Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to send an amendment to the desk and have it immediately considered. This amendment makes two simple changes to the bill. One is a technical change to conform to the budget rules, and a conforming change involving the definition of ``issuers.'' We have discussed this. It has been cleared. I would like to go ahead and take care of that business, if I could.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. In the Chesapeake Bay region, the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the Mayor of the District of Columbia have recognized the importance of engaging students in the protection of the Chesapeake Bay. The States have each enacted legislation to integrate environmental standards into the curriculum for particular grade levels. As signatories to the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, they have also committed to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. Likewise, several not-for-profit organizations including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Living Classrooms Foundation have spearheaded efforts to create long-term, cohesive education programs focused on the local environment. They have developed terrific partnerships with schools and are helping teachers develop and implement quality instruction, investigations and Bay or stream-side projects. Unfortunately, all these efforts and programs are only reaching a very small percentage of the more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed. Classroom environmental instruction across grade levels is sporadic and inconsistent, at best, and relatively few students have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing them to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs. In 1970, the Congress enacted the first Environmental Education act to authorize the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish programs to support environmental education at the elementary and secondary levels and in communities. In its statement of findings and purposes, the Congress found ``that the deterioration of the quality of the Nation's environment and of its ecological balance is in part due to poor understanding by citizens of the Nation's environment and of the need for ecological balance; that presently there do not exist adequate resources for educating citizens in these areas, and that concerted efforts on educating citizens about environmental quality and ecological balance are therefore necessary.'' Grants for curriculum development, teacher training, and community demonstration projects were made available for several years under this Act, but the program expired and was not reauthorized. In 1990, the Congress enacted the National Environmental Education Act to renew the federal role in environmental education. The Congress, once again found that ``current Federal efforts to inform and educate the public concerning the natural and built environment and environmental problems are not adequate.'' Today, 32 years after the first Environmental Education Act was first authorized, those findings are still true. Last year, nationwide funding for the National Environmental Education Act administered by EPA was only $7.3 million. That averages to a little more than $140,000 for each of the 50 States, a sum that is totally inadequate for schools to incorporate environmental education as part of the K-12 curriculum. The legislation which I am introducing would authorize $6 million a year over the next three years in federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement a similar initiative that I sponsored last year within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is providing $1.2 million to support environmental education in the Chesapeake watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Program has pioneered many of the Nation's most innovative environmental protection and restoration initiatives. It has been a leader in establishing a large volunteer monitoring program; implementing pollution control programs such as the ban on phosphate detergents and voluntary nutrient reduction goals; and conducting an extensive habitat restoration program including the opening of hundreds of miles of prime spawning habitat to migratory fish. It is an ideal proving ground for demonstrating that strong and consistent support for enviornmetnal education, using the Chesapeake Bay and local environment as the primary instructional focus, will lead not only to a healthier, enduring watershed, but a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding and appreciation for the environment, their community and their role in society as responsible citizens.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish an environmental education program for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This measure would provide grant assistance to elementary and secondary schools, school districts and not-for-profit environmental education organizations in the six-state watershed to support teacher training, curriculum development, classroom education and meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experiences. It would also enable the U.S. Department of Education to become an active partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program. Joining me as co-sponsors of this legislation are my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Allen. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education, to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and citizenship among the nearly 16 million people who live in the watershed, is necessary if all of the other efforts to ``Save the Bay'' are to succeed. The ultimate responsibility for the protection and restoration of Chesapeake Bay is dependent upon the individual and collective actions of this and future generations. As population growth and development continue to place enormous pressures on the Chesapeake Bay region's natural resource base, we must learn how to minimize the impacts that we are having on the Bay. Our future depends upon our ability to use the Bay's resources in a sustainable manner. This is as much a civic responsibility as voting. Developing an environmentally literate citizenry that has the skills and knowledge to make well-informed choices and to exercise the rights and responsibilities as members of a community is clearly one of the best ways to raise generations who can be contributors to a healthy and enduring watershed. In my judgment, this can best be accomplished by expanding assistance for environmental education and training programs in the K-12 levels. In addition to stewardship, there are other dimensions to expanding environmental education opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay region that are equally compelling. A number of recent studies have found that environmental education also enhances student achievement, critical thinking and basic life skills. A 1998 report by the State Education and Environment Roundtable, perhaps the most comprehensive study to date, documents how 40 schools in 12 States, including three schools in Maryland and four schools in Pennsylvania, achieved remarkable academic, attitudinal and behavioral results by using the environment as an integrating strategy for learning across all subject areas. According to the study, students performed better in science, social studies, math and reading. Classroom discipline problems declined and students demonstrated increased engagement and enthusiasm in learning in an environment-based context. Moreover, students' creative thinking, decision-making and interpersonal skills were enhanced by environment- based learning. The report is replete with success stories, but I will just cite two examples from schools in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. According to the report, students in the 4th grade at Hollywood Elementary School in Maryland scored 27 percent higher on the Maryland State Performance and Assessment Program test than at other schools in their county and 43 percent higher than the State as a whole after the school implemented the environmental based education program. The study also found behavior improvements and reduced discipline problems for 6th graders participating in the STREAMS program at Huntingdon Area Middle School in Pennsylvania compared to students not involved in the program. I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from this study regarding these two schools be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. In the Chesapeake Bay region, the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the Mayor of the District of Columbia have recognized the importance of engaging students in the protection of the Chesapeake Bay. The States have each enacted legislation to integrate environmental standards into the curriculum for particular grade levels. As signatories to the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, they have also committed to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. Likewise, several not-for-profit organizations including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Living Classrooms Foundation have spearheaded efforts to create long-term, cohesive education programs focused on the local environment. They have developed terrific partnerships with schools and are helping teachers develop and implement quality instruction, investigations and Bay or stream-side projects. Unfortunately, all these efforts and programs are only reaching a very small percentage of the more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed. Classroom environmental instruction across grade levels is sporadic and inconsistent, at best, and relatively few students have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing them to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs. In 1970, the Congress enacted the first Environmental Education act to authorize the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish programs to support environmental education at the elementary and secondary levels and in communities. In its statement of findings and purposes, the Congress found ``that the deterioration of the quality of the Nation's environment and of its ecological balance is in part due to poor understanding by citizens of the Nation's environment and of the need for ecological balance; that presently there do not exist adequate resources for educating citizens in these areas, and that concerted efforts on educating citizens about environmental quality and ecological balance are therefore necessary.'' Grants for curriculum development, teacher training, and community demonstration projects were made available for several years under this Act, but the program expired and was not reauthorized. In 1990, the Congress enacted the National Environmental Education Act to renew the federal role in environmental education. The Congress, once again found that ``current Federal efforts to inform and educate the public concerning the natural and built environment and environmental problems are not adequate.'' Today, 32 years after the first Environmental Education Act was first authorized, those findings are still true. Last year, nationwide funding for the National Environmental Education Act administered by EPA was only $7.3 million. That averages to a little more than $140,000 for each of the 50 States, a sum that is totally inadequate for schools to incorporate environmental education as part of the K-12 curriculum. The legislation which I am introducing would authorize $6 million a year over the next three years in federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement a similar initiative that I sponsored last year within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is providing $1.2 million to support environmental education in the Chesapeake watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Program has pioneered many of the Nation's most innovative environmental protection and restoration initiatives. It has been a leader in establishing a large volunteer monitoring program; implementing pollution control programs such as the ban on phosphate detergents and voluntary nutrient reduction goals; and conducting an extensive habitat restoration program including the opening of hundreds of miles of prime spawning habitat to migratory fish. It is an ideal proving ground for demonstrating that strong and consistent support for enviornmetnal education, using the Chesapeake Bay and local environment as the primary instructional focus, will lead not only to a healthier, enduring watershed, but a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding and appreciation for the environment, their community and their role in society as responsible citizens.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish an environmental education program for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This measure would provide grant assistance to elementary and secondary schools, school districts and not-for-profit environmental education organizations in the six-state watershed to support teacher training, curriculum development, classroom education and meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experiences. It would also enable the U.S. Department of Education to become an active partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program. Joining me as co-sponsors of this legislation are my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Allen. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education, to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and citizenship among the nearly 16 million people who live in the watershed, is necessary if all of the other efforts to ``Save the Bay'' are to succeed. The ultimate responsibility for the protection and restoration of Chesapeake Bay is dependent upon the individual and collective actions of this and future generations. As population growth and development continue to place enormous pressures on the Chesapeake Bay region's natural resource base, we must learn how to minimize the impacts that we are having on the Bay. Our future depends upon our ability to use the Bay's resources in a sustainable manner. This is as much a civic responsibility as voting. Developing an environmentally literate citizenry that has the skills and knowledge to make well-informed choices and to exercise the rights and responsibilities as members of a community is clearly one of the best ways to raise generations who can be contributors to a healthy and enduring watershed. In my judgment, this can best be accomplished by expanding assistance for environmental education and training programs in the K-12 levels. In addition to stewardship, there are other dimensions to expanding environmental education opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay region that are equally compelling. A number of recent studies have found that environmental education also enhances student achievement, critical thinking and basic life skills. A 1998 report by the State Education and Environment Roundtable, perhaps the most comprehensive study to date, documents how 40 schools in 12 States, including three schools in Maryland and four schools in Pennsylvania, achieved remarkable academic, attitudinal and behavioral results by using the environment as an integrating strategy for learning across all subject areas. According to the study, students performed better in science, social studies, math and reading. Classroom discipline problems declined and students demonstrated increased engagement and enthusiasm in learning in an environment-based context. Moreover, students' creative thinking, decision-making and interpersonal skills were enhanced by environment- based learning. The report is replete with success stories, but I will just cite two examples from schools in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. According to the report, students in the 4th grade at Hollywood Elementary School in Maryland scored 27 percent higher on the Maryland State Performance and Assessment Program test than at other schools in their county and 43 percent higher than the State as a whole after the school implemented the environmental based education program. The study also found behavior improvements and reduced discipline problems for 6th graders participating in the STREAMS program at Huntingdon Area Middle School in Pennsylvania compared to students not involved in the program. I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from this study regarding these two schools be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to my colleague, Senator Dodd for his efforts to move this bill along. We have just completed the Banking Committee's markup of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002, which the committee reported favorably by a vote of 17-4. Returning to the matter pending before us, I simply want to acknowledge that the Senate has taken a considerable step forward in addressing the important issue of terrorism insurance. The discussion over the last several days has clearly illustrated the dimensions of the problem. Many insurers are excluding coverage of terrorism from the policies they write. In those cases where terrorism insurance is available, it is often unafforable, and very limited in the scope and amount of coverage. The fact that so many properties are uninsured or underinsured against the risk of terrorism could have a negative effect on our economy and our recovery if there were to be another terrorist attack. Insurance plays a vital role in our economy, by allowing businesses and property owners to spread their risks. As the U.S. General Accounting Office noted in a recent report, property owners on their own ``lack the ability to spread such risks among themselves the way insurers do.'' In the event of another attack, many properties would have to absorb any losses themselves, without the support of insurance. As a result, the GAO concluded, ``another terrorist attack similar to that experienced on September 11 could have significant economic effects on the marketplace and the public at large.'' The GAO noted that ``These effects could include bankrupticies, layoffs, and loan defaults.'' But even in the absence of another attack, the lack of insurance can hinder economic activity. In preparing its recent report, the GAO found that there are examples of ``large projects canceling or experiencing delays . . . with a lack of terrorism coverage being cited as a principal contriuting factor.'' This is a drag of economic activity that we can ill afford. Most industry observers are of the opinion that, given time, the insurance industry will develop the capacity and the experience that will allow them to underwrite the terrorist risk. However, those conditions do not exist today. In the interim, a Federal reinsurance backstop of limited duration would give the insurance markets the necessary time to stabilize. I know that there are still many steps between now and final enactment of the legislation. We look forward to continuing to work with the administration on this issue, as we have done since shortly after the attacks. Again, I want to underscore the importance of this legislation and of the actions that the Senate has taken today to move it forward.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am proud to recognize the four schools throughout Maryland that were selected as Blue Ribbon School Award winners in 2002. These schools are among only 172 schools nationwide to be honored with this award, the most prestigious national school recognition for public and private schools. According to the Department of Education, Blue Ribbon Schools have been judged to be particularly effective in meeting local, state and national goals. These schools also display the qualities that are necessary to prepare our young people for the challenges that will face our nation in the years to come. Blue Ribbon status is awarded to schools which have strong leadership; a school community with a clear vision and shared sense of mission; high-quality teaching; a challenging and up-to-date curriculum; policies and practices that ensure a safe and learning conducive environment; a solid commitment to family involvement; evidence that the school helps students achieve high standards; and a commitment to share best practices with other schools. The designation as a Blue Ribbon School is a ringing endorsement of the successful practices that enable the students of these schools to succeed and achieve. After a screening process by appropriate state and local departments, the Blue Ribbon School nominations were forwarded to the U.S. Department of Education. A panel of outstanding educators from around the country then reviewed the nominations, selected schools for site visits, and made recommendations to the Secretary of Education. Over the past few years, I have tried to visit Blue Ribbon Schools in my State and have always been delighted to witness the strong interaction between parents, teachers, and the community, a characteristic shared by all of these successful schools. As I carry out my visits, I look forward to personally congratulating the students, teachers and staff for achieving this exceptional accomplishment. The four winning Maryland schools are: Our Lady of Good Counsel, located in Montgomery County, is an outstanding example of a school willing to go to great lengths to prepare its students for higher education. Good Counsel prides itself on the quality of its academic offerings, faculty, students, and unique community spirit. In an effort to ensure all students are college- ready, Good Counsel undertook an immense mission when it established the Ryken Program: a college preparatory program for motivated students with learning disabilities. Unique to Good Counsel, compared to other private schools in the metro area, is its progressive integration of technology into the classroom, including three state-of-the-art computer labs, seven departmental technology rooms, and a laptop in each classroom. The successes that Good Counsel graduates find in college and careers attest to the school's overall excellence. Phillips School, Laurel, has been a staple of special education, providing services to students with a variety of learning, emotional, and behavioral disorders for over 30 years. Phillips School greets the challenge of teaching children with special needs with open arms, addressing not only the needs of the student, but the needs of the family as well. The Phillips staff also includes related service personnel, so that working with students is a team effort and the needs of each and every student are addressed throughout the entire school day. By providing a program of education, family support services, community education and advocacy in a supportive environment, Phillips works hard to ensure its students will be able to succeed in the next stage of life. Thomas Spriggs Wootton High, located in Montgomery County, is a public high school dedicated to college preparedness and high student motivation. Established in 1970, Wootton has a long history of excellence in academics and student participation. Wootton strives to create an exceptional learning environment supporting pride and achievement. Student involvement has been one of the primary focuses at Wootton in recent years, encouraging students not only to participate in school activities themselves, but also to lead others. Historically, 90 percent of Wootton graduates go on to attend college. This statistic is a direct reflection of the school wide dedication of Wootton staff to work with all students to support and ensure their success. As Wootton's enrollment and diversity expand, it continues its dedication to ensuring all students excel. Windsor Knolls Middle School, located in Frederick County, is a public middle school embodying a challenging, multifaceted learning community. Their strong commitment to success is easily demonstrated by student statistics, high scores on the CRES tests, Maryland Functional tests, CTBS, and MSPAP tests. However, a better understanding of the excellence at Windsor Knolls can be gained by observing students. They are consistently immersed into a world of education through programs involving cultural awareness, character education, community interaction, and many other groundbreaking programs. These techniques and outstanding dedication by the community are key to Windsor Knolls' consistent success. Again, I congratulate all of the students, teachers and parents from these outstanding schools for receiving the National Blue Ribbon School Award. It is a well-deserved tribute to their dedication and enthusiasm for learning. As the school year closes, I wish all of them an enriching and restful summer and continued success in the future.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, may I inquire how long the Senator is asking for?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator Dodd, for his leadership on this very important issue. I have joined with him in cosponsoring the legislation he has introduced, S. 2600, which is now before the body. I thank Senator Daschle and Senator Reid for moving the Senate to this issue, and we appreciate the willingness of the other side of the aisle to cooperate in that endeavor. This bill is now open to amendment, and we hope as we move forward today, in short order, that those who have amendments will be offering them and that we will be able to consider them as we address the important issue contained in the legislation. This legislation is designed to ensure the continued financial capacity of insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism. It obviously stems from the attacks of September 11 which raised a very large question about the future availability of property and casualty insurance for terrorism risk. Shortly after those attacks, the administration, interacting with the Congress, put forward certain ideas for addressing this issue, and there has been an effort to try to deal with this issue over the intervening months. It is a difficult and complex question. A number of questions have been raised with respect to it. Hearings have been held by more than one committee in the Congress on both the House and the Senate side. The Banking Committee held hearings in late October in which the witnesses who appeared acknowledged the need for legislation and agreed that the future availability and affordability of terrorism insurance would be placed in jeopardy absent congressional action. Many have outlined the potential negative consequences for the U.S. economy from the financial instability which would arise if terrorism insurance were not available. That view is reflected in the congressional findings on which the Terrorism Insurance Act rests. Let me quote briefly from those findings. It is very important to lay the basis as to why we are trying to move this legislation. I quote: Widespread financial market uncertainties have arisen following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including the absence of information from which financial institutions can make statistically valid estimates of the probability and the cost of future terrorist events and, therefore, the size, funding, and allocation of the risk of loss caused by such acts of terrorism. A decision by property and casualty insurers to deal with such uncertainties, either by terminating property and casualty coverage for losses arising from terrorist events or by radically escalating premium coverage to compensate for risks of loss that are not readily predictable, could seriously hamper ongoing and planned construction, property acquisition, and other business projects, and generate a dramatic increase in rents and otherwise suppress economic activity. The findings go on to say: The United States Government should provide temporary financial compensation to insured parties, contributing to the stabilization of the U.S. economy in a time of national crisis, while the financial services industry develops the systems, mechanisms, products, and programs necessary to create a viable financial services market for private terrorism risk insurance. That basically sets out the problem we are trying to address with this legislation. There is recent evidence that property and casualty insurers are excluding terrorism coverage from the policies they write. The U.S. General Accounting Office recently analyzed the terrorism insurance market and found that, and I quote: . . . some sectors of the economy--notably real estate and commercial lending--are beginning to experience difficulties because some properties and businesses are unable to find sufficient terrorism coverage, at any price. Furthermore, where terrorism insurance is available, it is often expensive and significantly limited in both the amount and the scope of the coverage. The consequence of all of this is that you have a number of properties currently either uninsured or underinsured. And the potential consequences of this situation, if left unaddressed, are cause for serious concern. That is why we are here today. In the event of another attack, a widespread lack of insurance coverage could hinder recovery efforts as property owners struggle to meet the costs of rebuilding without the support of insurance. As the GAO noted, property owners ``lack the ability to spread such risks among themselves the way insurers do,'' and, as a result, I am quoting the GAO: . . . another terrorist attack similar to that experienced on September 11th could have significant economic effects on the marketplace and the public at large. These effects could include bankruptcies, layoffs, and loan defaults. The GAO also found that even in the absence of further terrorist activity, even in the absence of it, inadequate insurance coverage could have an adverse effect on the willingness of lenders to finance new construction projects as well as the sale of existing property. Already the GAO found: [s]ome examples of large projects canceling or experiencing delays have surfaced with a lack of terrorism coverage being cited as a principal contributing factor. The GAO concluded that ``the resulting economic drag could slow economic recovery and growth,'' even if the terrorist attack does not materialize. So we have a problem either way. If the terrorist attack should materialize, the lack of coverage would markedly hinder recovery efforts. But even if it doesn't, you have an economic drag taking place because of the unwillingness of lenders to finance new construction projects as well as the sale of existing projects. Most people seem to believe that in time, the insurance industry will be able to underwrite the terrorist risk. But they don't now, at this point, have the experience and the factual basis on which to make those calculations. In the meantime, a short-term Federal backstop for terrorism insurance would help to stabilize the marketplace and forestall the potential negative consequences which I have just quoted, identified by the GAO. The legislation we have before us, which Senator Dodd has brought to the body, works off of the proposals that were developed by the administration late last year. This Terrorism Risk Insurance Act establishes a shared compensation program that will split the cost of property and casualty claims from any acts of terrorism during the next year between the Federal Government and the insurance industry. The act would terminate at the end of the year, unless the Treasury Secretary determines that the program should be in place for an additional year. So it is, by its very definition, short term. The premise of it is that over that period of time the insurance industry will be able to develop the knowledge, the expertise, and the capability to underwrite the terrorist risk. Under this legislation, the definition of an act of terrorism will be uniform across the country. Insurance companies providing commercial property and casualty insurance are required to participate in the program; voluntary participation is allowed with respect to personal lines of property and casualty insurance. Participating insurance companies must offer terrorism insurance coverage in all of their property and casualty policies for all participating lines. Each participating insurance company will be responsible for paying a deductible before Federal assistance becomes available. So the first dollar will come from the insurance industry. In the first year of the program, the amount of the deductible is determined by dividing $10 billion among participating insurance companies based on their market share. If the Secretary calls for a second year, the deductible will be determined by dividing $15 billion among participating insurance companies based on their market share. For losses above the companies' deductibles, but not exceeding $10 billion, the Federal Government will pay 80 percent, and the companies will pay 20 percent. For any portion of total losses that exceeds $10 billion, the Government will cover 90 percent and the companies will cover 10 percent. Losses covered by the program will be capped at $100 billion. Above this amount, it will be up to Congress to determine the procedures for and the source of any payments. This framework provides to the insurance industry the ability to calculate at the top level what they may have to cover in damage. Therefore, it gives them the ability to calculate what the premiums ought to be and to structure a properly arranged financial system. We do that, of course, by providing that above certain levels the Federal Government will assume 80 or 90 percent--depending on the figure--of the losses. I think this is a fairly simple program. We have had a lot of complex suggestions made to us--some extremely complex, I may say. I think this is pretty straightforward on its face. It is limited in its duration. One of the guiding principles in the bill that I think is important is that, to the extent possible, State insurance law should not be overridden. We seek to respect the role of the State insurance commissioners as the appropriate regulators of policy terms and rates. We are anxious to try to keep the State insurance commissioners in the picture. That is where the responsibility has heretofore been. There is not an effort in this bill to make any radical change in that existing arrangement. In conclusion, I think the Congress needs to act on this issue. We run the risk of serious damage to our economy. I know there are many steps between now and final enactment of the legislation. We look forward to continuing to consult with the administration over this matter, as we have been doing. But, again, I commend Senator Dodd for his extraordinary work in crafting the bill that is before us and getting it before the Senate. Yesterday some reference was made to some of the procedural problems that we encountered on the way to the floor. But through the actions of Senator Daschle and the concurrence of Senator Lott, we are here now with the legislation before us, and the Senate now has an opportunity to address this very important issue. I hope we will now be able to consider amendments on their merits, dispose of them, and then move to final action on this legislation. Again, I underscore the fine work that Senator Dodd has done on this legislation from the very beginning and, certainly, in bringing us to this point today. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I join my very able colleague from Connecticut in underscoring the importance of this legislation and the problem with which it seeks to deal. It is one that we have been wrestling with for a number of months. I particularly commend the able Senator from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue. He has been indefatigable in focusing our attention on this matter and repeatedly insisting that we have to come to terms with this issue. I am pleased that we are now going to be able to actually move tomorrow to the legislation and begin this important debate. I will defer my comments on the substance of this legislation until tomorrow, until that debate begins. But Senator Dodd has played a major role, an instrumental role, throughout and, obviously, has played a large part in bringing us to the point at which we are now, which offers us now the opportunity to finally address this issue. I understand, under the consent agreement, it is a wide open consideration that lies ahead of us. I would urge my colleagues of the necessity to show some restraint as we try to do that because we are under, obviously, some very significant time pressures. But I look forward to that debate and the opportunity to try to address this issue on its substance. We have heard, of course, a great deal from across the country about this matter. I simply want to echo the able Senator from Connecticut in saying that I hope we can consider this matter in a very positive and constructive way. I know Members have different ideas on how we ought to go about it. We hope to be able to consider those in a reasonable and proper way and reach some conclusion, hopefully, in the near future. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001, and my disappointment that the Senate failed to invoke cloture on this important legislation today. As a cosponsor of Senator Kennedy's bill, I believe it is crucial that we pass hate crimes legislation in an expeditious manner in order to provide the government with the tools it needs to prosecute the many senseless bias-motivated crimes that occur in our country each year. In the past several decades we have made significant progress in reducing discrimination, yet more needs to be done. This legislation is an important step toward ending the scourge of hate crimes that continues to plague our Nation. Data gathered under the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act about the prevalence of these crimes is sobering. Beginning in 1991, the Act requires the Justice Department to collect information from law enforcement agencies across the country on crimes motivated by a victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Congress expanded the Act in 1994 to also require the collection of data for crimes based upon the victim's disability. For the year 2000, 11,690 law enforcement agencies in 48 states and the District of Columbia reported 8,063 bias-motivated criminal incidents (8,055 single-bias and 8 multiple-bias incidents) to the FBI. The incidents consisted of 9,430 separate offenses, 9,924 victims, and 7,530 distinguishable offenders. According to the data collected, 53.8 percent of the 8,055 single-bias incidents were motivated by racial bias, 18.3 percent by religious bias, 16.1 percent by sexual-orientation bias, 11.3 percent by ethnicity/national origin bias, and 0.5 percent by disability and multiple biases. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is carefully tailored to ensure a state's ability to prosecute hate crimes, but it provides the Federal government with additional tools to prosecute hate crimes should a state be unable to do so. The legislation extends the Federal law to prohibit hate crimes against victims because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability. In addition, the legislation allows Federal prosecution of hate crimes wherever they occur and under whatever circumstances, thus broadening the previous requirement that the hate crime occur while the victim is engaged in a ``federally protected activity.'' The need for these limited changes in existing Federal hate crimes laws is clear. For example, according to the Justice Department, 16.1 percent of the hate crimes committed in 2000 were motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would expand the definition of hate crimes to include those committed because of the victim's sexual orientation--in addition to a victim's gender or disability. A hate crime may meet the federal definition of ``hate crime'' yet the federal government is still powerless to aid in its prosecution. For example, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, our Nation has struggled to prevent discrimination and acts of violence against Arab-Americans. Despite the resolve that most Americans have shown in that regard, tragically, crimes have occurred. On September 15, 2001, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh-American, was shot and killed at his gas station in Mesa, Arizona. This tragic incident was the most serious of several attacks against people of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent who were targeted in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Although religion and national identity are already protected under current law, the hate crimes legislation before us would give the Federal government enhanced authority to investigate and prosecute these types of crimes. Despite the progress towards ending discrimination over the past decades, it is undeniably clear that raw hatred and its tragic consequences continue to exist in our Nation. Strengthening the Federal government's ability to prosecute hate crimes is an important step towards the eradication of hate crimes in our country. Mr. President, I urge my Senate colleagues to bring the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act back to the floor of the Senate and to join me in supporting this important hate crimes legislation. We have an invaluable opportunity to make a statement that the United States government will not tolerate crimes motivated by bigotry and prejudice, and I look forward to the day when there is no longer a need in our Nation to legislate such changes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman for his continued assistance in this regard. rebuilding the eighth air force headquarters at barksdale air force base

Mr. SARBANES. I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Mikulski, in calling for the funds necessary to expedite the Army's chemical demilitarization program. Clearly, this is a matter of great importance to ensuring the continued health and safety of millions of Americans. I have long recognized the environmental and health hazards posed by the chemical agents stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Army facilities throughout the country and I have been a strong and consistent supporter of the efforts to eliminate the Nation's chemical weapons stockpile in the most environmentally sensitive manner possible. The critical need to dispose of the stockpiles has only intensified as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, for I believe the continued storage of these agents only increases the vulnerability of our citizens to acts of terrorism. In this regard, I was pleased to learn of the Army's decision to expedite the process of neutralizing the chemical agents at both Aberdeen and Newport. In my view, doing so is a step in the right direction and the decision represents a real win-win situation for all involved. Not only does accelerated demilitarization eliminate the high risks associated with storing such agents in a highly populated region, it results in considerable savings for the Department. Further, it eliminates costs associated with continued National Guard protection and the construction of new structures to protect stored agent. Finally, it helps us meet our obligations as signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Like my colleagues, I am most concerned with the decision of the Office of Management and Budget not to include the Department of Defense's proposal for funding for chemical demilitarization in the President's supplemental request. In my view, expeditiously removing the threat posed by these chemical agents is a critical step in the efforts to ensure our domestic security.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2002. The Senate passed its version of this legislation on March 14 by unanimous consent. The House passed its version, H.R. 2871, by voice vote on May 1, then amended the Senate version and requested a conference to resolve the differences between the bills. The conference committee met on May 21 and reached agreement on the conference report. The House has now passed the conference report by a vote of 344-78, and it is before the Senate for consideration today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this conference report. In my view, it is a carefully developed and balanced piece of legislation that makes a number of constructive changes to the Export-Import Bank Act, which is the charter of the Export-Import Bank. Before describing some of those changes, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Bayh, the chairman of the International Finance Subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee, for his very able leadership in moving forward this important legislation. Senator Bayh took a particular interest in strengthening the adverse economic impact procedures of the Export-Import Bank, which is one of the most significant provisions of this legislation. I would also like to thank Senator Hagel, the ranking member on the International Finance Subcommittee, who is a strong supporter of the Ex-Im Bank and contributed importantly to the provision of the conference report dealing with market windows. Senator Allard also took a strong interest in this bill and sponsored the amendment in the Senate which established an inspector general for the Ex-Im Bank. In addition, I want to thank Representative Oxley, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Representative LaFalce, the ranking member, and Representative Bereuter, chairman of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, for their strong commitment and leadership in reaching agreement on this conference report. I believe there is a general recognition by most members of the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, that the Export-Import Bank has an important role to play in U.S. trade policy. Ex-Im Bank financing helps U.S. exporters level the playing field against foreign competitors who benefit from subsidized export financing from their governments. It also gives U.S. negotiators important bargaining leverage in efforts to reach international agreements limiting the use of such subsidized export financing. U.S. exporters are able to compete with great success in international markets on the basis of price and quality. However, when foreign exporters benefit from subsidized financing from their governments, the Ex-Im Bank is needed to help U.S. companies, and the workers they employ, compete on a fair basis. This conference report makes a number of changes to the charter of the Export-Import Bank that I believe will strengthen the ability of the Ex-Im Bank to carry out its important mission. I would like to describe briefly some of the most important changes. The conference report extends the authorization of the Export-Import Bank to September 30, 2006. This extension to 2006 is intended to take the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank out of the Presidential election cycle. When the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank falls in the first year of a President's term, it runs the risk that a new President will be taking office, as occurred last year. In that case, a new administration must struggle not only to put in place a new Chairman of the Ex-Im Bank but also to cope with providing leadership for the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank as well. The conference committee believed that it makes more sense to put the reauthorization of the Ex- Im Bank in the second year of a President's term to assure that a new Ex-Im Bank Chairman has been put in place and has been on the job with sufficient time to provide leadership for the reauthorization of the Bank. Tied aid is highly concessional financing provided by one country to another that is linked to the purchase of goods or services from the donor country. The U.S. government has targeted foreign government use of such financing as particularly harmful to U.S. trade interests, and has sought to limit the use of tied aid through negotiations in the OECD. Congress created the Tied Aid Credit Fund in the Ex-Im Bank to demonstrate to other countries that the U.S. would match their efforts to gain sales through the use of tied aid in order to level the playing field for U.S. exporters and to provide leverage to U.S. negotiators seeking to reach agreements to limit the use of tied aid. The conference report makes a number of significant changes to the Tied Aid Credit Fund of the Export-Import Bank that I believe will strengthen its effectiveness. The charter of the Ex-Im Bank requires cooperation between the Bank, which administers the Fund, and the Treasury, which leads U.S. negotiating efforts to limit the use of tied aid. Section 9(a) of the conference report directs the Ex-Im Bank and the Treasury Department to develop a set of principles, process, and standards for the operation of the Tied Aid Credit Fund to assure its smooth functioning. The Ex-Im Bank and the Treasury made an extensive effort last year to develop an agreed set of principles, process, and standards for the operation of the Tied Aid Credit Fund which was submitted to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on July 16, 2001. It is expected that the initial principles, process, and standards for the operation of the Tied Aid Credit Fund required by section 9(a) of the conference report will be those agreed to and submitted by the Ex-Im Bank and the Treasury last year. In addition, the conference report amends the Ex-Im Bank Act to require that the Tied Aid Credit Fund be administered by the Bank ``in consultation with the Secretary (of the Treasury) and in accordance with the principles, process, and standards'' developed pursuant to section 9(a) of the conference report. This replaces the language currently in the Ex-Im Bank Act providing that the Ex-Im Bank administer the tied aid credit program ``in accordance with the Secretary's recommendations.'' This current language has been the subject of a dispute between the Ex-Im Bank and the Treasury over whether the language gives the Treasury authority to prevent or overrule a final decision by the Board of the Ex-Im Bank to extend a tied aid credit in a particular case. The purpose of the conference report in removing this language is to make clear that the Board of the Ex-Im Bank makes the final decisions on extending tied aid credits. Section 9(a) of the conference report explicitly states that once the principles, process, and standards are followed in a given case, ``the final case-by-case decisions on the use of the Tied Aid Credit Fund shall be made by the Bank.'' The conference report provides that in the extraordinary circumstance in which the President of the United States determines, after consulting with the President of the Ex-Im Bank and the Secretary of the Treasury, that the extension of a tied aid credit would materially impede enforcing compliance with the existing OECD Arrangement restricting the use of tied aid credits and facilitating efforts to negotiate, establish, and enforce new or revised comprehensive international arrangements, then the Bank shall not extend the tied aid credit. However, absent such an extraordinary action by the President, the Ex-Im Bank shall make the final decisions on tied aid credits cases. Section 10 of the conference report explicitly expands the authority of the Ex-Im Bank to use the Tied Aid Credit Fund to respond to the use of untied aid by foreign governments to promote exports as if it were tied aid. The conference report also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to seek to negotiate an OECD Arrangement restricting the use of untied aid, and to submit a report to the Congress on the success in initiating negotiations. Section 10 of the conference report also amends section 10(a) of the Ex-Im Bank Act to establish two basic tasks for the Tied Aid Credit Fund. First, the Ex-Im Bank should match foreign export credit agencies when they engage in tied aid outside the confines of the OECD Arrangement and when they exploit loopholes such as untied aid in order to provide the United States with leverage in efforts at the OECD to reduce the overall level of export subsidies. Second, the Ex-Im Bank should support United States exporters when the exporters face foreign competition that is consistent with the OECD Arrangement on tied aid credits but which places United States exporters at a competitive disadvantage. The conference report also amends section 10(b)2) of the Ex-Im Bank Act to require that the Ex-Im Bank administer the Tied Aid Credit Fund in accordance with these purposes. Section 10 of the conference report also addresses the important issue of market windows. Market windows are government-sponsored enterprises (for example, government owned or directed financial institutions) which provide export financing at below market rates. However, the foreign governments--notably Germany and Canada--which support them claim that these enterprises are not official export credit agencies, and thus not subject to the disciplines of the OECD Arrangement. Currently, two government entities operate very active market windows. They are the German market window KfW and the Canadian market window, the Export Development Corporation, EDC. The result is that these foreign market windows can provide subsidized export financing outside the OECD Arrangement and give their exporters a competitive advantage over U.S. exporters. Also, because these foreign market windows are not subject to the OECD disciplines, there is often a transparency problem--it is difficult to find out the terms of the financing they provide. The Ex-Im Bank Act currently authorizes the Ex-Im Bank to: Provide guarantees, insurance, and extensions of credit at rates and on terms and other conditions which are fully competitive with the Government-supported rates and terms and other conditions available for the financing of exports of goods and services from the principal countries whose exporters compete with the United States. Since market windows are government-supported entities, the Ex-Im Bank views its current statute as providing Ex-Im Bank authority to match market windows financing. The conference committee agreed with that view. However, the conference committee believed it would be helpful to make this authority explicit so as to remove any question about Ex-Im Bank's authority and also to send a message to the foreign market windows of U.S. concern about their operations. As a result, the conference report contains two provisions which address market windows. The first provision directs the executive branch to seek increased transparency over the acitivites of market windows in the OECD Export Credit Arrangement. If it is determined that market windows are disadvantaging U.S. exporters, the U.S. would be directed to seek negotiations in the OECD for multilateral disciplines and transparency for market windows. The second provision authorizes the Ex-Im Bank to provide financing on terms and conditions that are inconsistent with those permitted under the OECD Export Credit Arrangement to match financing terms and conditions that are being offered by market windows if such matching advances negotiations for multilateral disciplines and transparency within the OECD, or when market windows financing is being offered on terms that are more favorable than available from private financial markets. Ex-Im Bank could also match market window financing when the market window refuses to provide sufficient transparency to permit the Ex-Im Bank to determine the terms and conditions of the market window financing. The conference committee understood that Ex-Im Bank has the authority to match market windows financing that is consistent with the terms of the OECD arrangement. In addition, the conference committee held the view that increased information was needed on the activities of foreign market windows. As a result, the conference report specifies that the Bank's annual report to Congress on export credit competition should include information on export financing available to foreign competitors through market windows. The conference committee believed that it was very important to make clear that the Ex-Im Bank has the authority to match market windows financing in order to allow U.S. exporters to compete on a level playing field, and to direct the executive branch to seek negotiations in the OECD for multilateral disciplines and transparency for market windows financing. Section 10 of the conference report also makes significant changes to section 2(e) of the Ex-Im Bank Act. Section 2(e) prohibits the Ex-Im Bank from making a loan or loan guarantee to expand production of a commodity for export by another country if the Ex-Im Bank determines that the commodity is likely to be in surplus on world markets or the resulting production capacity is expected to compete with U.S. production of the same commodity, and the Bank determines that the loan will cause substantial injury to U.S. producers of the commodity. The conference report amends section 2(e) to prohibit the Ex-Im Bank from providing any loan or loan guarantee to an entity for the resulting production of substantially the same product that is the subject of a countervailing duty or antidumping order under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, or a determination under title II of the Trade Act of 1974 that an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly comopetitive with the imported article. The conference report also requires the Ex-Im Bank to establish procedures regarding loans or loan guarantees provided to an entity that is subject to a preliminary determination of a reasonable indication of material injury to an industry under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The procedure shall help to ensure that these loans and loan guarantees are not likely to result in a significant increase in imports of substantially the same product covered by the preliminary determination and are not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. In addition, in making any determination under section 2(e) that a loan or guarantee will cause substantial injury to U.S. producers, the conference report requires the Ex-Im Bank to consider investigations under title II of the Trade Act of 1974 that have been initiated at the request of the President, the U.S. Trade Representative, the International Trade Commission, the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and Means Committee. The conference report also requires the Ex-Im Bank to establish procedures to provide a public comment period with regard to loans or loan guarantees reviewed pursuant to those provisions. The Ex-Im Bank Act currently requires that: The Bank shall make available, from the aggregate loan, guarantee, and insurance authority available to it, an amount to finance exports directly by small business concerns which shall not be less than 10 percent of such authority for each fiscal year. The conference report increases the requirement to 20 percent. According to the Ex-Im Bank, in fiscal year 2000 small business comprised 18 percent of the total value of all Ex-Im Bank financing authorizations and 86 percent of all transactions supported by Ex-Im Bank. In fiscal year 1998 these numbers were 21 percent and 85 percent respectively. The conference committee believed that the requirement for Ex-Im Bank small business financing could reasonably be raised to a level of 20 percent without causing disruption to Ex-Im Bank's lending programs, Ex-Im Bank remains free to go above this level, as it has in the past, but the conference committee was concerned that requiring a higher level could have the unwanted effect of tying up available Ex-Im Bank resources if the Ex-Im Bank could not achieve higher levels of small business financing in a given year. The conference report also requires the Ex-Im Bank to conduct outreach to socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns, small business concerns owned by women, and small business concerns employing fewer than 100 employees. The conference report also makes a number of other significant changes to the Ex-Im Bank Act. It establishes an inspector general for the Export-Import Bank. It makes clear that the Ex-Im Bank's objective in authorizing loans, guarantees, insurance, and credits shall be to contribute to maintaining or increasing employment of United States workers. It increases the aggregate loan, guarantee, and insurance authority for the Bank to $100 billion by 2006. The conference report also requires the Ex-Im Bank to submit its annual competitiveness report to Congress by June 30 of each year in order to ensure its availability for oversight, and requires that the competitiveness report contain an estimate of he annual amount of export financing available from other foreign government and foreign government-related agencies. The conference report to accompany S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2002, makes a number of significant changes to the charter of the Ex-Im Bank that I believe will greatly strengthen the Ex-Im Bank's effectiveness as a tool to help U.S. exporters and the workers they employ to level the playing field of competition in international trade, and strengthen the ability of U.S. negotiators to achieve meaningful international agreements to limit the use of export subsidies. Taken together, these changes represent a major enhancement of the Ex-Im Bank charter. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing concerns about the effects, however unintended, that the proposed duty-free status for Andean nations would have on the canned tuna industry in the Philippines. I refer specifically to the status that would be accorded to canned tuna imports from Ecuador. I spoke during the debate on the harm the current provisions will do to the Philippine economy and how seriously it will undermine the anti- terrorist efforts in the Philippines and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. But I want to point out again that the tuna industry in the Philippines is located in precisely the area where anti-terrorist efforts are most urgently needed. Clearly a multitude of issues are involved in any trade legislation. This issue is too important to be ignored and it is my hope that this serious problem will be resolved in the conference report when it comes before us for final passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the pending legislation to provide fast-track authority to the President. This is not the first time I have risen on this floor in order to urge colleagues to join in opposing this authority. The same issue was before us in 1997. At that time, the administration's request was rejected. At this time, we are once again being asked to approve the same procedure, but it is being presented under a different name. It has been wrapped up in a different package. It is now being called ``trade promotion authority.'' In fact, that term is a euphemism--indeed, a misleading euphemism. The President already has broad and flexible authority to promote trade in numerous different ways, under a number of existing statutes. The issue here is the latitude the Executive has to negotiate trade agreements and the role the Congress will play with respect to such agreements. I think that is more aptly described as fast-track authority, and that is the specific matter I want to address for a few moments. Fast track is a procedure that radically redefines and limits the authority granted to Congress in article II, section 8 of the Constitution ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' We need to recognize that here today. This is a vast derogation of congressional authority. It has only a brief history. It was first enacted in 1974, it expired just twenty years later, in 1994, and in my view its long- term ramifications are as yet little understood. Fast-track authority differs fundamentally from the earlier discretion the Congress granted to the Executive in the Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934, which governed trade negotiations for 40 years. That discretion, known as proclamation authority, gave power to the Executive to set tariffs within limits and periods of time that had been set by the Congress. In other words, the Congress defined the parameters of Executive authority in trade negotiations, and the Executive had to work within those parameters in using the proclamation authority. It did not give to the President authority to negotiate trade agreements requiring changes in U.S. law, let alone limit the discretion of the Congress to approve or reject such changes. In contrast, fast-track authority gives the President both the power to negotiate trade agreements requiring changes in existing U.S. law, and effectively denies to the Congress the power to approve or reject changes to U.S. law on their merits, leaving it only with a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on the entire trade package. Fast-track authority, therefore, greatly expands the latitude of the Executive to negotiate an agreement while eliminating the ability of the Congress to consider components of the trade agreement. Fast track guarantees that the executive branch can write legislation implementing a trade agreement and have that legislation voted on, up or down, within 90 days of its submission to Congress, with only 20 hours of debate and with no opportunity for amendment. Let me repeat that. Fast-track authority gives the executive branch the power to write legislation implementing a trade agreement, to have that legislation voted on, up or down, within 90 days of its submission to the Congress, with only 20 hours of debate and with no opportunity for amendments by the Congress. Even when vast changes in existing U.S. law may be at stake, under fast-track procedures, Congress has only all-or-nothing decision-making authority. This is a sobering derogation of the congressional power set out in article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which explicitly gives to the Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. In no other area of U.S. international negotiation and agreement do fast-track provisions prevail. All major U.S. tax treaties, arms control, territorial, defense, and other treaties are still accomplished through established constitutional procedures fully respecting the role of the Congress and the ability of the Congress, if it chooses, to make the determination to change or amend those agreements. SALT I, SALT II, START, the nuclear weapons reduction treaties, the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Customs Harmonization Convention, the Montreal Protocol, dozens of international treaties, to mention only some--all these are among the international agreements negotiated by the United States without fast- track authority. Proponents of fast track often argue that in the area of trade, the Executive will find it difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate agreements without fast-track authority, but a look at the record amply demonstrates this is not the case. First, fast-track procedures are relevant only to trade agreements that require Congress to make changes in existing U.S. law in order for the agreements to be implemented. Most trade agreements do not require legislative changes and thus do not come within the purview of this provision. Of the hundreds of trade agreements entered into between 1974 and 1994 when fast-track authority was in effect, only five have required fast-track procedures. In 1994, after just 20 years, fast track elapsed. This is the only time period in the nation's history when we have had fast track, the only time we effectively shut Congress out of the process of thoroughly considering trade agreements. In 1997 the Congress declined to extend it, and yet since 1994 hundreds of trade agreements were successfully negotiated and implemented. For example, in the year 2000, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative identified the following agreements, all of them negotiated without fast track, as having truly historic importance: The Information Technology Agreement, under which 40 countries eliminated import duties and other charges on information technology products representing more than 90 percent of the telecommunications market; the Financial Services Agreement, which has helped U.S. service suppliers expand commercial operations and find new market opportunities around the world; the Basic Telecommunications Agreement, which opened up 95 percent of the world telecommunications market to competition; and the bilateral agreement on China's WTO accession, which opened this large economy to American products and services. I could cite many other examples. During this twenty-year period when there was no fast-track authority--although we are being told that without it trade agreements cannot be negotiated, whereas the record shows this is clearly not the case--the Executive negotiated and then obtained congressional approval for normalizing our trade relations with a new Caribbean Basin initiative bill and with the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Without any fast-track authority, the previous administration negotiated major bilateral trade agreements with Jordan and Vietnam. The groundbreaking United States-Jordan agreement was submitted to and approved by Congress in January of last year, and although negotiated by the previous administration, the United States-Vietnam agreement was actually submitted to Congress by the current administration and was approved in June of last year. So recent efforts to arrive at trade agreements without fast-track authority have been notably successful. The abundant experience of the last 8 years leads to the conclusion that the arguments for fast track are much overstated. Current negotiations on bilateral free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore offer yet another case in point since the administration has found it possible and prudent to carry forward negotiations initiated by its predecessor. The case of Chile is particularly instructive. In 1994, Chile declined an invitation to join NAFTA, citing the administration's failure to obtain fast-track authority. Six years later, however, Chile reconsidered its position and in 2000 entered into negotiations on a United States-Chile bilateral agreement. Negotiations have continued since then more or less on a monthly basis, and in a report dated April 1 of last year entitled ``Chile Political and Economic Conditions in U.S. Relations,'' the CRS concluded that Chile is willing and able to conclude and live up to a broad bilateral FTA with the United States, suggesting this could be a comparatively easy trade agreement for the U.S. to conclude. The absence of fast track has not prevented negotiations with Chile or with Singapore. Yet we are now being asked to have the procedure apply retroactively without any strong case being made for its necessity. Let me make a final observation. There is now considerable debate and concern around the world about globalization, and we have seen mounting levels of protests, both in this country and abroad. It is clear that the trend towards globalization has raised very fundamental questions on a range of issues, including labor standards and environmental standards. A real basis for public concern is precisely the sweeping power to affect these issues that fast-track authority gives to the administration. There are many other issues, of course, but labor standards and environmental standards are two leading examples. For good reason, the public is apprehensive when important decisions can be made behind closed doors, without adequate open debate and consideration, which is exactly what happens with fast-track authority. One of the most important functions of the Congress is to provide a forum in which matters of public concern can be thoroughly and openly discussed, in which alternatives can be presented and either accepted or rejected. The fast-track authority virtually completely undercuts congressional power--something the nation in all its history never countenanced, except during the 20-year period between 1974 and 1994. In effect fast track excludes the people's representatives from engaging in a process whereby they can examine the components of a trade agreement. People say: But the Congress may change the trade agreement. So be it. That is the risk we run. Congressional scrutiny of arms-control agreements has never been restricted by fast-track authority, and surely they are as important as trade agreements. We do not take those on an all-or-nothing basis. They are not presented to us for a simple yes-or-no vote. We have the opportunity to consider the various components of the package and to pass some judgment upon them. That is one of the most important functions of the Congress. Indeed, I think one of the deep concerns of the American people is that trade agreements affecting vital areas of social and economic policy should not be hurried through the Congress using an expedited and restrictive procedure. It must be clearly understood that this procedure puts the Congress in the position of being able only to say yes or no to the entire package. It denies to the Congress the ability to carry out its constitutional responsibilities in terms of regulating commerce with foreign nations. I therefore strongly urge the rejection of the fast-track procedure contained in this legislation and intend to vote against this bill.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about a provision in the Andean Trade Preferences Act, ATPA, that will have serious adverse, unintended consequences on United States initiatives in the Philippines and our relationship with the Philippine government. Both the House and Senate versions of the ATPA would allow canned tuna from the Andean region to enter the United States duty-free, while maintaining the current tariff rates for all other countries. There are slight differences between the two versions: The House version allows all canned tuna imports from the Andean region to enter duty-free; the Senate version extends duty-free treatment to Andean tuna imports up to a cap equal to 20 percent of the preceding calendar year's domestic production excluding production in American Samoa. For the Philippines, however, the House and Senate versions have the same effect. Philippine tuna is sold generically; purchasers of this tuna are the most price- sensitive, and they would gravitate to the cheaper, duty-free product. Loss of these sales would mean, effectively, the collapse of the tuna market. The major suppliers to the U.S. canned tuna market are just six countries: Thailand, 60 percent; the Philippines, 18 percent; Indonesia, 12 percent; Papua NG, 4 percent; Ecuador and Malaysia, 2 percent each. Of the six, Ecuador is the only one of the six that would benefit from the proposed trade preference, to the sharp detriment of the Philippines. The Philippine government estimates that the implementation of the ATPA preference would affect 24,000 workers directly, and another 150,000 indirectly. Moreover, it is the economy of Mindanao, where the entire tuna- canning industry is located, that would be especially hard hit. It is on this southernmost island that the poverty level is acute and terrorist activity is concentrated; a number of civilians have been kidnapped or murdered there by Abu Sayef, an extremist Islamic group, and two Americans are currently being held there. The ramifications of this legislation will almost certainly undercut the Philippine government's efforts in Mindanao. It will undercut U.S. efforts as well, since the U.S. government through USAID has provided over $20 million in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 in ESF for economic development in Mindanao, and the fiscal year 2003 budget request includes a further $20 million; ATPA would seriously compromise those investments. It will of course be argued that the ATPA provision will strengthen the Andean economies and enable them better to resist terrorist encroachments. But our efforts to strengthen these economies should not come at the cost of making anti-terrorist efforts in the Philippines more difficult. Surely that is not the intent, but it could well be an unintentional but highly regrettable consequence of the legislation. Given the likelihood of grave, harmful consequences for the Philippines, I urge my colleagues to work toward a constructive solution to the problem posed by the ATPA provision that would give duty-free entry to canned tuna from the Andean countries. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the discussion of this issue which appears in today's New York Times.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in 1963, President Kennedy began an important tradition of designating a time for our country to honor our older citizens for their many accomplishments and contributions to our Nation. I rise today to continue that tradition and recognize May as ``Older Americans Month.'' Those of us who have worked diligently in the U.S. Senate to ensure that older Americans are able to live in dignity and independence during their later years, welcome this opportunity to pause and reflect on the contributions of those individuals who have played such a major role in shaping our great Nation. We honor them for their hard work and the countless sacrifices they have made throughout their lifetimes, and look forward to their continued contributions to our country's welfare. Today's older citizens have witnessed more technological advances than any other generation in our Nation's history. Seniors today have lived through times of extreme economic depression and prosperity, times of war and peace, and have seen incredible advancements in the fields of science, medicine, transportation and communications. They have not only adapted to these changes remarkably well, but they have continued to make meaningful contributions to this country. Recent Census figures reveal that the number of older Americans continues to grow. The population of those 85 and older grew 37 percent during the 1990s, while the Nation's overall population increased only 13 percent. Approximately 35 million people 65 and older were counted in the 2000 Census as well as 50,500 Americans who were 100 or older. Baby boomers, who represented one-third of all Americans in 1994, will enter the 65-years-and-older category over the next 13 to 34 years, substantially increasing this segment of our population. At the same time the number of older Americans is skyrocketing, they are in much better health and far less likely than their counterparts of previous generations to be impoverished, disabled or living in nursing homes. Older Americans are working and volunteering far beyond the traditional retirement age to give younger generations the benefit of their wisdom. In 2000, those 65 and over comprise 14 percent of the U.S. labor force. These positive figures show that commitment to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and investment in biomedical research and treatment are improving the quality of life for older Americans. One of our national goals must be to ensure all older Americans benefit from these improvements. In Congress, we must ensure our legislative priorities reflect the dedication that older Americans have provided to this country. This includes expanding and strengthening those programs that effectively aid older Americans, and addressing those that fall short of assisting this valuable and constantly expanding segment of our society. By 2020, Medicare will be responsible for covering nearly 20 percent of the population. Though Medicare meets the health care needs of millions of Americans, it was created in a different time before the benefits of prescription medicines had become such an integral part of health care. Three in 5 Medicare beneficiaries lack affordable, prescription drug coverage. Although people 65 and older are 12.5 percent of the population, they fill 34 percent of all prescriptions. Today it is difficult to imagine quality healthcare coverage without including medicines that treat and prevent illnesses. I have and will continue to fight for Medicare prescription drug coverage for all seniors. As a cosponsor of the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 2001, I recognize the predicament of many older Americans as they struggle to live independently on a fixed income and afford costly prescription drugs. The huge advances in biomedical research that have led to the life saving drugs and treatment are of little use if the population that stands to benefit the most cannot afford them. It is imperative that we address the needs of the Americans who have devoted so much of their life experience and achievement to better our society. Like all Americans, they deserve access to comprehensive health care. One of the strengths that I admire most about older generations is their devotion and concern for younger Americans. As we face the dilemma of funding Social Security and investigate proposals to privatize the program, older Americans have been the most outspoken advocates of ensuring its existence for future generations. Their determination to preserve this important social insurance program is not weakened by reports that privatization proposals would not alter or reduce their benefits. Instead, they fight on, trying to ensure the benefits of Social Security will be there for others for years to come. I have always been impressed with the degree to which our elders contribute to American society. Our Nation's older generations are an ever-growing resource that deserve our attention, our gratitude, and our heart-felt respect. As observance of Older Americans Month comes to a close, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to implement public policies that affirm the contributions of older Americans to our society and ensure that they all live their later years in dignity.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, tomorrow morning, at 11 o'clock, we will have a cloture vote on amendment No. 3433, which has been offered by my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, and my dear colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, with respect to the issue of health benefits for retired steelworkers. I rise in strong support of that amendment, but especially to urge my colleagues to vote to put cloture into place so we can move to the amendment and vote on its merits, on its substance. I know there is some difference of opinion in this Chamber about the substance of this amendment, and I obviously respect that difference of opinion, although I disagree with those who oppose the amendment. But at least the body ought to be allowed to move forward and actually vote on the amendment itself. In order to do that, we have to invoke cloture in the morning because, up until now, we have been precluded from having a vote on this amendment. The amendment itself is straightforward and simple. It would give a health insurance credit for eligible steel retirees. Actually, it is a credit covering 70 percent of the total cost of health care coverage. The retirees would have to pay 30 percent of the cost of their health care coverage. But this is an effort to get at the problem of what is going to happen to people who are now retired, who have been getting their health benefits covered through the company and their companies have now shut down. It covers companies' operations before January 1 of 2000 that are either now closed or closed before January 1, 2004, and are operating under the protection of the bankruptcy code. The setting for this problem is: The steel industry has been severely hit by a flood of imports coming into the country, and they are coming in on an unfair basis. These imports are being, in effect, subsidized either directly or indirectly, and they simply undercut the American producers. The steel industry went through a major restructuring in which they eliminated a lot of inefficient producers and downsized. Active workers were encouraged to take early retirement in order to slim down the workforce. Having taken retirement and being dependent on the company plan for their health benefits, now they find that the company is no longer able to pay the benefits. What is to happen to the retired worker? What is to be done for these retired workers and their dependents? The International Trade Commission found unanimously there was serious injury done to the U.S. steel industry by the unprecedented flood of imports coming into the country. In fact, the President has undertaken a program of imposing tariffs on steel imports as a consequence. That decision was not simply made out of the thin air. It was a decision based on these findings about the harm being done to the steel industry and based on the fact that we know that this steel has been coming in at underwritten cost, which makes it impossible for our producers to compete with. So that is the context. In other words, you have individuals and their families in the end who are sort of victimized, and the reason they are victimized is because we have been taken advantage of with respect to the trading relationship and steel producers in other countries. This is a very limited amendment. There are other amendments that were under consideration that were much more far reaching. This is really what they call a bridge amendment. It is to provide 1 year of support to these retirees in order to give them some breathing space while they try to straighten out their situation, so they do not simply fall off the edge of the cliff with respect to health care coverage for themselves and for their dependents. This goes only to eligible retirees. Most steel contracts require 15 years of service in order for the benefit to vest, so they, in effect, would have been long-term permanent employees. It is for the retirees and dependents and spouses who qualify for the retiree health benefit but have lost their coverage because of the closure of their former employer. Unless Members are simply going to walk away from this human problem, they must face up to what is to be done for them. This amendment that has been put forward by my colleagues, Senator Mikulski and Senator Rockefeller, is an effort to address that in a sensible way. They have provided offsets for the cost of the amendment. It is being offered in the context of what has been done to our steel industry by unfair competition. It seems to me the least we can do in trying to address this situation is to provide for this 1-year bridge coverage for these eligible retirees and their families with respect to their health care costs. People may have different ideas about how this ought to be done. Conceivably, some people may think nothing should be done. I find that difficult to comprehend. From my point of view, it is impossible to support the idea we should simply do nothing. I think this represents a very sensible effort to try to help people through a very difficult transition period. I will close by again observing, the vote we are talking about at 11 a.m. is not a vote on the substance of the amendment. It is a vote as to whether we should end this extended debate that has been going on about this amendment so we can then get to a vote. Obviously, under the rules of the Senate, as long as the extensive debate goes on, we are frustrated from getting to the amendment and actually having a vote on it. So I implore my colleagues to let us move on, let us get beyond this unlimited debate situation so we can then get to the amendment in a reasonable period of time and have a vote up or down on it in order to try to address the very difficult situation in which our steel industry retirees find themselves with respect to their health care costs. In some ways, it is unfortunate. We have a system in this country in which the health care costs in certain industries, in fact in many industries--and steel is one example--is borne by the employer and/or the employee dependent. This puts an extra burden on our companies when they compete with foreign companies. In many countries, they do not finance the health care plans in that respect, and they do not have to build it into the cost of the product. We do it the other way, and that is one of the reasons it is very difficult for us in a global economy. In any event, in this instance it is very clear that the companies encounter these difficulties because of the unfair competition. Our Government failed, in effect, to respond to that challenge, although President Bush has now made a response, and we are left with a situation that we have thousands of retirees who find themselves facing imminently, in some instances already, a situation of how are they going to provide for these health care costs. I think Senators Mikulski and Rockefeller have drafted a carefully crafted amendment. I very much hope we will be able to get to it. I am supportive of the amendment, and I certainly hope my colleagues will support the cloture motion tomorrow morning in order to bring the debate on the amendment to an end and allow us to move forward and deal with the substance of this issue. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Dr. Val G. Hemming, M.D., Dean of the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS. Tomorrow, on May 18, 2002, following the graduation ceremonies at the School of Medicine, Dr. Hemming will mark the end of his 37 year career in Federal service. Dean Hemming's Federal career began in the United States Air Force where he served for 25 years as a career officer and physician from 1965 through 1990. In 1987, Dr. Hemming was selected to serve as the Chair of the USUHS School of Medicine Department of Pediatrics, a position in which he continued to serve as a civilian upon his retirement from the Air Force, at the rank of Colonel. In 1995, he was appointed interim Dean of the School of Medicine, and following an extensive search process, he was selected as Dean in May of 1996. As dean, Dr. Hemming has worked to further the established mission and goals of the USUHS School of Medicine. Under his leadership, the University has continued to provide the Nation with highly qualified health professionals dedicated to career service in the Department of Defense and the U.S. Public Health Service. These graduates leave USUHS trained to provide continuity in ensuring medical readiness and the preservation of lessons learned during combat and casualty care. This critical role is, in fact, the significant factor that led the Congress to establish USUHS in 1972. During his career, Dr. Hemming has served as an advisor to Congress, most recently testifying before the House Veteran's Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations during hearings that resulted from the events of September 11, 2001. Dr. Hemming's knowledge and unique expertise provided valuable insight as the Committee discussed the urgent requirement for civilian physicians to be trained in the medical response to weapons of mass destruction, WMD. Significantly, those hearings resulted in proposed legislation recommending that the USUHS School of Medicine share its WMD-focused curricula with the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is exceptional leadership such as that of Dean Hemming and the dedicated careers of his uniquely trained School of Medicine graduates, combined with the extraordinary USUHS faculty and staff, which led to the awarding of the Joint Meritorious Unit Award to USUHS by the Secretary of Defense on December 11, 2000. Dr. Hemming's commitment and leadership was also recognized in the tribute paid by the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who recently wrote: The Department takes great pride in the fact that the USUHS graduates have become the backbone for our Military Health System. The training they receive in combat and peacetime medicine is essential to providing superior force health protection, and improving the quality of life for our service members, retirees, and families. All of us in the Office of the Secretary of Defense place great emphasis on the retention of quality physicians in the military. The USUHS ensures those goals are met. As Dean Hemming retires from his distinguished career, it is incumbent to point out that amid all of his successes as an academic leader, Dr. Hemming also achieved significant success as a scientist. His research interests have included pathogenesis of Lancefield group B streptococcal infections in the neonate and pathogenesis of lower respiratory tract bacterial and viral infections in infants and young children. Indeed, his research in the Respiratory Syncytial Virus, RSV, infection resulted in the first biological product for the prevention and reduction of RSV infection in children; his product, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January of 1996, has contributed to the fight against an infection that had claimed the lives of 4,500 children and hospitalized more than 90,000 children in our Nation each year. Our Nation can be proud of Dr. Hemming's long and distinguished career of service and I am pleased to join with his family, friends and colleagues in expressing appreciation for the significant contributions he has made to the health of the uniformed services and that of all citizens, particularly our children. I certainly wish him continued success and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, would the distinguished floor manager yield for the purpose of a colloquy concerning two programs of great importance to the continued efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. SARBANES. I am deeply disappointed that the conference report does not include two provisions included in the Senate-passed farm bill which sought to address the critical environmental needs of the Chesapeake Bay. The first provision, the Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program, sought to encourage the development of innovative solutions to the nutrient pollution problem in the bay by creating new incentives for farmers to reduce the application of nitrogen by at least 15 percent below what is normally considered best practice and to provide financial protection in the event of reduced yields. The second provision strengthened the role of the U.S. Forest Service in the restoration of the bay watershed. While I understand that disagreements with the House Conferees prevented the inclusion of these programs in the final bill, it is my understanding that the conference report does include provisions that will be helpful in implementing the Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chairman for his continued efforts on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay and its farmers and I look forward to continuing to work together with him in this regard. technical assistance for conservation programs