Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I recognize Senator Specter's dilemma with the budget resolution, as it fairly constrains his ability and the ability of his colleagues on the committee to fund programs that are worthwhile. In fact, I note that GEAR UP is a program that evolved from a model that was very popular in Pennsylvania, the I Have a Dream Program, and others. The Senator is familiar with it and is supportive of it. My point is that this is one of those critical programs, and we have to reach beyond this budget resolution and budget constraints and try to find the resources. It is particularly appropriate at this moment, as we are looking ahead at significant surpluses that are growing--dividends from tough fiscal decisions we have made over several years--that we begin to develop a strategy to invest more and more into education. GEAR UP is a worthwhile program--eminently worthwhile. One could argue it is the first step in so much of what is included in this legislation, such as Pell grants, LEAP, and all of those programs that actually give these youngsters the money to go to college. But if they don't have the skill, motivation, and the confidence to try, those grants won't be useful to them. So I once again urge that we move forward with this amendment. I understand that the Senator from Pennsylvania will make a budget point of order. At that time, I will make a request to waive that applicable section. If the Senator is ready to make the motion, I am happy to yield back all my time and then be recognized.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would increase funding for GEAR UP by $100 million. GEAR UP is a critical component of our efforts to provide disadvantaged young people a chance to go on to college. GEAR UP reaches out very early in their educational careers, giving them the mentoring, the support, and the information necessary to succeed, not only in high school but to go beyond, to enter and complete college. I offer this amendment along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Murray. We are offering it because we believe--as I am sure everyone in the Chamber believes--that the opportunity to go on to postsecondary education is central to our country and central to our aspirations in the Senate. This opportunity is particularly difficult to achieve if one is a low-income student in the United States. The GEAR UP program is specifically designed to reach out early in the career of a child, the sixth or seventh grade, and give them not only the skills but the confidence and the expectation that they can succeed and can go on to college. Both these skills and information, together with the confidence that they can succeed, are essential to their progress and to our progress as a Nation. GEAR UP is based upon proven early intervention models such as the I Have a Dream Program and Project GRAD. These programs have succeeded in improving low-income student achievement, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment rates. We are building on a successful set of models. GEAR UP provides students with very specific services tailored to help them prepare for college. These services include tutoring, mentoring, and counseling. They are critical to ensure that students are equipped both academically and emotionally to succeed in college. We often hear about the lack of opportunities available to low-income families. This is particularly the case when we talk about entering and succeeding in college. Low-income children are the least likely individuals in the United States to attend college. In fact, if we look at high-achieving students from low-income schools and backgrounds, they are five times less likely to attend college as comparable students in higher-income schools across this country. By focusing on college preparation for these needy students, GEAR UP is directly targeted at eliminating this disparity. There is something else that is important about GEAR UP. There are many talented young people who, if they are the first child in their family to seriously contemplate college, do not have the advantage of parents who are knowledgeable about the system. Their parents often do not have the information and the incentives to provide the kind of support and assistance these young people need. That, too, must be addressed, and GEAR UP does that. In fact, GEAR UP addresses the needs not only of students but also of parents. In a recent survey, 70 percent of parents indicated they have very little information or they want more information about which courses their child should take to prepare for college. Eighty-nine percent of parents wanted more information about how to pay for college. This information disparity is particularly acute in low-income areas. Again, GEAR UP provides that type of information and assistance. It is well documented that continuous programs that are integrated into the daily school life of a child are the best types of programs to provide for successful outcomes. That is exactly what GEAR UP does. It starts early in a career, sixth and seventh grade, follows the child through their middle school years and into high school, and is integrated with other subjects so there is both continuous support and an integrated approach to preparing a child for college. GEAR UP does this through partnerships and collaborations among State departments of education, high-poverty school districts, institutions of higher education, businesses, and other private or non-profit community organizations. GEAR UP is a college preparatory program, a Federal program that focuses on children in early grades. As such, the existence of other programs such as TRIO does not eliminate the need to fully fund GEAR UP. We have to recognize that we have not only the responsibility but also an opportunity to fully fund the GEAR UP program. I commend Senator Harkin and Senator Specter. They have dealt with a variety of educational issues in a budget that constrains their choices--indeed, their desires--significantly. They have done remarkable work, including funding for the LEAP program, which provides low-income students with funds to go to college. But if you don't have the first piece, if you don't have a GEAR UP program that gives students the skills, the confidence, the insights to get into college, Pell grants and LEAP grants are irrelevant because these deserving young students won't even be in the mix. GEAR UP is important. It is fundamental. The budget that Senators Specter and Harkin were dealing with did not give them the full range of choices they needed to ensure they could fund these important priorities. That is why we are here today, to provide a total of $325 million for GEAR UP, an increase of $100 million over what is in this current appropriations bill. If we do this, it will allow every State to have a GEAR UP program. As a result of the additional $100 million, GEAR UP would serve over 1.4 million low-income students across the country. That would be a significant and commendable increase in our efforts. If we don't provide this full $325 million, we will see over 400,000 needy students denied essential academic services which are provided through GEAR UP. Without this amendment, the need for these types of skills and support systems will not be met. Furthermore, the demand for GEAR UP is not being met. In 1999, GEAR UP received 678 partnership and State grant applications covering all 50 States. However, due to limited resources, only one out of four partnerships and half of the State applications could be funded. Clearly, the need is there. The demand is there. We must meet it with sufficient resources. Today GEAR UP's reach is limited because of the constraints on our appropriations. We need to provide sufficient resources so we can do our best to reach all the needy students in the United States. My home State of Rhode Island was fortunate to be one of the States to receive GEAR UP funding. The current Rhode Island GEAR UP program is comprised of a partnership of 21 nonprofit organizations known as the College Access Alliance of Rhode Island. They reach out to schools. They reach out to homes. They provide community support, a network which helps these young students understand their potential and tells them: Yes, you can go on to college; yes, you can succeed; yes, you can be part of this great American economy and this great American country. Providing these resources has helped countless young Rhode Islanders to reach their full academic potential. In just one year, Rhode Island GEAR UP has provided invaluable services. It has helped 1,300 students enroll and participate in summer academic programs. It has tracked the academic progress of over 8,000 highly mobile, disadvantaged students. They move many times from school to school, city to city. Rhode Island GEAR UP has been able to track these youngsters, keep in contact with them, keep encouraging them, keep getting them ready to go on to college. It has also identified 1,000 low-income students in need of extra support. It has linked these students to academic tutoring and mentoring, the kind of help they need to succeed. Although these are impressive numbers, because of limited resources we currently cannot duplicate this type of effort in every State, in every community across the country. I believe we should. My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy and Murray. It is also supported by a broad coalition of interested groups: the United States Student Association, the California State University; the College Board, the National Association for College Admission Counseling, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Community Colleges, the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the American Association of University Women, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of State Boards of Education, and the National PTA. I have a letter representing their support. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, one of our primary educational goals should be to ensure that all students with the skill, talent, and ambition to go to college can go to college. In order to accomplish that goal, we have to fund, of course, Pell grants; we have to fund the LEAP program. We have to do many of the things Senators Specter and Harkin have insisted upon in this bill. But we also have to do something which helps students early on through the GEAR UP program, and give these young students the skills, the confidence, and the expectation that they can and should go on to college. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. At this time, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would add an additional $100 million to the appropriated funds for the GEAR UP program. GEAR UP is the centerpiece of our efforts to reach out to disadvantaged students and give them both the skills and the confidence to go on to college. It is particularly clear in low-income neighborhoods that young people and families do not have either the access to college or the kind of skills they need to make it all the way through high school into college. This program does that. It complements the Pell grant. It complements other programs because it actually gives young people, starting the sixth or seventh grade, the tutoring, the mentoring, the confidence, the ability to go through high school, and go on to college. By voting for this amendment, we will say to scores of disadvantaged children: You can succeed; you can go to college; you can take your place in American society as a college graduate. I urge all of my colleagues to support this incredibly important program, to make opportunities real in the lives of all of our citizens.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I'm here to speak about the Kennedy Workforce Investment amendment restoring cuts to the Department of Labor's training funds. This amendment is just plain common sense. The single best thing we can do for our society, and for every working family, is to make sure that every American who wants a decent paying job has the skills necessary to obtain a decent paying job. By helping youths and adults get the job training they need, we help turn them into tax-paying citizens who can purchase goods and services, buy homes and afford health care, and contribute to our growing economy. This amendment, in a multitude of ways, tries to address the most basic challenge facing our country: How do we help American workers develop the skills they need to excel in an increasingly complex and constantly evolving economy? First, our amendment helps by fully funding the Dislocated Worker Assistance Program. It restores $181 million in funding to a program that has made a substantial difference in the lives of Rhode Island workers. We, like many formerly industrial states, have suffered great worker dislocation as industries have left, often to go somewhere overseas where labor was cheaper. Restoring this funding to the President's request would allow 100,000 more workers, dislocated through no fault of their own, access to training, job search and re- employment services. Our amendment also grants the Administration's request for $44 million to improve access to One-Stop services for million of Americans and make the job search process less overwhelming and more efficient. The Director of the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training informed me that the current cuts to this program will ``seriously impact'' the ability of our state to provide the services and information now required by the Workforce Investment Act for use by job seekers and employers. In addition to fully funding adult worker skills programs, our amendment would add $254 million to restore cuts in the Summer Jobs Program resulting from implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. Many states, like my own, were unprepared for this dramatic change in the federal funding stream. Thousands of kids in Rhode Island, especially 14- and 15- year-olds, are now going without summer jobs. Many of these kids are from small towns, others are from inner city Providence--both are limited by their age and the lack of job opportunities in their respective communities. Giving young people job experience benefits the entire country. The development of good work habits and a respect for the virtues of labor alone are strong payoffs. Everyone in this Congress should be supporting a restoration of these cuts. Finally, our amendment would restore $29 million to the Job Corps program, one of the most effective programs in the country for kids between the ages of 16 and 24. A recent Mathematica Policy Research Inc. study shows that 16- to 17-year-old youths who go through the Job Corps program are 80 percent more likely to earn a high school diploma or GED than a control group excluded from the program. This group also earned salaries that were 20 percent higher and had arrest rates that were 14 percent lower. This program works, and we should be fully funding it. Strengthening our workforce strengthens our families, and ultimately makes our entire country stronger. Adopting this skills training amendment is good for both American business and American workers, and every member of this Chamber should be in support of it.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 3638, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy for yielding and for sponsoring this amendment. He has grasped the most critical aspect of educational reform in the United States today--improving the quality of teachers. He has simply brought forward the bipartisan, unanimous consent we reached in the Higher Education Act amendments of 1998 where, in the vote of 96-0, we passed the teacher quality enhancement grants program. We authorized a magnificent program on a unanimous vote, but we have failed to fully fund it. If we have the plan, but not the money, we are not going to succeed. Senator Kennedy is simply saying, we have a good plan, let's put the resources behind it. We understand we need to have high-quality teachers to meet the challenges of the 21st century classroom. These challenges are different from 50, 30, 20, even 10 years ago. It is no longer sufficient for a student to go to a teacher college and learn about pedagogy and then go into the classroom. They need to have clinical exposure. They must have real-life experiences in the classroom before they become new teachers. They also have to understand their subject matter. Technique is one aspect, but it can't substitute for detailed knowledge of the subject-- be it science, history, or mathematics. They also have to understand how to integrate technology, which is at the key of most of the breakthroughs in education in the United States today. They have to be able to deal with a diverse population of students, some with limited English proficiency, some who are coming from cultures much different from the culture in which the teacher grew up. All of this necessitates significant reform in our educational practice. That is why, in the Higher Education Act, I worked closely with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, and others to develop partnerships between teacher colleges and elementary and secondary schools--real partnerships where aspiring teachers can get the clinical experience, and the other things necessary to be prepared for today's classrooms. It is similar to the model of physician training. We would never send a physician into an operating room simply with a few lectures on theory. It is practice, practice, practice, before they are allowed to operate. It should be the same for teachers. We can't do that unless we fully fund the teacher quality grants. They cover the spectrum. First, they provide the opportunity for these partnerships to develop. Second, they support statewide reforms. Third, they allow for recruitment of teachers, particularly to reduce shortages of qualified teachers in high-need school districts. We will need 2 million new teachers over the next 10 years because of the changing population of teachers, retiring teachers who are leaving, and the increase of our student population entering first grade and kindergarten. Look at any urban school district in this country, and you will see they are suffering severe teacher shortages. Recruitment is necessary. We also need to stimulate partnerships that are so essential between colleges of education and elementary and secondary schools. Last year, $77 million was available for new grants. Mr. President, 366 applications were received--a huge response--from States and local school districts. This is a popular program. The Department of Education could only fund 77: 25 local partnerships, 24 State grants, and 28 teacher recruitment grants. Rhode Island, I am proud to say, got a State grant and is using it very well. This year, however, only $21 million was available for new grants. There were 141 applicants, but the Department of Education estimates they will only be able to fund 11 grants--1 in 12. The need is there and the plan is there; the resources are lacking. That is why we are here today. We want to fully fund this program up to the authorized total of $300 million, creating an additional 100 partnerships, State and recruitment grants. This will help meet the demand and do the one thing that is so critical to education reform in this country, which is not questioned by anyone, evidenced by a 96-0 vote in this Chamber approving the program: We have to enhance the quality of teachers in this country. We can't do it just with admonitions. We can't do it just with sentiments. We have to do it with dollars. We have a program that works. We have a popular program. We just don't have the resources. Senator Kennedy's amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, will give us the resources to do the job. I thank the Senator. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of Senator Bingaman's amendment to provide additional resources to support State and local accountability efforts. Last year's budget included these funds, and this investment must be continued. I have worked long and hard on school accountability. But, frankly, the leader in this regard in this body is Senator Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico. He is a champion for ensuring that Federal resources go to schools. But we also provide incentives and opportunities for accountability and for improvement, along with Federal dollars. His efforts have been in the forefront of this great effort to improve the quality of our education and the quality of our schools. The Federal Government directs over $8 billion a year to provide critical support for disadvantaged students under title I. But even with this great amount of money--$8 billion--there are still insufficient resources to provide for the accountability provisions that are part of title I. We essentially face a situation, given the number of students who qualify for title I and the limited resources for the program, where most of the funds go simply to providing services and not the type of careful overview and thoughtful review that is necessary for program improvement. With the resources that are proposed by Senator Bingaman, we will be able to identify more closely and more accurately schools in need of improvement. We will be able to provide assistance for activities like professional development and technical assistance to schools so that they can in effect improve their performance and implement State corrective actions for schools that we should and must improve. Today, as I mentioned before, most of the dollars are simply going out to meet this overwhelming demand for services without the ability to review, evaluate, and correct programs. With this ability we would not only get the best results for our dollars, but we could materially improve the educational attainment of children throughout this country, and particularly disadvantaged children under title I. In 1994, much of the impetus for accountability began with the prior reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The 1994 amendments allowed States to move forward and develop their own content performance standards and to develop their own assessment measures to provide the details for our direction to improve the accountability of title I money. But as I mentioned--this is a constant theme--because of limited resources, there is the difficult choice between providing the service and doing the accountability. On a day-to-day basis, States try to keep up. But over time, they are falling behind in terms of improved performance and improved quality of education for students. What results is States can't as effectively address weaknesses that they see. They can't invoke a progressively intensive range of interventions to improve schools. They can't do the continuous assessments that are necessary to keep these programs on target, focused, and provide quality education for all of our children. The amendment, which the Senator from New Mexico proposes, would provide resources for schools and school districts to enable them to address the challenges of helping low-performance students and low- performance schools. In fact, we know those students in our lowest performance schools will immediately and directly benefit from the Bingaman amendment because studies clearly show that students in low- performance schools are at least a year or two behind students in the high-performing schools within the title I universe. As we provide these resources, we need to focus them on the more problematic schools so we can help disadvantaged children to attain better educational achievement throughout our country. We are still in the midst of trying to reauthorize the ESEA. Within the context of that act, Senator Bingaman has other accountability language which I am proud to support with him. But we have a critical opportunity--and we are at a critical juncture today--to provide resources and directions so that the accountability issue at least will not have to wait upon final reauthorization of the ESEA if that final reauthorization is indeed forthcoming in this legislative session. I once again commend Senator Bingaman for his leadership. I conclude by simply saying that we have a situation where there is a great deal of knowledge and a great deal of intuition at the local level about how they can improve this program. These resources in the hands of local school authorities would make a real difference in the lives of disadvantaged children, and would ultimately go to the heart of, I believe, what our greatest challenge in this country is, which is to use education to provide all of us, but most particularly the most disadvantaged Americans, the opportunity to learn, to succeed and to contribute to this country and to our economy. I urge passage of the Bingaman amendment, and I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Paul Tibbits, be granted floor privileges during the debate on the pending bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment with the outcome of the vote that occurred last evening here in the Senate. I am referring to the vote on Senator Robb's amendment concerning a Medicare benefit for prescription drugs. Last night, we had an opportunity to give millions of elderly and disabled Americans something they desperately require, a universal prescription drug benefit. Yet, this measure was defeated, mostly along party lines, by a vote of 44-53. Our nation's seniors deserve better. The need for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare has grown each and every year. Advances in medical science have revolutionized the practice of medicine. And the proliferation of pharmaceuticals has radically altered the way acute illness and chronic disease are treated and managed. These remarkable advances, however, have not come without a cost. Since 1980, prescription drug expenditures have grown at double digit rates and prescription drugs constitute the largest out-of-pocket cost for seniors. For millions of seniors, many of whom are living on a fixed income and do not have a drug benefit as part of their health insurance coverage, access to these new medicines is beyond reach. Even more alarming, it is estimated that 38 percent of seniors pay $1,000 or more for prescription drugs annually, while 3 in 5 Medicare beneficiaries lack a dependable source of drug coverage. This lack of reliable drug coverage for today's seniors is reminiscent of the lack of hospital coverage for the elderly prior to the creation of Medicare. Back in 1963, an estimated 56 percent of seniors lacked hospital insurance coverage. Today, after all our investments in health care and prevention, 53 percent of seniors still lack a prescription drug benefit. The need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit is a top concern for the elderly and disabled in my home state of Rhode Island. Many seniors continue to be squeezed by declines in retiree health insurance coverage, increasing Medigap premiums and the capitation of annual prescription drug benefits at $500 or $1000 under Medicare managed care plans. Mr. President, seniors in my state are frustrated and burdened both financially and emotionally by the lack of a reliable prescription drug benefit. While the need for a prescription drug benefit is clear and the desire on the part of some members of Congress is there, action on Medicare prescription drug legislation has been slow. The Senate Finance Committee has held a series of hearings on the subject of Medicare prescription drugs, however, the committee to date has been unable to produce a bill. In May, I joined Senator Daschle and several of my Democratic colleagues, in introducing S. 2541, the Medicare Expansion of Needed Drugs Act. This legislation seeks to provide millions of elderly and disabled Americans with an adequate, reliable and affordable source of prescription drug coverage. The MEND Act embodies the principles that I believe are necessary for an adequate prescription drug benefit--it is voluntary, accessible to all seniors, affordable, provides a reliable benefit and is consistent with broader Medicare reform. Last evening, the Senate had a real and possibly its only opportunity to enact a prescription drug benefit when Senator Robb offered an amendment during the consideration of the fiscal year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill that would have provided a universal Medicare prescription drug benefit to our nation's seniors. While the proposal differs slightly from the MEND Act, it embraced the principles that I view as necessary for a good benefit. Regrettably, this crucial amendment was defeated. I sincerely hope that the stated desire of many of my colleagues to create an adequate and affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit will become a reality this year. During this time of strong economic prosperity, we should all feel compelled to seize this opportunity to strengthen and enhance Medicare for the new millennium.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lautenberg be added as a cosponsor to Senator Edwards' and Senator Torricelli's amendment No. 3589.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am impressed with Senator Dodd's logic and wisdom in drafting legislation which does not direct the purchase but, rather, makes the purchase subject to the decisions of the DOD, which will ultimately be responsible for the training and military support for the Colombian Army. I am here today principally because I was fortunate enough last week to be in Colombia and in the field with a narcotics battalion, to get the opinions of those Colombian soldiers who actually have to fight these missions, and to get the observations of the American special forces troops who are training the Colombians. I think their observations will be very useful and informative to my colleagues. I believe I have an obligation to speak to those observations. These are both excellent systems. But the question of what system do you purchase and deploy is a function of the mission that the platform, the helicopter, the system must execute. Senator Dodd did a very good job of providing the context for the proposed operation. Let me add a bit of detail, if I may. The use of Plan Colombia from a military standpoint is to create a counternarcotics battalion which will push into the South from the provinces of Putumayo and Caqueta. This is part of the Amazon jungle. It is all jungle. The last road ends at Tres Esquinas. All military supplies for the core operation of that base must be done by air. The context of the operation that is proposed is that they operate from Tres Esquinas, which is about 150 nautical miles from the operating base. That is their zone of operation. The mission these counternarcotics troops will perform is to airlift out of Tres Esquinas, to move into landing zones that are close to either final laboratories or other significant assets of the narcoterrorists, and to deliver, at a minimum, two platoons. Those 2 platoons have about 70 personnel. The ultimate lift will be a full company of about 360 personnel. It has been pointed out before that the range of the Huey II, Super Huey, is about 75 nautical miles carrying 10 troops, and the Huey II can range only half the target area, half of the 115 nautical miles, without expensive refueling operations. So the first tactical decision a commander would have to make if in fact he were deploying Super Hueys would be to operate in the full range of the area of operations. You would have to go ahead and establish, at least temporarily, four refueling points so the Hueys could come in and refuel. This is in some respects a tactical hindrance to the operation. First of all, you have to defend these positions in the field--in a jungle area that is literally infested with guerrillas. Second, the element of surprise would be at least somewhat vitiated if in fact they were able to see you come in, refuel, and then lift off, and go again to a target area. In contrast to the range of the Huey II and the necessary-for- refueling bases to cover the whole area, the Blackhawk has a range of about 730 nautical miles and can carry 18 troops. This disparity between range and capacity of troop lift also goes to the issue of cost because obviously, in order to conduct these tactical operations, you will need more of the Super Hueys than you would Blackhawk helicopters. That doesn't completely equate the force, but it in a significant way narrows operational forces. The military personnel on the ground, the Colombian National Army, and the special forces advisers suggest that to put two platoons into an LZ someplace in this area of operations would require seven Hueys as compared to four Blackhawks. Again, tactically, four Blackhawk aircraft flying at higher speeds and moving in without the necessity to refuel gives them more operational capabilities, and it gives them more capability to amass their forces, strike quickly, and pull back quickly. There is something else that has to be mentioned. They are flying against military forces that potentially have fairly sophisticated defense systems, which again puts a premium on speed and surprise-- being able to get in and out--and also the survivability of the helicopters. That is again an issue that requires capital military judgments about what system is most capable to operate and survive in this type of environment. There is another aspect to this. The lift capacity of the Blackhawk, according to the people to whom I spoke, gives it an advantage when they operate closely in the highlands of the Andes where you need lift simply because of the altitude. It also gives the Blackhawks some respect. Also, this was suggested to me while I was in the field. If you are going to do fast-rope rappelling operations, you have to come in, hover over the objective, and get your troops out. Many places in this area of operation will not be landing zones. You will have to require rappelling operations to get your troops on the ground and get them out again. Another aspect that was alluded to by Senator Dodd is the aspect of the ability of the Colombian forces to absorb a number of helicopters. Right now, the State Department has managed to procure for the use of the Colombians, at least temporarily, 18 Huey helicopters from Canada. These are ``1-November'' models. Already, that has increased the aviation capacity potentially of the Colombians by substantial amounts. They are out finding pilots; they are finding logistical support. If we give them 30 Blackhawks, that will stress their logistical ability to train pilots, to provide mechanics, to provide crews, to provide the kind of logistic base they need. If we double that by providing twice as many Hueys, we will put additional pressure on the logistical base of the Colombian military forces to do the job. That is something, practically, that we have to consider with respect to this issue. What Senator Dodd has suggested is very thoughtful and appropriate, to make this military decision subject to military judgment and not our particular judgment. I was compelled to speak today because I had the chance, gratuitously, to be at Tres Esquinas and Larandia on Sunday to talk to the Colombian soldiers who will fly the missions and jump into this difficult area. I talked to our special forces troops and our military forces who are advising. They provided information, and it is important my colleagues understand this information. It is appropriate we should be considering this amendment, not to direct that the aircraft be one variety or the other but to ensure that the Department of Defense make a very careful review based upon some of the issues we have all talked about, including range, lift capability, the nature of the operations, the nature of the Colombian military forces, and their capacity to integrate these platforms quickly into their operations. I hope this debate accomplishes those missions. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the underlying legislation that would provide support for the country of Colombia to fight the drug problem which not only involves Colombia but involves the United States very decisively and directly. I commend Senators McConnell and colleagues who drafted this legislative vehicle to assist Colombia. Part of my discussion tonight is based upon a trip last weekend that I took with Senator Durbin to Colombia. We had the opportunity to travel to Cartegena to meet with President Pastrana and his key national security advisers. We also traveled to Bogota to meet with the Defense Minister and the chairman of their joint chiefs of staff. But I think much more importantly, we traveled out to where the military forces are being deployed to counteract this drug problem, to the town of Larandia. It is not really a town, it is a base camp. It is a forward post for the Colombians to conduct these counterdrug operations. One of the first impressions you get when you go to Colombia and leaf through the materials provided by the Embassy is that this country has a long history of violence--or, as the Colombians say, La Violencia. In fact, according to the Embassy, there is one kidnapping every 5 hours in Colombia. And 75 percent of the world's reported kidnappings occur in Colombia. The Embassy points out that Bogota is the murder capital of the world. In a city of 7 million people, there are 16 murders a day and 6,000 murders a year. This is a country that has been wracked by political and criminal violence for many decades. The political violence began with some presence back in 1940s when elements of what later became the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party literally battled for control of the country. This lasted until 1957, when both parties agreed to form a national front. Then there was a period from 1958 until 1974 in which both parties literally transferred power each 4 years from one president to another, and there was a semblance of stability in the country. But certainly by the 1960s, there was renewed agitation by guerrilla forces, principally Marxist and Leninist forces--the whole spectrum--the two principals being Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or FARC, and Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional, or ELN. These forces, spurred on by the success of Castro in Cuba, made significant inroads in terms of establishing independent zones along with agitators who also fought for agrarian rights in the countryside. In the 1960s, the Colombian military conducted a serious counterinsurgence operation. They were able to eliminate these zones. But in that time, they won for themselves the infamous designation of being significant abusers of human rights. That reputation--both the perception and, unfortunately, reality--continues in the Colombian military today. But by the end of the 1960s and the 1970s, they had effectively pushed the insurgency away from the populated centers of Colombia-- which are the coastline and the Andean plains--into the jungles of the Amazon, in an area which is desolate, unpopulated, and, frankly, beyond the effective control of authorities in Bogota and elsewhere in Colombia. But in the 1970s, the drug trade began to assert itself into the life of Colombians, first with the cultivation of marijuana. It took the Colombian police authority a while to recognize the threat to them as well as to others from this cultivation. Recognizing the problem, they began to organize themselves to conduct counterdrug operations in the police force--not the military. Then, as we all know, marijuana was rapidly displaced in the world drug market by cocaine. The cocaine trade became a curse for Colombia. Within Colombia infrastructure, the leadership of several major organizations--the Cali cartel, the Medellin cartel and others--set up their headquarters in Colombia and began to run worldwide operations. Most of the production was done outside in the surrounding Andean country. This map is a recent example of cultivation areas--the cultivation areas in Peru, Bolivia, which have been very successful with eradication, and here is Colombia. Cultivation was typically outside Colombia. Within Colombia, they located clandestine laboratories to convert the coca leaf into cocaine base and later cocaine. From the 1970s and through the 1980s, there was a fabulously powerful and wealthy criminal combination that was destabilizing Colombia. The United States did not stand aside when this situation developed. The United States supported the Colombian police and insisted that the Colombian police reform themselves and throw out those who had been corrupted by the narcotraffickers. With cooperation, and with the leadership of the Colombian police and with the bravery and the sacrifice of scores of Colombian police officers, the Cali cartel was disrupted and the Medellin cartel was disrupted. The leaders of the cartels literally died in police shootouts. We have a situation, where through support by the United States and the police forces of Colombia, we defeated a drug combination that was threatening the United States by importing vast amounts of cocaine into the United States. Now there is a new situation and a new crisis. The new crisis is the result of two things: the collision of cocaine cultivation, coca cultivation, and these remnants of a political insurgency that has been ongoing in Colombia for decades. The FARC and other revolutionary units are in the hinterland. What has arrived recently has been the cultivation of coca. As a result, the FARC--and its other guerrilla forces--has been enlisted in the support and protection of these coca fields. They are deriving great resources in doing that. They are deriving resources to support their political activities. Coca production now has been linked with armed military forces. The police are no longer capable with their equipment and their technology to deal with this. This has become a military problem. As a result, we are in a military problem that requires military support of the United States, just as it required police support in the 1980s and the early 1990s. Part of the reason the cultivation has come to Colombia is the fact that we have been successful. As an indication of our success, Colombian production has surged dramatically. It has surged where in other places the production has been cut back. Both in Bolivia and in Peru, we have made significant progress--again, working with local authorities, working with their counternarcotics organizations--and we have been able to suppress the cultivation of coca. What has been suppressed in Peru and Bolivia has now blossomed in the southern provinces of Colombia. Again, this combination of coca production and guerrillas has produced a military crisis as well as a drug crisis. I have heard colleagues come to the floor and talk about the situation, saying: This is Colombia's problem, not our problem. Mr. President, the streets of America are also the battlegrounds for this problem because the final impact of cocaine is felt--as too many Americans are subject to the ravages of cocaine addiction. This chart demonstrates what we are talking about. As I mentioned before, Peru has shown a 27-percent reduction in cultivation; Bolivia, a 53-percent reduction in cultivation; Colombia, production has increased and will increase unabated unless we do something. The bottom line is, from all these sources, but increasingly from Colombia, 512 metric tons a year of cocaine is directed to the United States. About 380 metric tons arrive, get through our border checkpoints, get around our intense efforts to stop it, and hit the streets of America. In a real sense, Colombia's problem is our problem and our problem is Colombia's problem. It is the huge demand of the United States which is causing some of this instability in Colombia. So we have a rather strong national security interest in assisting Colombian forces to do the job we insist they do, which is to stop cocaine production and distribution emanating from Colombia. It is important to note we have a situation where we want to ensure that the Colombian forces help us by curtailing supply, so it does not arrive on the streets of America. The proposal that is included in the legislation before the Senate, Plan Colombia, has been carefully worked out. Its focus is counternarcotics--not the political insurgencies that have washed back and forth across Colombia for decades. It represents the recognition by our Government and the Government of Colombia, first, that there is a significant problem in Colombia that directly affects the tranquility of peace and the security of the United States. Second, I believe it also recognizes the competence of the Colombian authorities to fight the good fight. Again, as I indicated, it was Colombian police officials working with the United States and other international narcotics control officers that went a long way to destroy the Cali cartel and the Medellin cartel. Now this is a new phase. It is no longer simply criminal syndicates operating in the cities of Colombia. It is a situation where guerrilla forces are protecting and profiting from the cultivation of coca in the hinterlands of Colombia. Mr. President, as I mentioned, Plan Colombia is a reaction to the recognition of a crisis. It is also proposed as a result of the confidence that has been demonstrated in the Government of Colombia, their sincere dedication to try to eradicate their own problem with drug cultivation, and also it represents, I think, and based upon my trip, a sense of a reasonable prospect for success because of their commitment and also because of the nature of the problem we face. Plan Colombia has many different aspects. First, it focuses on not only military operations. It focuses on the peace process, which is ongoing in Colombia today. President Pastrana, when he was elected, was elected on a plank that called for sincere and serious negotiations with the guerrilla forces. He has instituted such negotiations. In fact, what has happened in Colombia is that he had dedicated an area, approximately outlined by this blue, in the hinterlands of Colombia, which is a DMZ area, controlled by FARC, the principle guerrilla group. This peace process is important. This plan is also an attempt to provide alternate development efforts for the peasants and the cultivators in a region where coca was being cultivated. This plan calls not only for military operations but also calls for heightened sensitivity to peace, a commitment and a contribution to economic development. The United States share is just a fraction of what the Colombian Government has committed to this effort for economic development and for ways to have alternatives to the coca cultivation. Also, and quite rightly, the plan calls for reform of the justice system and protection of human rights, because, frankly, one of the most feeble institutions within Colombia, and this accounts for many of their problems, is the justice system and the penal system that is not responsive to efficient, fair, and appropriate justice. Here, too, Plan Colombia, will call for a reform and renewal of those institutions, which are so important. Then part of it, of course, is a military component. Without security in these areas, in these areas we have talked about--without security in these areas, there will be no way in which we can effectively conduct--``we,'' meaning the Government of Colombia and its international partners--can conduct the kind of economic development and alternative development that is necessary for long-term stability. Here is another map that focuses clearly on Colombia alone. Here are the regions where the production is significant, Putumayo and Caqueta, these provinces. Here in the pink is the zone controlled by FARC. You can see it really is in between major production areas. In order to get into these areas, in order to provide the kind of economic development that is necessary, there has to be, first, security, and, because of the nature of the armed combatants in the area, that calls for military assistance. This is a big part but not the only part of Plan Colombia. Within the context of Plan Colombia, there are basically two significant components militarily: first, the training of counternarcotics troops, and, second, the provision of helicopters for their mobility, because without helicopters you really cannot be effective in this region. The training has already been finished for the 1st Battalion and they are in Tres Esquinas. The second is up here in Larandia. They are awaiting our approval so American special forces troops can conduct the training. Without helicopters, however, none of these trained troops can effectively get to where the cultivation is taking place, where the clandestine laboratories are located, where they must go in order to upset and defeat the drug lords in this part of Colombia. So it is very critical we move today with dispatch with this legislation, and move forward to allow the military plan to go forward as well as to provide the basis for later alternative development. Many legitimate concerns have been raised with respect to the program that is being presented within this legislation. First of significance, one we should all be very concerned about, is human rights. There is no way we want to be involved in an operation that is not going to emphasize the appropriate treatment of human rights, not only because that is the right thing to do but because in the long run that is the most effective way to win away any type of support for drug eradication and to build respect for the legitimate institutions of government in Colombia. We are aided in this effort by provisions that already have been included under the direction of Senator Leahy. Essentially, under the Leahy provisions, units that receive assistance and training from the United States cannot receive that training unless an individual who faces any type of credible human rights violation has either been removed or appropriate justice has been rendered to that individual. In a practical sense, this means all the troops who are going to be trained are vetted for human rights abuses. And all of them must pass. Also, the Minister of Defense of Colombia must, every 6 months, report on the process of bringing to justice those individuals who have been accused of human rights violations. As of today, both of the counternarcotics battalions have been vetted--the 1st Battalion and the 2nd Battalion. Also, other units of the Colombian Army have been vetted. In order to receive our training, these units must receive this vetting. And it has already had a positive effect. But rest assured, this is a constant struggle and we must insist and ensure that this human rights perspective is one that is not lost in our efforts to aid Colombia. There is another point that I think is important to make. There have been many suggestions that the greatest human rights violation that the Colombian Army engages in is passive and active cooperation with armed militias, self-defense forces, or paramilitaries as they are called-- the perception that they are really in cahoots with vigilante groups that are out to destroy not only leftist rebels, but anyone who seeks to express themselves or ask for their rights in Colombia. That has been the history. But at least on the surface, things are changing. One example of that is this particular section of last week's major paper in Bogata, Colombia. This is an advertisement that was taken out by the military. Essentially it says that 785 families will not celebrate Father's Day. Then it lists the victims of the violence in Colombia. But I think it is significant to note that they clearly point out the violence that is the result of guerrilla, leftist activity, and the violence that is the result of what they determine are ``autodefensas,'' militias, self-defense forces. This is a result, I believe, also based on my conversations, that the military authorities in Colombia are getting the message. They are getting the message that there is no way we will tolerate alliances with paramilitary forces who are trying to subvert our emphasis on human rights. I think this is discouraging, in the sense that it is a horrible litany of lost souls, but it is also important to note that at least the military is trying to address the issue in an evenhanded way, the violence that both sides are doing to the fabric of peace in Colombia. There is a situation here on human rights which is serious and in which the military is, for the first time I believe, taking this responsibility very seriously. There has been vetting of these military units. We are objecting to any type of training that would go to units containing individuals who have serious human rights violations. There is also a high level of support for the effort to improve the human rights position in the Colombian Army, both the Defense Minister, General Tapias, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and at the tactical level in Tres Esquinas, General Montoya. These individuals recognize that the continued cooperation and collaboration with the United States rests upon sincere and effective efforts to provide effective human rights training and effective human rights behavior in the Colombian military. There is another aspect of concern that has been raised by some of my colleagues with respect to operations in Colombia, and that is the perception that the elites of Colombia are not actively involved in this struggle. It is most significantly reflected in constitutional provisions that prevent graduates of high school from being sent into combat, where nongraduates can be drafted and sent into combat. This is an issue which is both symbolic and substantive, too. Our discussions with the Minister of Defense suggest they are also recognizing this issue; that they are consciously moving to professionalize their force by replacing draftees with professional soldiers; and they are also proposing, according to the Defense Minister, legislation within this session of the Colombian Congress that will attempt to prevent this discrimination in favor of high school graduates and against non-high school graduates. It does represent, once again, a perception on the part of the Colombian authorities that they must not only protect human rights, but they must be fully committed to this struggle in order to receive the support of the United States. There is another criticism that has been lodged by some of my colleagues, and that is that this is just another entre into an unwinnable military quagmire, like Vietnam. There are many lessons to be drawn from Vietnam. One lesson is that we cannot fight and should not fight someone else's battle if they do not have the will to do it themselves. In this particular situation, Colombia is unlike Vietnam because the Colombian forces are asking for our help in terms of training, in terms of equipment, but not our troops. They recognize they must do that themselves. Also, their history suggests they have in the past done precisely that. They wanted our training for their police, equipment for their police, intelligence reports for their police, but they went after the cartels themselves. It was their responsibility. They carried it out successfully. The other difference between Vietnam and the situation in Colombia is that our focus is on drugs. Our focus is on supporting Colombian military authorities to provide the security so that police authorities can destroy labs and destroy coca fields. That is a lot different from trying to win the hearts and minds, to win the political allegiance of a population, as we were by default forced to attempt in Vietnam. Winning the political allegiance of the people of Colombia is strictly and only the function and responsibility of the Colombian Government. That is why President Pastrana's peace plan represents a sincere effort to do just that. It is their plan, their peace plan. Our effort should rightfully be restricted, and is restricted, to the war on drugs. Our role is also limited operationally because, as I mentioned before, we are providing equipment, we are providing trainers, and we are providing intelligence, but intelligence related only to counternarcotics operations. Again, this is very similar to what we did with the Colombian national police in their successful effort to destroy the cartel. One cannot totally dismiss history. I believe we have to be very careful and cautious so that these steps--appropriate steps and limited steps--do not lead to something more. Part of this debate then should be to not only reassure the American public that what we are doing is appropriate, but also that we will continue to be vigilant so that any commitment we make to Colombia will be limited and will strictly be a function of their capacity and their willingness to fight their own fight and not unwittingly involve Americans directly in that fight. There are some other differences between Colombia and those who suggest the Vietnam analogy. First of all, this is an insurgency without any significant foreign support. With the demise of Castro as a potent revolutionary force in Latin America, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, this is not a situation where there are indigenous forces supported by outside powers. In fact, the support the guerrillas on the left and the paramilitary on the right are deriving is from their participation in the drug trade. There is no great popular support abroad for the leftist or for the rightist forces who are guerrillas or paramilitaries. Public opinion polls suggest they have very limited appeal. Colombia is a country with strong democratic traditions. It has regular elections. Power transfers peacefully. It is a market economy, until recently a market economy that did very well. For all these reasons, I think again we should be watchful, but the analogy to Vietnam at this juncture fails. Let's also look ahead. There are consequences to our operations in Colombia. First of all, if there is success in Colombia, we should not be surprised that the level of violence will increase because these guerrillas and paramilitary forces depend upon support from somewhere. If they cannot sell drugs--we hope they will not be able to sell drugs--they will return to their old ways--kidnapping, extortion, et cetera. We have to recognize, ironically, if the drug war is successful, we must see escalating levels of violence. The Colombians recognize that, but they are still willing to pay the price, fight the fight, and destroy narcotics. We have to recognize the armed opponents, FARC and others, are well off. They will resist probably, and they will resist with sophisticated weapons and technology they have acquired through their contributions to their drug tactics. There is another consequence that might develop if this plan is approved and funds provided to Colombia. That is, if these guerrilla and paramilitary units are deprived of their resources from the drug trade to continue their operations, there will, I think, be more pressure for the peace settlement, more willingness on the part of these combatants to come to the table and try to work out an arrangement so that decisions in Colombia are decided peacefully and not through armed conflict, as it has been so long and so often in that country. There is another aspect, of course, that would be very helpful to the peace settlements there, and that would be whether the United States could suppress its voracious appetite for cocaine. That would go a long way to assist Colombia in being a more peaceful and tranquil society. So all of our efforts, not only to disrupt production in Colombia and elsewhere, but also to suppress demand here in the United States would, I think, be helpful. But this particular plan, if it works--and there is a reasonable probability that it will work--could materially and, I hope, effectively lead to sincere and renewed peace discussions within Colombia. There is also a consequence for failure if we fail to approve the resources or if the plan fails for other reasons. At least one result would be that President Pastrana, and his government, in the middle of the process, would likely also fail. That could lead to several consequences. First, he could be replaced by someone who is less amenable to the peace process. Given the tides of violence in Colombia, there could be a resurgence or the surfacing of an authoritarian figure who would be much less sensitive to the peace process. Another possibility would be a recurrence of what happened in a previous administration under President Samper, where, effectively, the President of Colombia was subverted by narcotraffickers, by drug money, and the country was close to falling under the sway of narcotics dealers rather than the elected representatives of the people of Colombia. So there are consequences with which we must wrestle. All in all, our most promising option is to support this bill and support Plan Colombia. To do nothing renders a severe psychological blow to the people of Colombia and to the administration of President Pastrana, who is committed not only to fighting the drug war, but also waging a peace process in negotiations with the insurgents. I think we ultimately have to conclude that our best course of action is to provide the kind of support that is outlined in this legislation, support that goes to the military aspects that have been created by the collision of the cocaine cultivation in the hinterlands, where armed bands roam and derive profit from coca production, together with a balanced approach that emphasizes economic development, particularly alternative development for the campesinos, the peasants, that strengthens the governance of Colombia, with particular emphasis on the judicial system and the penal system. This comprehensive approach, representing about $1.6 billion in American resources, about $4 billion of Colombian resources, and hopefully contributions from other countries around the world, is, I believe, at this point the best hope of significantly undercutting drug production in Colombia, reducing the flow of cocaine into the United States, making our streets safer, and giving Colombia a chance to move to a peaceful, stable, civil society, which has alluded them for many years. With that, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks.

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jon Lauder, a fellow on my staff, be accorded floor privileges during the consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak for this legislation and commend Senator Kennedy for his sponsorship, along with my colleagues, of this legislation. Senator Kennedy has long been an advocate for a society in which individuals reach out not with hate but with fellowship. I am pleased to see other supporters, like Senator Smith, who are also in the vanguard of this great effort. This afternoon we are here because of the murders of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard and others--because these acts of violence tear at the very fabric of our society. Unfortunately, over the past 2 years, we have seen far too many cases of these types of crimes of violence, motivated strictly by prejudice and hatred of people, not because of their character but because of some perception of their failings in the eyes of others. In my own State of Rhode Island, in May 1998 a group of seven to ten men stomped and battered a Cranston bartender and an acquaintance as they were coming out of a Providence night club, while laughing and screaming anti-gay epithets. The waiter suffered fractured bones in his jaw, head and collarbone, cracked ribs, and a puncture wound to his chest caused by a broken bottle. The acquaintance suffered a fractured eye socket and bruises. According to Providence, Rhode Island city officials, the number of hate crimes reported in Providence has grown in recent years. In 1998, 25 such crimes were reported, and, last year, 32 were reported. In February 1999, in an incident which took place in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, two men were walking home with a female friend from a church function and were assaulted by a third man. While yelling obscenities and anti-homosexual slurs, the third man hit one of the men over the head with a full wine bottle, and then jumped on top of him and punched him repeatedly in the face and head. He then threw him up against a brick wall and continued to hit him while yelling anti-gay epithets. In California, three men pled guilty to racial terrorism for burning a swastika outside a Latino couple's residence. In Florida, a Puerto Rican man was allegedly beaten by three white men who yelled racial slurs. In Ohio, a 23-year-old Hispanic male was gunned down by three assailants. Police reported it as a racially motivated incident. The list goes on and on. This amendment would simply extend the current definition of Federal hate crimes to include crimes committed on the basis of someone's gender, sexual orientation, or disability. It would allow the Federal Government to prosecute an alleged perpetrator who commits a violent crime against someone just because that person is gay, blind, or female. This amendment basically brings our civil rights statutes in line with the most recent definition of hate crimes promulgated by this Congress. This amendment also eliminates the restrictions that have prevented Federal involvement in many cases in which individuals were killed or injured because of bias or prejudice. It also supports State and local efforts to prosecute hate crimes by providing Federal aid to local law enforcement officials. In particular, it authorizes the Justice Department to issue grants of up to $100,000 to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. This amendment does not federalize all violent hate crimes. It provides for Federal involvement only in the most serious incidents of bodily injury or death, and only after consultation with State and local officials, a policy that is explicitly reflected in a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Department of Justice with the National Association of District Attorneys last July. Finally, the Department of Justice has reviewed this amendment and believes it does meet the constitutional standards recently articulated in Supreme Court cases. For crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, and national origin, the amendment has been carefully drafted to apply only to violent conduct in cases that have an ``explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.'' This amendment has attracted broad bipartisan support from 42 Senators, 191 Members of the House of Representatives, 22 State attorneys general, and more than 175 law enforcement, civil rights, and religious organizations. This demonstrates the huge support (for strengthening Federal hate crimes legislation, support) which cuts across party lines and which reaffirms a fundamental belief and tenet of our country: That people should be able to be individuals, to be themselves without fear of being attacked for their individuality, for their personhood, for their very essence. These hate crimes are very real offenses. They combine uncontrolled bigotry with vicious acts. These crimes not only inflict personal wounds, they wreak havoc on the emotional well-being of people throughout this country, because they attack a person's identity as well as his or her body. Although bodies heal, the scars left by these attacks on the minds of the victims are deep and often endure for many years. There is no better way for us to reaffirm our commitment to the most basic of American values: the dignity of the individual and the right of that individual to be himself or herself. We can do that by voting in favor of this amendment. I believe it is our duty. I am pleased to join this great debate and lend my support to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees to reject the provision in the House version of the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill that freezes implementation of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. As my colleagues have stated, the House bill would, for the sixth year in a row, block the Department of Transportation from studying ways to improve CAFE standards for vehicles in the United States. Mr. President, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's latest report to Congress states that cars sold in the United States in 1999 averaged 28.3 miles per gallon, down from 28.7 miles per gallon in 1998. Light trucks, which now make up about half of new passenger vehicles sold, averaged 20.7 miles per gallon, down from 20.9 in 1998. What a shame that in an era of great technological innovation, all of the fuel economy gains from technological improvements over the last twelve years have been erased by the proliferation of larger, heavier, gas-guzzling vehicles. As Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater said of the CAFE freeze in his June 8 letter to Chairman Shelby, ``Because this prohibition has been in place in recent years, the Department has been unable to fully analyze this important issue. The average fuel economy of passenger cars and light trucks has decreased almost 7 percent since 1987. In fact, the average miles-per-gallon for 1999 was the lowest since 1980. CAFE is a significant policy issue that should be addressed analytically and not preemptively settled through the appropriations process.'' With fuel prices high and rising, it is especially critical that we improve CAFE standards. Lax fuel economy standards have allowed SUVs and other light trucks on the road today to be 30 percent less efficient than cars on average. This fuel economy gap caused Americans to spend $21.4 billion more for gasoline last year than if these trucks were as efficient as cars. SUV and light truck drivers in my state of Rhode Island paid an extra $55 million at the pump last year due to this gap in fuel efficiency standards. Meanwhile, as overall fuel efficiency goes down, our nation continues to import over 55 percent of its crude oil, putting us at the mercy of the OPEC cartel. We owe it to the drivers in the Northeast who are paying over $1.70 for a gallon of gas, or those in the Midwest paying over $2.00 per gallon, to take a serious look at cutting our consumption of foreign oil by improving CAFE standards. Nevertheless, the CAFE freeze rider has been inserted into the House DOT spending bill every year for the past 5 years, and each time that happens, Congress denies the American people the benefits of fuel- saving technologies that already exist, technologies that the auto industry could implement with no reduction in safety, power, or performance. Shouldn't we at least give the Department of Transportation the chance to study this issue? Isn't it time to lift the gag order that has been placed on our ability to consider the costs and benefits of higher CAFE standards? I believe the answer is clearly yes. I urge my colleagues to support this important motion.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it has been nearly 14 months since the Columbine tragedy, and over a year since the Senate passed common sense gun safety legislation as part of the Juvenile Justice bill, and still the Republican majority in Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until Congress acts, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of a few Americans who were killed by gunfire one year ago, on June 13, 1999: Robert Ayala, 21, Chicago, IL. Timothy Croft, 39, Detroit, MI. Warner Freeman, 21, Philadelphia, PA. James Harley, 40, Baltimore, MD. Rico Perry, 27, Charlotte, NC. Wesley Rodenas, 19, San Bernardino, CA. Thoyce Sanders, 45, Dallas, TX. Charles Stewart, 32, Dallas, TX. Mario Taylor, 23, Chicago, IL. Renardo Wilson, 38, Dallas, TX. Unidentified male, 49, Portland, OR. Mark Pierce, 36, Providence, RI. Mr. Pierce was killed in a late-night drive-by shooting after a confrontation between one of his friends and two young men, one 18 and one 21, at a marina on the Providence River waterfront. After an initial scuffle, the two young men departed and returned within an hour in a car. One of them opened fire with a handgun, killing Pierce. It's another example of a quarrel that, in another time in America, might have resulted in a bloody nose and a bruised ego, but instead took the life of Mark Pierce. And, Mr. President, the gun violence continues every day across America. Three weeks ago, a 15-year-old girl in Providence, who was a key witness for the prosecution in an upcoming murder trial, was shot with a handgun at point blank range in her front yard on a Sunday evening. She died the next day. She was to testify in the trial of a 19-year-old charged with shooting to death a 17-year-old last August. Just this past Friday, in Providence, Rhode Island, two college students were carjacked at gunpoint, robbed, taken to a nearby golf course, and shot execution style with a .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun. The handgun was stolen from the car of a freelance photographer while he shopped at a local convenience store in February. This case makes a strong argument against concealed carry laws and other liberal gun laws that encourage citizens to bring their handguns out of their homes and into the streets of our cities. It also underscores the need for aggressive research into smart gun technology to ensure that a weapon can only be fired by its legitimate owner. Finally, although in this instance the police were able to trace the gun relatively quickly because it was stolen in Providence and reported by the owner, in many cases crime guns cannot be traced because law enforcement is completely dependent upon the record keeping of gun manufacturers and gun dealers, and post-retail private sales are usually unrecorded. If we registered handguns and licensed handgun owners, the police could put out an immediate alert when a weapon is reported stolen, and they could trace a weapon more quickly upon its recovery after a horrible crime like this one. In addition, the assailants would face yet another felony charge for illegal possession of a weapon not registered to them. Mr. President, twelve young Americans lose their lives to gun violence every day. That's a new Columbine tragedy every 24 hours. It is time for Congress to do its part to reduce gun violence by passing sensible gun safety legislation to keep firearms out of the hands of children and convicted felons. We should do so without further delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I commend Senators Lieberman, McCain, Feingold, Daschle and Levin for all of their hard work on the issue of Section 527 organizations. This latest mutation in fundraising is just another example of the failure of our existing campaign finance laws. Hopefully, the passage of our amendment yesterday, which mandates disclosure by Section 527 organizations, will close yet another legal loophole being exploited by clever campaign fundraisers. This amendment should make unregulated and unlimited contributions to these so-called Section 527 committees much less attractive. Although donors will be able to continue to make as many tax-deductible contributions as they want, they will no longer be able to do so in absolute secrecy. These Section 527 organizations, named after a section of the tax code, skirt existing campaign finance laws by carefully avoiding the endorsement of any particular candidate. This convoluted reasoning proceeds as follows: if a Section 527 committee does not endorse a particular candidate, then it is not engaged in political activity; if it is not engaged in political activity, then there is no requirement for it to disclose who has contributed money to the committee; since it is not engaged in political activity, it can run unlimited issue ads without obeying existing campaign finance laws regarding disclosure. We all know from past experience that it is just a matter of time before enormous amounts of campaign cash are funneled through more and more of these secret organizations. The amendment which passed yesterday, which I was pleased to cosponsor, will force Section 527 organizations to emerge from the shadows. They will be required to disclose their existence to the IRS, file publicly available tax returns, make public reports specifying annual expenditures over $500, and identify those making contributions of $200 or more a year to the organization. Although disclosure is only part of the solution, the passage of this amendment ensures that the public understands who these committees are, who gives them their money, and how they spend that money. I was pleased to give it my support.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am delighted to welcome Father Philip Smith, the president of Providence College, our guest Chaplain. Providence College is an extraordinary institution in my home State of Rhode Island. It is a place where many of my neighbors and friends have been educated. More than that, it has been a source of strength, purpose, and inspiration for the whole community. Father Smith is the 11th president of Providence College and has been a paramount leader both for his institution and for the State of Rhode Island. Providence College is a Dominican college, a college committed to not only developing the minds but the character of its students. Its leader is a theologian, a scholar, and a leader in his own right. His leadership is not simply intellectual; he is a leader of integrity and of commitment. Rhode Island is proud of Providence College, and particularly proud of the president of Providence College, Rev. Philip Smith. It was an honor to have him in the Chamber today to lead us in prayer. I thank him and I commend him. I wish him well. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in supporting this important amendment. For months we have been bogged down in a conference without real progress, and without hope of concluding the conference and bringing this bill to the floor for a final vote in the last days of this Congress. I think we have to move forward. I think we have to move forward, particularly when it comes to access to health care for children in this country. I know there has been some discussion that progress has been made in terms of allowing access to a pediatrician. But there are other important aspects of health care for children included in the context of the Norwood-Dingell bill that have not been agreed to yet by the conference committee. For example, ensuring that an appeals process is sensitive to the particular needs of children, the developmental needs of children that do not exist for adults; and also ensuring that there are quality assurance provisions for outcomes that are tied to the particular concerns of children. If we do not do these things, then we are not only missing an opportunity, we are also disregarding our obligation to aid the children of this country. We have all heard stories today about lawyers and stories about HMOs. Let me tell you a story about one child. It is a story I heard down in Atlanta with Senator Max Cleland. Lamona Adams, the mother of James Adams, was concerned about her child. He had a fever. He was ill. She did what she was told to do by her HMO; that is, to call up and get advice over the phone about what she should do. She desperately pleaded for help for her child. She was told to go 42 miles to a hospital because the HMO had a contract with the hospital to receive their patients. While driving 42 miles to a hospital on the other side of Atlanta, an area she didn't know anything about, the child became so ill that the father just saw a sign that said ``hospital,'' went there, and they treated the child. They saved the child's life. However, they could not save the child's hands or his feet. They had to be amputated. That is what HMOs have done in too many cases in this country. We have the power to stop the practices. We have the power to do it today. We should do it today, on behalf of not just James Adams but so many children throughout this country. The fact that we have delayed action on this issue, I think, is inexcusable. Now we have to act. In a way, this whole episode is like a popular film a few years ago called ``Ground Hog Day,'' where every day the character woke up, and it was the same day over and over again. It is not only the same day this year but, as I look at some of the charts on the Senate floor, it seems to be the same day 6 years ago. The same arguments were trotted out about health care reform 6 years ago, as were the same dire predictions about more and more Americans losing their coverage if we pass this legislation. We didn't pass health care reform legislation years ago. Guess what. More and more Americans have lost their insurance coverage. We can do something now--limited, purposeful, appropriate--make sure that HMOs treat people as patients, not as objects of economic profit on their balance sheet. We can do it. We should do it. Today should not be Groundhog Day. It should be D-Day. We should seize the initiative and pass this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment to authorize two rounds of base closings in the years 2003 and 2005. I commend particularly Senator McCain and Senator Levin, the prime sponsors of this legislation. We all realize that base closing is a very sensitive issue because it affects dramatically all of the communities that have military installations. My home State, as some States, has not been immune to base closings. We had a significant presence of the Navy in Narragansett Bay. That presence has been diminished over the last several years. But we still have a strong and vibrant naval presence in the form of the Naval War College, and the Naval Underseas Warfare Laboratory. All of these contribute significantly not only to our national defense but to our economy in Rhode Island. We approach this understanding that it is a very sensitive issue. But it is an issue that we must address. It is an issue that requires determination at this point so we can, indeed, free up the resources that are necessary for the modernization of our services. The reality is quite compelling that we have excess capacity in our military establishment in terms of infrastructure. We have reduced the force structure by 36 percent since 1989. Yet we only managed to reduce the infrastructure--the buildings and the facilities--by 21 percent. This mismatch is obvious. This mismatch causes us to continue to spend in maintenance and operational expenses hundreds of millions of dollars a year minimally for facilities that we don't need. As a result, I think we have to recognize that we should authorize another round of base closings. The Department of Defense estimates they are maintaining 23 percent of excess infrastructure which is sapping resources that they could use for a host of critical needs--modernization, training, and quality of life for servicemen and servicewomen throughout our military. Indeed, we hear so often that one of the persistent complaints is that Government should be as business; that Government should be run as efficiently as business. No business would suggest that it reduce its personnel dramatically and not make comparable reductions in the infrastructure and the facilities that have been in place for more than 50 years, in many cases. We still have the residue of the World War II buildup. There were so many posts put up because we had to at that point train millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and coastguardsmen to staff an Army that was many, many times larger than it is today and a Navy that was comparably larger. Yet those facilities are still on our rolls because we had been unable to effectively initiate base-closing rounds after our first few rounds. We know that the base-closing process yields savings. It has been estimated by the Department of Defense that past closures will produce net savings of about $14 billion by the end of the fiscal year 2001, and they estimate annual savings thereafter will be about $5.7 billion. This is the result of decisions we already made, base-closing rounds that have already taken place, and the bases that have already been closed. That is a lot of money, particularly as we all are concerned about additional resources for defense. Another way to look at that is to consider how much more difficult it would be to buy new platforms, to provide pay increases, and to enhance the quality of life through improved houses and through improved health care if we were still maintaining and spending billions of dollars on these facilities that have been closed. The Department of Defense estimates that two additional rounds of base closings would generate annual savings of about $23 billion after they are implemented. Again, those are significant resources that can be used for programs that we consider to be critical to the defense of the Nation and the well-being of our men and women in uniform. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the GAO agree that the Department of Defense continues to maintain excess capacity and that base closings will result in substantial savings. These are objective analyses of the current situation with respect to bases in our country. The argument has been made that, well, we go out and we close these bases, and all of the savings are just eaten up by environmental remediation. I remind everyone that the requirement to remediate the environment is not a function of closing the bases. It is an ongoing responsibility of the Department of Defense. It is mandated regardless of whether a base remains open or closed. It is part of our lore. The Defense Department, as every other Federal entity and private entity, has responsibilities to restore degraded environment. What happens in a base closing is, as part of the process not only to close the base but also to make the base useful for civilian pursuits and community economic development, this environmental cleanup is accelerated. One could argue that accelerated environmental cleanup simply discharges a duty that already exists and also, importantly, makes these facilities much more amenable to economic development and private benefit for the local communities, which is a plus, not a minus. The issue before the Senate should be addressed, as we so often address it, in the context of advice we have received from individuals charged with the administration of our military policy. The Secretary of Defense, the service secretaries, and many others have commented upon the desirability of the additional base closing rounds. In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee on February 8 of this year, General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs stated: We continue to have excess infrastructure, and any funds applied toward maintaining unneeded facilities diminish our capacity to redirect those funds towards higher priority modernization programs. At the same hearing, Secretary of Defense Cohen requested funding to implement two more BRAC rounds, so that: scarce defense dollars will not continue to be spent on excess infrastructure; rather, on the vital needs of our Armed Forces. Some of my colleagues argue that the base-closing process is appropriate, the need is there, but the base-closing process in 1994 was politically tainted; that politics and not sound defense policy dictated what would stay open, what would be closed, and the schedule for closures. This amendment clearly obviates the potential for that by declaring that the base-closing rounds will take place in the year 2003 and in 2005. There will be a new administration. Any aspersions to the operations of this administration should have no effect whatever when we consider the legislation included in this amendment. I believe we can go forward with the notion that if we act today, we will have a much firmer picture of our strategic challenges, our strategic posture by the year 2003, so that we will in fact be anticipating those strategic decisions by giving our military leaders, both civilian and military, the tools to implement their concepts to meet the new challenges, the new threats we see all around the world. This issue, as I said, is difficult. It impinges on the communities we all represent. Anytime we authorize a base closing round, essentially we put all of our facilities in play. We all run the risk of losing a facility which is a vital part of our community, disrupting our community. But that is the very narrow view, a very parochial view. The broader national view is that we need to eliminate the excess capacity. We need to free up resources for higher priority initiatives of the Department of Defense. We need, also, to move away from this essentially still World War II infrastructure to a much more reduced but more efficient logistical and facility base for the future of this new century. Until we are able to eliminate some of these older posts, some of these posts that were designed for and that were extremely important in World War II and throughout the cold war years, we will not have the resource to do what we have to do to face the future. I suggest we adopt this amendment because it gives us the ability to fund higher priority functions. It gives us the ability to eliminate unnecessary facilities. We simply can't have it both ways. We can't continue to argue for modernization, for enhancement of the quality of life for our troops, for additional training dollars, and still cling to facilitates that are not needed, still insist that we maintain a World War II and cold war infrastructure as we face the challenges of this new century. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, give our defense leaders the tools to reduce their overhead as they have reduced the force structure, so that we have a more efficient, more effective military force for this new century. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I seek to be recognized under the time of Senator McCain.