Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks made by Chairman Shelby. I think they are right on point. I want to stress again to my colleagues, as I understand it, the highway bill was brought out of the Environment and Public Works Committee with an overwhelming vote, almost unanimous but not quite. I think there were two exceptions, but otherwise all members of that committee on both sides of the aisle were supportive of this legislation. The transit part that is being offered as a title or an amendment to the highway bill came out of the Banking Committee with a unanimous vote. I think this reflects the fact that in both venues, both forums, a major effort was made over a sustained period of time to address the problems Members confronted and to try to develop a formula, an allocation, and other provisions of the legislation that would be responsive to their needs. So I say to my colleagues, this is legislation that has been very carefully developed. It has been worked over and over and I think it is a very good product. I think it has struck a very good balance. I think it contains within it a vision for the country. There is a clamor across the country for this legislation on the part of the public and on the part of all of the stakeholders who deal with these issues. State governments, local governments, the various highway and transit groups, business interests, labor interests, are all strongly supportive of this legislation. The reason they are so strongly supportive is because they recognize this legislation is critical to moving the Nation ahead. It is essential for the economy. It is essential for enhancing the quality of life. People are spending hours trying to get to and from work and we need to help address that issue. Seniors, young people, and the disabled need these various forms of transportation in order to live their lives. I strongly commend this legislation to my colleagues. A great deal of work has gone into it by many Members of this body. I think it is very important that we move this legislation forward and over the next few days to come, I hope we will be able to accomplish that and put into place this extremely important legislation. Actually, in one of the statements of the majority leader he indicated he thought this might well be the most important legislation to be considered by this body in this session of the Congress. I do not think that is an overstatement and I again commend this legislation to my colleagues. I thank Chairman Shelby for the very productive, positive, and cooperative way in which he worked on this legislation and I join with him in commending Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords for the very fine work that was done in the Environment and Public Works Committee and Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their efforts in the Finance Committee that, in effect, developed a full package that will make this legislation work. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to bolster efforts to restore the Anacostia River. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are my colleagues Senators Landrieu, Mikulski and Allen. A companion bill has also been introduced in the House, sponsored by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton and other members of the Washington metropolitan area Congressional Delegation. Mr. President, the Anacostia River is a resource rich in history and with tremendous natural resources and recreational potential. It is homes to 43 species of fish, some 200 species of birds, as well as more than 800,000 people whose neighborhoods border the watershed. Flowing through Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland and emptying into the Potomac at the District of Columbia, the watershed consists of a 176-square-mile drainage area. One of the most urbanized watersheds in the United States, the Anacostia suffers a series of problems including trash, toxic pollution from urban runoff, sewage pollution from leaking sewer lines and combined sewer overflows, sediment pollution from erosion, and loss of fish and wildlife and recreational resources. It is a resource that has long been abused and neglected, but one that, in my view, can and must be protected and restored. Efforts to begin rejuvenating the Anacostia watershed began formally in 1987 when the State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and the District of Columbia signed an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement. The agreement authorized the Washington Area Council of Governments, COG, to manage the restoration program and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to protect the resources and facilitate public participation. COG created an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, AWRC, to coordinate and implement restoration projects throughout the watershed. Since that time, local, State, and Federal Government agencies, as well as the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Anacostia Citizens Advisory Committee and other environmental organizations and dedicated private citizens have contributed significant resources toward re-establishing the Anacostia watershed ecosystem. Thanks to this cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local and private effort, we are beginning to make some progress in restoring the watershed. A Six Point Action Plan was signed in 1991 setting ambitious and broad-reaching goals for the river's restoration. In 1993 we celebrated the successful restoration of 32 acres of emergent tidal wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers at Kenilworth marsh. The project has shown significant results in improving tidal water flow through the marsh, and reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the area and demonstrates what can be achieved in urban river restoration. There have been other success stories as well in urban stream restoration in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, removing barriers to fish passage and reforestation efforts throughout the watershed, to name only a few. In 1999, a new Anacostia Watershed Agreement was signed to strengthen the regional governmental commitment to Anacostia restoration. There are today more than 60 local, State and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration. And more than $100 million has been spent cleaning up the river. There is clearly much for which we can all be proud. But the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The Anacostia is still one of North America's most endangered and threatened rivers. It is designated one of three ``regions of concern'' for toxics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The legislation which we are introducing authorizes more than $200 million in Federal assistance over the next 10 years to restore the Anacostia. Of these funds, $170 million is authorized to address the biggest pollution problems in the watershed--stormwater runoff and failing wastewater infrastructure. As the builder of much of the original infrastructure and a major user, the Federal Government has an important responsibility to help stem the flow of this pollution and comply with the Clean Water Act. The remaining funds will allow the administrator of EPA, working together with an ``Anacostia Watershed Council'' of State and local officials, to develop a comprehensive environmental protection and resource management plan for the watershed, for several Federal agencies to join in the implementation of the plan. Mr. President, the Anacostia River suffers from centuries of impacts and changes. Once a healthy, thriving river, it is today severely degraded. This legislation is urgently needed if we are to achieve the goal of making the Anacostia and its tributaries swimmable and fishable again. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure and ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to bolster efforts to restore the Anacostia River. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are my colleagues Senators Landrieu, Mikulski and Allen. A companion bill has also been introduced in the House, sponsored by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton and other members of the Washington metropolitan area Congressional Delegation. Mr. President, the Anacostia River is a resource rich in history and with tremendous natural resources and recreational potential. It is homes to 43 species of fish, some 200 species of birds, as well as more than 800,000 people whose neighborhoods border the watershed. Flowing through Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland and emptying into the Potomac at the District of Columbia, the watershed consists of a 176-square-mile drainage area. One of the most urbanized watersheds in the United States, the Anacostia suffers a series of problems including trash, toxic pollution from urban runoff, sewage pollution from leaking sewer lines and combined sewer overflows, sediment pollution from erosion, and loss of fish and wildlife and recreational resources. It is a resource that has long been abused and neglected, but one that, in my view, can and must be protected and restored. Efforts to begin rejuvenating the Anacostia watershed began formally in 1987 when the State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and the District of Columbia signed an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement. The agreement authorized the Washington Area Council of Governments, COG, to manage the restoration program and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to protect the resources and facilitate public participation. COG created an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, AWRC, to coordinate and implement restoration projects throughout the watershed. Since that time, local, State, and Federal Government agencies, as well as the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Anacostia Citizens Advisory Committee and other environmental organizations and dedicated private citizens have contributed significant resources toward re-establishing the Anacostia watershed ecosystem. Thanks to this cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local and private effort, we are beginning to make some progress in restoring the watershed. A Six Point Action Plan was signed in 1991 setting ambitious and broad-reaching goals for the river's restoration. In 1993 we celebrated the successful restoration of 32 acres of emergent tidal wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers at Kenilworth marsh. The project has shown significant results in improving tidal water flow through the marsh, and reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the area and demonstrates what can be achieved in urban river restoration. There have been other success stories as well in urban stream restoration in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, removing barriers to fish passage and reforestation efforts throughout the watershed, to name only a few. In 1999, a new Anacostia Watershed Agreement was signed to strengthen the regional governmental commitment to Anacostia restoration. There are today more than 60 local, State and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration. And more than $100 million has been spent cleaning up the river. There is clearly much for which we can all be proud. But the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The Anacostia is still one of North America's most endangered and threatened rivers. It is designated one of three ``regions of concern'' for toxics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The legislation which we are introducing authorizes more than $200 million in Federal assistance over the next 10 years to restore the Anacostia. Of these funds, $170 million is authorized to address the biggest pollution problems in the watershed--stormwater runoff and failing wastewater infrastructure. As the builder of much of the original infrastructure and a major user, the Federal Government has an important responsibility to help stem the flow of this pollution and comply with the Clean Water Act. The remaining funds will allow the administrator of EPA, working together with an ``Anacostia Watershed Council'' of State and local officials, to develop a comprehensive environmental protection and resource management plan for the watershed, for several Federal agencies to join in the implementation of the plan. Mr. President, the Anacostia River suffers from centuries of impacts and changes. Once a healthy, thriving river, it is today severely degraded. This legislation is urgently needed if we are to achieve the goal of making the Anacostia and its tributaries swimmable and fishable again. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure and ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I cannot support the Medicare prescription drug conference report before us. I share in the disappointment of the many seniors, advocacy groups, providers, and colleagues in Congress who have fought so long to provide Medicare beneficiaries with prescription drug coverage. Drug coverage should be an integral part of any meaningful health care insurance and it is certain that if Medicare were created today, no one would imagine excluding drug coverage. Unfortunately, the bill before us now has wasted an opportunity to give Medicare beneficiaries the affordable and comprehensive coverage they deserve. The conference report provides inadequate coverage while at the same time undermining Medicare, a program that has served our seniors for over 37 years. Under this bill, Medicare beneficiaries will pay an estimated premium of $35 per month although that premium level is not guaranteed and it could be higher. After meeting a $250 annual deductible, 75 percent of a beneficiary's drug costs are covered up to $2,250. A beneficiary receives no coverage for drug costs between $2,251 and $3,600, though they are still required to continue paying monthly premiums during this coverage gap. Once drug costs exceed $3,600, the drug plan would cover 95 percent of a Medicare beneficiary's drug expenses. This drug benefit is insufficient and much less than many retirees receive through existing coverage. Those opposed to offering a more substantial prescription drug benefit claimed there are insufficient resources to pay for it. This argument comes from the very people who have pushed through the Congress tax-cut programs that tilt heavily in favor of the wealthy. Over the last several years, the administration has squandered a surplus and left the Nation facing a deficit already approaching half a trillion dollars. These valuable resources could have been used to provide our Nation's seniors the real drug coverage they deserve. During consideration of the Senate bill, we missed an opportunity to provide Medicare beneficiaries with a substantial, reliable and straightforward prescription drug benefit. I cosponsored and voted for an amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. His alternative would have provided a Medicare-delivered drug benefit that would have allowed the Medicare program to employ negotiating strategies used by the Veterans Administration--VA--and other government entities to bring down drug prices. Senator Durbin's plan would have begun as soon as practicable, unlike this legislation that leaves beneficiaries waiting until 2006 for the drug benefit to begin. Under Senator Durbin's plan, seniors would have not paid a deductible, would have paid 30 percent of costs, and would have no coverage gap. Once drug costs reach $5,000, 90 percent of their costs would be covered. In addition, employer contributions would count toward out-of-pocket limits so there would be much less risk of employers dropping retiree coverage. This was the proposal we should be acting on today. As I emphasized during debate on the conference report, this bill contains a number of provisions that would undermine Medicare. For the first time in history, Medicare beneficiaries will pay more for their Part B premiums based on their income, thereby eroding the universal nature of the program. Medicare enjoys widespread support since everyone pays the same monthly premium for the same service, thereby giving us a social insurance program in which everyone has an equal stake. The bill before us does not deal effectively with the rising costs of drugs. This legislation does not allow the Federal government to bring its weight to bear to lower drug costs. Medicare is not allowed to bargain on behalf of the millions of beneficiaries who would receive drug benefits. We know that drugs purchased through the VA program cost substantially less than those purchased at retail value. Furthermore, under this bill drug reimportation is completely at the discretion of the Administration. This is the same Administration that has repeatedly expressed its opposition against drug reimportation even if safeguards can be taken to ensure the safety of the reimported drugs. This bill has the serious potential to cause a number of retirees to lose existing employer-sponsored prescription drug coverage. CBO estimates that 2.7 million retirees would lose existing coverage. This is an unacceptable consequence of legislation that is supposed to make life better for seniors. This serious deficiency has prompted many constituents to call my office to express concern about this bill. Congress began this debate focused on the best way to provide Medicare beneficiaries drug coverage and efforts to keep those drugs affordable. We now have legislation before us in which the drug benefit appears to be an afterthought. I think a deeply troubling aspect of the bill is that it takes steps toward privatizing Medicare. This legislation relies on private plans to deliver the drug benefit; seniors could be forced to shift from plan-to-plan, year-to-year as they did when Medicare+Choice HMOs pulled out of the Medicare program a few years ago. In my own State of Maryland, insurance companies left the Medicare program, abandoning more than 100,000 seniors. In addition, the bill includes a six-year premium-support ``demonstration project,'' which would be established in six metropolitan areas. Medicare recipients in these areas would choose between traditional Medicare and private health plans; if the cost of the selected form of coverage exceeded a benchmark level set for the area, the individual pays increased premiums to cover the difference. This bill also contains $12 billion in subsidies for private plans. This funding gives private plans an unfair advantage by enabling them to provide benefits that traditional Medicare does not cover. If private plans were more efficient than Medicare, they would not need this money to compete. This $12 billion should have been used to improve the drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, not to underwrite the private plans. The inclusion of tax savings accounts to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses further underscores how far the focus of the bill has strayed from providing Medicare beneficiaries prescription drug coverage. The bill makes health savings accounts that are currently a limited demonstration project universally available. These accounts could be used with high-deductible health policies giving healthy, affluent workers a strong incentive to opt out of comprehensive health insurance plans in favor of the new accounts. If large numbers of these workers opt out of comprehensive plans, the pool of people left in comprehensive plans would be older and sicker, causing premiums for comprehensive insurance to rise significantly. I have long been a strong supporter of providing older Americans and disabled individuals who rely on Medicare an affordable, comprehensive, reliable and voluntary prescription drug benefit. However, I want to ensure we do so in a way that does not worsen the situation in which many seniors find themselves as they face rapidly rising drug costs. As we consider proposals to expand our Nation's major health entitlement programs, it is appropriate to follow a guiding principle in the practice of medicine--do no harm. Our seniors deserve a drug benefit that is a real improvement, not a complex experiment that may cause more trouble than it's worth. We must not enact a law intended to help that might eventually harm millions. The American people deserve better.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, Saturday evening the Senate passed by voice vote the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. I want to congratulate Chairman Shelby, Chairman Oxley and Congressman Frank and all the conferees on the successful completion of the conference on this bill. This is an important piece of legislation and, as I have previously done, I want to acknowledge the thorough examination of these important issues provided by the comprehensive series of six hearings on this subject that Chairman Shelby held in the Banking Committee. The bill passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee on a voice vote on September 23, 2003 and was adopted 95-2 on the floor on November 5, 2003. These votes, I believe, are a testament to our chairman's willingness to work on a bipartisan basis. I believe the same can be said of Chairman Oxley and Congressman Frank. Their bill was voted out of the House Financial Services Committee by 63-3 on July 24, 2003, and was passed overwhelmingly on the floor 392-30 on September 10, 2003. The conference report was passed on the floor of the House on Friday night on a vote of 379-49. While there were a number of differences between the Senate and House passed versions, I think the conference successfully took many of the best provisions from each bill. Although I would have liked to have gone further in a few areas--in the affiliate sharing section to provide more protection for the financial privacy of consumers, and also in preserving the rights of States to act--I believe a good compromise was reached. Among other things, this legislation provides consumers with free credit reports annually from the national credit bureaus and provides consumers with an easy method to obtain their free credit reports, and easier access to their credit scores; requires that consumers be given a summary of their right to opt out of prescreened offers; provides for accuracy guidelines; requires financial institutions to send their customers written notice prior to submitting negative information about them to a national consumer reporting agency; lengthens the statute of limitations for all Fair Credit Reporting Act violations; extends the situations in which consumers are notified when adverse actions have been taken against them; prohibits the sale, transfer, or collection of identity theft debt, so that such bad debt will not be perpetuated in the credit system; limits the sharing of medical information in the financial system; with certain limitations, provides consumers with the right to opt out of solicitations for marketing purposes that result from affiliate information sharing; and helps enhance the financial literacy of all Americans. This legislation contains a number of important consumer protections, and I want to address some of these provisions more thoroughly. First I would like to note a significant consumer right contained in the legislation--the right to obtain a free credit report annually. This legislation will, for the first time, allow consumers to make one request, and obtain their credit report free annually from each of the national credit bureaus. Financial institutions rely heavily on credit report information to make credit decisions, and it is extremely important that consumers be aware of the information contained in their credit reports. Providing consumers with the right to obtain this important information free is a major step forward in ensuring consumers' knowledge of, and control over, their financial information. In addition to obtaining free reports, under this legislation consumers will be informed when negative information is added to their credit reports. This important provision, combined with the consumer's right to a free report, will help improve Americans' access to and understanding of information contained in their credit reports. This legislation will also help ensure that consumers are aware of how to opt out of the prescreening process which results in many of the unsolicited offers of credit that consumers receive in the mail. Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies may generate for creditors prescreened lists of individuals with certain characteristics to be targeted to receive a direct mailing. The success of the FTC's ``Do- Not-Call'' Registry has highlighted Americans' frustration with unsolicited telephone offers. Under this legislation, creditors making such unsolicited offers of credit to consumers by mail will be required to include a summary of consumers' right to opt-out of prescreening in their offers to consumers. The FTC in consultation with the banking agencies and the National Credit Union Association will be required to write rules on the size and prominence of the disclosure of the opt-out telephone number that is included with offers of credit to consumers. In order to ensure that consumers are aware of the many rights provided for them under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, this bill directs the FTC to undertake an educational campaign. The FTC is directed to actively publicize, and conspicuously post on its website, a number of important FCRA consumer rights. Among these are the right to obtain free credit reports annually, and other circumstances in which consumers may obtain free credit reports; the right of a consumer to dispute information in his or her credit report; the consumer's right to obtain a credit score from a consumer reporting agency, and a description of how to obtain a credit score; and the consumer's right to opt out of prescreened lists, and the toll-free telephone number maintained by the national credit bureaus by which consumers may opt out. This FTC campaign will help ensure that Americans are informed of their rights under the FCRA, including the new rights afforded to them by this Act. This legislation will also add a new provision to the FCRA that would provide consumers with a notice when they receive less favorable credit terms, based on their credit report. Receiving the notice would trigger the consumer's right to examine his or her credit report free of charge. Although the new provision would give the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board broad authority to make rules regarding the form and content of the notice and when it should be delivered, the notice, by its very logic, must be given after the terms of the offer have been set based on whole or in part on the credit report. The notice should be provided as early as practicable in the transaction after the terms have been set. This legislation will also benefit consumers by requiring Federal agencies to provide greater oversight of the accuracy and integrity of credit reports. Under this act, Federal banking regulators and the Federal Trade Commission will, for the first time, establish and maintain guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of information provided by data furnishers to credit reporting agencies. The Act also requires these agencies to prescribe regulations requiring creditors and other furnishers of information to credit bureaus to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing these guidelines. For the purposes of this section, ``accuracy'' relates to whether the information that is provided by data furnishers to credit reporting agencies is factually correct. The term ``integrity'' relates to whether all relevant information that is used to assess credit risk and to grant credit is accurately provided. Integrity of information is not achieved when furnishers do not fully provide data that, by its absence, could have a positive or negative effect on a consumer's credit score, or on his or her ability to obtain credit under the most favorable terms for which he or she qualifies. The bill also contains important provisions relating to financial companies' ability to market to their customers based on private financial information of the customers that has been shared among affiliates. For the first time, the bill will require affiliates who share customer information to make solicitations for marketing purposes to disclose this sharing to consumers, and to provide consumers with an opportunity to opt out of marketing resulting from such sharing. Exceptions are provided for pre-existing customers, solicitations based on existing shared data, solicitations contracted for by employers, compliance with State insurance laws, service providers, and responding to consumer requests. In addition to providing an opt-out of marketing based on affiliate sharing, this legislation helps protect consumers' private financial information by including a number of important identity theft prevention and protection provisions. I want particularly to note Senator Cantwell's leadership in the area of identity theft. Senator Cantwell's identity theft legislation passed on the floor of the Senate last year, and several of the provisions from her bill have been incorporated in the FACT Act, including an extension of the statute of limitations, provisions allowing consumers to block identity theft information from appearing on their credit reports, and a provision allowing consumers to obtain copies of business records reflecting any transactions that have been carried out in their name by identity thieves. I believe that these provisions will be beneficial to identity theft victims, and I want to commend Senator Cantwell's leadership in this area along with that of Senators Enzi and Feinstein. After careful consideration by the conferees, the conference report provides for preemption of the States with respect to conduct required by specific listed provisions of the Act on identity theft. This narrowly focused preemption will leave States free to supplement these protections and to develop additional approaches and solutions to identity theft. I would also like to highlight the important steps this legislation takes to improve the financial literacy of consumers by establishing a Financial Literacy and Education Commission which will coordinate promotion of Federal financial literacy efforts, and will develop a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education. I want to commend Senators Enzi and Stabenow, along with Senators Corzine, Akaka and others, for their leadership in the Senate in this area. The House had a strong interest in the development of this title, and added, among other provisions, an authorization of $3 million dollars for the development of a national public service multimedia campaign that will be consistent with the national strategy. In closing, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the outstanding work done by the staff of the Committee on this legislation. On my staff, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the work done by Lynsey Graham as well as Dean Shahinian, Aaron Klein, Marty Gruenberg and Steve Harris. It was a pleasure working with the staff of Chairman Shelby who are to be congratulated for their outstanding work. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Mark Oesterle, Doug Nappi and Chairman Shelby's staff director, Kathy Casey. I would also like to thank Laura Ayoud from Senate Legislative Counsel, who has worked tirelessly and, as always, effectively, to put this package together. I would also like to acknowledge the vital role played in developing this legislation by all of our Senate conferees: Senators Bennett, Allard, Enzi, Dodd and Johnson, and in particular by the Chairman, Senator Shelby.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, we spend a lot of time talking about homeownership, both in the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and back in our States. I want to spend just a moment reminding everyone why some of us put so much effort into achieving this very important goal for so may American families. Homeownership is an asset-building engine for families and neighborhoods, indeed for society as a whole. When a family buys a home, they are buying more than bricks and mortar. They are buying into a community. With each homeowner, we create another anchor in a neighborhood, another advocate for better schools, safer streets, and small business development. Expanding homeownership, particularly in struggling areas, will help replace the vicious cycle of decline that we see in some neighborhoods with a virtuous cycle of wealth accumulation and economic growth. Once you own a home, you are able to build equity, equity that can be used to send your children to college, finance your retirement, and serve as a needed reserve to protect against emergencies. Increasing homeownership, and especially minority homeownership, has long been a national goal. In fact, the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard points out that the 1990s was a period of significant growth in minority homeownership and in mortgage lending to minorities. Unfortunately, over the last few years, we have seen that progress level off as the economy has cooled down. Today, we bring before the Senate S. 811, the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act, originally introduced by my colleague on the Banking Committee, Senator Allard. This bill authorizes $200 million for a downpayment assistance program targeted to first time, low-income homebuyers. I support this legislation, and I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Colorado, as well as Chairman Shelby. I also note that the bill includes important provisions to expand the supply of affordable rental housing. Senator Corzine amended the bill to raise the FHA multifamily loan limits to account for the rising costs of producing rental housing. This amendment will facilitate the annual construction of up to 6,000 units of multifamily housing affordable to working families around the country. This is an important contribution to the legislation we are considering. Likewise, Senator Johnson has contributed a provision to make the FHA single family adjustable rate mortgage, ARMs, insurance program more effective. ARMs are an important tool in helping families achieve homeownership, and the Johnson amendment will be a welcome addition to the FHA program. Finally, I would like to thank Senator Stabenow for bringing to the attention of the committee the special needs of a growing segment of our population, families headed by grandparents. The legislation includes an amendment that will create a demonstration program to examine how existing HUD programs can better serve these families. It also requires HUD to study ways in which barriers to existing programs for these families may be reduced. Again, I want to thank Chairman Shelby, as well as Senators Allard and Reed, chair and ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, for all their work on this legislation and for their willingness to work in a bipartisan way to produce a good final product. I also want to thank Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, and the other members of the House Financial Services Committee for their contributions to this process and this product. I support passage of the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act and urge it passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. So that $16 billion could have been taken and put directly to improve the benefit for our seniors, could it not?

Mr. SARBANES. I listened to the able Senator from Illinois with great pleasure because I strongly share his feeling and views about Senator Byrd. I took the floor for a brief moment to underscore the extraordinary contribution that Senator Byrd has been making to the national debate in the recent period on issues of critical national importance. He has taken to the floor time and time again and spoken with a clear strong voice. He has sounded a clarion call to the country. I know from people I talk to that voice is reaching into many corners across the land and prompting Americans to think deeply about the issues that confront the Nation, and even more deeply and fundamental about how we go about conducting our business and making these decisions. The vote last night in the House of Representatives was held over for 3 hours in order for the Republican leadership to twist arms in order to change the outcome, which was already up on the board, where they had lost by two votes. That rollcall vote was held open indefinitely. My able colleague from Maryland, Congressman Hoyer, remarked afterwards, it would be as though you had election day, the time came for the polls to close, and you held the polls open for another 15 hours while you went out and somehow found the votes to assure you the result. It is an abuse of the democratic process. The Senator from West Virginia has always spoken. He sounded a loud trumpet about our Nation. We are deeply in debt to him and appreciate that.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. SARBANES. Am I correct in my understanding that under this bill, the Government, through Medicare, could not, in fact, bring its weight to bear in order to lower the cost of prescription drugs through a buying program, where they are a heavyweight in the scale-- that the bill actually precludes that from happening?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. In addition to precluding the Government from bringing its weight to bear in purchasing in order to lower the cost of drugs because they would be a very big purchaser and obviously they would have an impact, some have said: Well, let's at least allow for the reimportation of drugs from other countries, particularly Canada. Some of our people have been going to Canada in order to get their prescription drugs. They cross the border, and they can buy them at 40, 50, 60 percent less than they pay in this country. So there were provisions that passed to allow reimportation. Am I correct that, in effect, this bill eliminates that?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield on that point, in confirmation of the Senator's analysis, the markets, in the last few days, have been boosting the price of the stocks of the pharmaceutical companies. The perception in the capital markets of the smart money people is that this legislation is going to significantly benefit the pharmaceutical companies, and they are building up the stock prices, which only goes to confirm and corroborate the analysis the Senator from Illinois has made on this issue.

Mr. SARBANES. Also $6 billion--

Mr. SARBANES. As I perceive it, all of these things that are being done--the HMOs, the medical accounts, the limitation on Medicare being able to act directly, and so forth--if this stack of papers on the desk represents the Medicare Program itself, they are circling around it to undermine and undercut it. This bill has taken on an added fundamental dimension. So as we look at this bill, we have to look at not only its shortcomings in adding prescription drugs to the Medicare Program, but we have to perceive that built into the bill are a number of efforts being put into place that will undercut the Medicare Program itself. Is that a reasonable view of the potential of this legislation?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for one final question?

Mr. SARBANES. I hate to intrude on his time, but this is a very important point. With this legislation, the pharmaceutical companies have, in effect, slowed the ability of generic drugs to come to market, which would be one source of competition that would lower their prices. The reimportation provisions have been written in such a way that it is completely in the hands of the administration whether reimportation of drugs, say, from Canada is allowed. The administration has been very clear that they are opposed to doing that. The legislation also, in effect, knocks out the Government from being a direct purchaser and controlling the prices. Every source that potentially could exercise some pressure or influence on the pharmaceutical companies to lower or restrain their prices is being blocked out by this legislation. So the end result is that it is an absolute bonanza for the drug companies. Would you say that is a reasonable perception of what this legislation does?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator made reference to a better bill. The very able Senator from Illinois, in the course of debate in the Senate, offered a better bill, which I was very pleased to support. That bill would have been a very significant and substantial step forward. Among other things, it did not have this ``donut'' in coverage that is in this bill. As I understand this bill, at a certain point--I think $22.50 in drug cost--and beyond that, up to $3,600, the burden falls back on individuals; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. In the Senator's bill that didn't happen; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator further yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. I also understand there was an effort to clear the path for generic drugs to become available. Of course, generic drugs sell at a lesser cost than brand name drugs. A lot of the pharmaceutical people are opposed to that. It is also my understanding that this bill fails to carry through on the efforts to make it easy to bring generic drugs to market. Am I correct in that respect?

Mr. SARBANES. Is that per year?