrage gatherings. Due to bad health, Sojourner Truth returned to Battle Creek in 1875, and remained there until her death in 1883. Sojourner Truth spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. A testament to Truth's convictions is that her words continue to speak to us today. On May 4, 1999 legislation was enacted which authorized the President of the United States to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. The Congressional Gold Medal was presented to Rosa Parks on June 15, 1999 during an elaborate ceremony in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. I was pleased to cosponsor this fitting tribute to Rosa Parks, the gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice are remembered with reverence and respect by us all. Forty five years ago in Montgomery, AL the modern civil rights movement began when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people but the entire world. My home state of Michigan proudly claims Rosa Parks as one of our own. Prompted by unceasing threats on their lives and persistent harassment, Rosa Parks' and her husband moved to Detroit in 1957 where Parks' brother resided. Rosa Parks' arrest in Alabama for violating the city's segregation laws was the catalyst for the Montgomery bus boycott. Her stand on that December day in 1955 was not an isolated incident but part of a lifetime of struggle for equality and justice. For instance, twelve years earlier, in 1943, Rosa Parks had been arrested for violating another one of the city's bus related segregation laws, which required African Americans to pay their fares at the front of the bus then get off of the bus and re-board from the rear of the bus. The driver of that bus was the same driver with whom Rosa Parks would have her confrontation 12 years later. The rest is history, the boycott which Rosa Parks began was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated the status of African Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. We have come a long way toward achieving justice and equality for all. But we still have work to do. In the names of Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and many others, let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle on Civil Rights and to human rights.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is a family in my home State of Michigan who is to be honored for its courage. The family of Kayla Rolland, the little girl who was shot by her first-grade classmate, has been a source of inspiration to all families who have lost loved ones in gun tragedies. Despite her own suffering, Kayla's mother, Veronica McQueen, found the strength to speak out to all Americans about her family's tragedy at the Million Mom March. The memory of Kayla and Mrs. McQueen's words of courage helped lead thousands of families from our State to march in Washington for sensible and safe gun laws. Mrs. McQueen continues to speak out with hope that she can prevent another family from suffering what her family has suffered. Last weekend, as family and friends gathered together to memorialize the one year shooting death of young Kayla, Mrs. McQueen, said: I pray to God that by being here and sharing with you our sorrow and grief in some way we have made people more aware of gun and school safety and common sense gun laws and to protect our children from guns and, hopefully, save children from what happened to my special little angel, Kayla. This is so important to us. It has been a very horrible year for all of us. The pain will not go away. I miss her more as time goes on, but Kayla's behind me. Her spirit is driving me on to help save other children from gun violence, and I hope and pray you all will--help save our children. In a few days, it will be one year since I lost a piece of my heart with Kayla's death. Please--mother, fathers, sisters, brothers, everywhere--please never forget how my baby died. Let's always put our children first and speak out for their safety. I regret that I could not be at the memorial service for Kayla, but I want to assure Mrs. McQueen and her family that I stand by her words and her mission. Kayla will always be in my thoughts and prayers and hopefully she will be the spirit that guides us all to put the safety of children first.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my colleague from the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, along with our cosponsors Senators Lieberman, Voinovich, Reed, Kyl, Hagel, Kohl, Feingold, DeWine, and Jeffords in introducing legislation that allows the Department of Defense to close excess, unneeded military bases. For the past four years, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen asked the Congress to authorize two additional base closure rounds. But Congress did not act. We have a new Congress, a new President, and a new Secretary of Defense, but we also have some unfinished business to attend to. Base closure is one of the most important examples. And as we promised we would be, Senator McCain and I and our cosponsors are back. General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the other chiefs have repeatedly said we need to close more military bases, and I expect they will once again tell us we need to realign or close more bases when the President's budget is submitted later this year. The legislation we are introducing today is intended to start the debate, and I hope the administration will make a similar legislative proposal to the Congress. This legislation calls for two additional base closure rounds, in 2003 and 2005, that would basically follow the same procedures that were used in 1991, 1993 and 1995, with two notable exceptions. First, the whole process would start and finish two months later in 2005 than it would in 2003 and did in previous rounds, to give a new President, if there is one in 2005, sufficient time to nominate commissioners. Second, under our legislation, privatization in place would not be permitted at closing installation unless the Base Closure Commission expressly recommends it. In a November 1998 report, the General Accounting Office listed five key elements of the base closure process that ``contributed to the success of prior rounds''. Our legislation retains all of those key elements. GAO also stated that they ``have not identified any long-term readiness problems that were related to domestic base realignments and closures, that ``DOD continues to retain excess capacity'' and that ``substantial savings are expected'' from base closures. Mr. President, every expert and every study agrees on the basic facts--the Defense Department has more bases than it needs, and closing bases saves substantial money over time, usually within a few years. The April 1998 report the Department of Defense provided to the Congress clearly demonstrated that we have excess capacity. For example, the report showed that by 2003: The Army will have reduced its classroom training personnel by 43 percent, while classroom space will have been reduced by only 7 percent. The Air Force will have reduced the number of fighters and other small aircraft by 53 percent since 1989, while the base structure for those aircraft will be only 35 percent smaller. The Navy will have 33 percent more hangars for its aircraft than it requires. Experts inside and outside of Government agree with the Defense Department on this issue. As the Congressional Budget Office stated in a letter to me, ``the [DoD] report's basic message is consistent with CBO's own conclusions: past and future BRAC rounds will lead to significant savings for DoD.'' Every year we delay another base closure round, we waste about $1.5 billion in annual savings that we can never recoup. And every dollar we waste on bases we do not need is a dollar we cannot spend on things we do need. The new administration is now undertaking several strategy reviews. It is possible that those reviews will conclude that the military we want for the future needs exactly the base structure we have today and that all our forces are in exactly the right place and none of them need to be realigned to different locations. It is possible that they will conclude Secretary Cohen and General Shelton didn't know what they were talking about and we really don't have any excess infrastructure. I will be astounded if any serious defense review reaches such a conclusion. But even if it did, it is important to understand that this legislation does not prejudge or pre-empt these reviews. What it does is prepare us to act whatever the result of those reviews. Should the new administration decide they don't want to propose any closures or realignments, this bill would not force them to. It authorizes two more rounds; it does not require them. And the Defense Department would have ample time to conclude their reviews before the first round would start in 2003, so the results of their strategy reviews could be fully incorporated into the force structure plan the new rounds would be based on. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my colleague from the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, along with our cosponsors Senators Lieberman, Voinovich, Reed, Kyl, Hagel, Kohl, Feingold, DeWine, and Jeffords in introducing legislation that allows the Department of Defense to close excess, unneeded military bases. For the past four years, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen asked the Congress to authorize two additional base closure rounds. But Congress did not act. We have a new Congress, a new President, and a new Secretary of Defense, but we also have some unfinished business to attend to. Base closure is one of the most important examples. And as we promised we would be, Senator McCain and I and our cosponsors are back. General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the other chiefs have repeatedly said we need to close more military bases, and I expect they will once again tell us we need to realign or close more bases when the President's budget is submitted later this year. The legislation we are introducing today is intended to start the debate, and I hope the administration will make a similar legislative proposal to the Congress. This legislation calls for two additional base closure rounds, in 2003 and 2005, that would basically follow the same procedures that were used in 1991, 1993 and 1995, with two notable exceptions. First, the whole process would start and finish two months later in 2005 than it would in 2003 and did in previous rounds, to give a new President, if there is one in 2005, sufficient time to nominate commissioners. Second, under our legislation, privatization in place would not be permitted at closing installation unless the Base Closure Commission expressly recommends it. In a November 1998 report, the General Accounting Office listed five key elements of the base closure process that ``contributed to the success of prior rounds''. Our legislation retains all of those key elements. GAO also stated that they ``have not identified any long-term readiness problems that were related to domestic base realignments and closures, that ``DOD continues to retain excess capacity'' and that ``substantial savings are expected'' from base closures. Mr. President, every expert and every study agrees on the basic facts--the Defense Department has more bases than it needs, and closing bases saves substantial money over time, usually within a few years. The April 1998 report the Department of Defense provided to the Congress clearly demonstrated that we have excess capacity. For example, the report showed that by 2003: The Army will have reduced its classroom training personnel by 43 percent, while classroom space will have been reduced by only 7 percent. The Air Force will have reduced the number of fighters and other small aircraft by 53 percent since 1989, while the base structure for those aircraft will be only 35 percent smaller. The Navy will have 33 percent more hangars for its aircraft than it requires. Experts inside and outside of Government agree with the Defense Department on this issue. As the Congressional Budget Office stated in a letter to me, ``the [DoD] report's basic message is consistent with CBO's own conclusions: past and future BRAC rounds will lead to significant savings for DoD.'' Every year we delay another base closure round, we waste about $1.5 billion in annual savings that we can never recoup. And every dollar we waste on bases we do not need is a dollar we cannot spend on things we do need. The new administration is now undertaking several strategy reviews. It is possible that those reviews will conclude that the military we want for the future needs exactly the base structure we have today and that all our forces are in exactly the right place and none of them need to be realigned to different locations. It is possible that they will conclude Secretary Cohen and General Shelton didn't know what they were talking about and we really don't have any excess infrastructure. I will be astounded if any serious defense review reaches such a conclusion. But even if it did, it is important to understand that this legislation does not prejudge or pre-empt these reviews. What it does is prepare us to act whatever the result of those reviews. Should the new administration decide they don't want to propose any closures or realignments, this bill would not force them to. It authorizes two more rounds; it does not require them. And the Defense Department would have ample time to conclude their reviews before the first round would start in 2003, so the results of their strategy reviews could be fully incorporated into the force structure plan the new rounds would be based on. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under- used commercial or industrial properties where development or expansion is hindered by real or perceived environmental contamination. Businesses located on brownfields were once the economic foundations of communities. Today, brownfields lie abandoned--the legacy of our industrial past. These properties taint our urban landscape. Contamination, or the perception of contamination, impedes brownfields redevelopment, stifles community development and threatens the health of our citizens and the environment. Redeveloped, brownfields can be engines for economic development. They represent new opportunities in our cities, older suburbs and rural areas for housing, jobs and recreation. Today, Senator Smith, Senator Reid, Senator Chafee and Senator Boxer introduced the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I support their efforts to address this issue and I will co-sponsor the legislation. As cochair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, I believe brownfields redevelopment is one of the most important ways to revitalize cities and implement growth management. The redevelopment of brownfields, is one fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, cleanup the environment, use infrastructure that is already paid for and relieve development pressure on our urban fringe and farmlands. The State of Michigan is a leader in brownfields redevelopment-- offering technical assistance and grant and loan programs to help communities redevelop brownfields. This legislation will compliment State and local efforts to successfully redevelop brownfields. The bill provides much needed funding to State and local jurisdictions for the assessment, characterization, and remediation of brownfield sites. Importantly, the bill removes the threat of lawsuits for contiguous landowners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners. Communities must often overcome serious financial and environmental barriers to redevelop brownfields. Greenfields availability, liability concerns, the time and cost of cleanup, and a reluctance to invest in older urban areas deters private investment. This bill will help communities address these barriers to redevelopment. Finally, the bill provides greater certainty to developers and parties conducting the cleanup, ensuring that decisions under state programs will not be second- guessed. Public investment and greater governmental certainty combined with private investment can provide incentives for redeveloping brownfield properties and level the economic playing field between greenfields and brownfields. I believe the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 will do much to encourage commercial, residential and recreational development in our nation's communities where existing infrastructure, access to public transit, and close proximity to cultural facilities currently exist. America's emerging markets and future potential for economic growth lies in our cities and older suburbs. This potential is reflected in locally unmet consumer demand, underutilized labor resources and developable land that is rich in infrastructure. In Detroit, the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that there is a $1.4 billion retail gap (the purchasing power of residents minus retail sales). In Flint, HUD estimates the retail gap to be $186 million and in East Lansing, $160 million. The redevelopment of brownfields will help communities realize the development potential of our urban communities. It is a critical tool for metropolitan areas to grow smarter--allowing us to recycle our Nation's land to promote continued economic growth while curtailing urban sprawl and cleaning up our environment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under- used commercial or industrial properties where development or expansion is hindered by real or perceived environmental contamination. Businesses located on brownfields were once the economic foundations of communities. Today, brownfields lie abandoned--the legacy of our industrial past. These properties taint our urban landscape. Contamination, or the perception of contamination, impedes brownfields redevelopment, stifles community development and threatens the health of our citizens and the environment. Redeveloped, brownfields can be engines for economic development. They represent new opportunities in our cities, older suburbs and rural areas for housing, jobs and recreation. Today, Senator Smith, Senator Reid, Senator Chafee and Senator Boxer introduced the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I support their efforts to address this issue and I will co-sponsor the legislation. As cochair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, I believe brownfields redevelopment is one of the most important ways to revitalize cities and implement growth management. The redevelopment of brownfields, is one fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, cleanup the environment, use infrastructure that is already paid for and relieve development pressure on our urban fringe and farmlands. The State of Michigan is a leader in brownfields redevelopment-- offering technical assistance and grant and loan programs to help communities redevelop brownfields. This legislation will compliment State and local efforts to successfully redevelop brownfields. The bill provides much needed funding to State and local jurisdictions for the assessment, characterization, and remediation of brownfield sites. Importantly, the bill removes the threat of lawsuits for contiguous landowners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners. Communities must often overcome serious financial and environmental barriers to redevelop brownfields. Greenfields availability, liability concerns, the time and cost of cleanup, and a reluctance to invest in older urban areas deters private investment. This bill will help communities address these barriers to redevelopment. Finally, the bill provides greater certainty to developers and parties conducting the cleanup, ensuring that decisions under state programs will not be second- guessed. Public investment and greater governmental certainty combined with private investment can provide incentives for redeveloping brownfield properties and level the economic playing field between greenfields and brownfields. I believe the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 will do much to encourage commercial, residential and recreational development in our nation's communities where existing infrastructure, access to public transit, and close proximity to cultural facilities currently exist. America's emerging markets and future potential for economic growth lies in our cities and older suburbs. This potential is reflected in locally unmet consumer demand, underutilized labor resources and developable land that is rich in infrastructure. In Detroit, the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that there is a $1.4 billion retail gap (the purchasing power of residents minus retail sales). In Flint, HUD estimates the retail gap to be $186 million and in East Lansing, $160 million. The redevelopment of brownfields will help communities realize the development potential of our urban communities. It is a critical tool for metropolitan areas to grow smarter--allowing us to recycle our Nation's land to promote continued economic growth while curtailing urban sprawl and cleaning up our environment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, over the course of the next few weeks, the people of my home state of Michigan will memorialize the death of a little girl named Kayla Rolland. Kayla Rolland was killed by a classmate in their own first-grade classroom at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Michigan almost one year ago. This well publicized school shooting sparked outrage across our state and nation and helped lead hundreds of thousands of mothers to march in Washington for safer gun laws. Over the course of the year, we have learned more details about the shooting of the young girl. Police reports released just a few months ago reveal that the six-year-old boy who shot and killed Kayla had concealed the handgun in his pants pocket. He pulled the gun out of his pocket and pointed it at Kayla, who told the boy, ``Jesus doesn't like you to point guns at someone.'' The young boy responded, ``So? I don't like you'' and fired the gun that killed the young girl. Just before she collapsed, she turned to her classmate and said, ``I'm going to die.'' For Kayla's mother and family, the pain from those few moments will last forever. At the Million Mom March, Kayla's mother spoke just a few days after what would have been Kayla's seventh birthday. She said: These are hard times for me and Kayla's brothers, sisters, and her father, and for the rest of my family. Kayla's death was devastating. There is not a day that goes by that I do not cry as I go on with my life without my daughter. A part of my heart went with her. It is so hard for me to think that I will never see her smile, laugh or play again. I can never hold her and kiss her again. Or see her grow up, get married, and have a happy life. The gun that killed my daughter in her first grade classroom was a gun that could be loaded by a 6- year-old child, concealed by a 6-year-old child, and held and fired by a 6-year-old child. Please, don't ever forget that. This is proof that there is need for gun safety devices and gun control. I come here today, two days after what would have been her seventh birthday. I am a Mom with a terrible tragedy, and I hope it never, ever happens again. One year after the death of Kayla Rolland, after hundreds of thousands of families marched in Washington at the Million Mom March, and after countless other shooting tragedies, Congress cannot guarantee that it never happens again because one year later Congress has not worked seriously to reduce youth access to guns or to pass legislation that will make our nation's children safer.