Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair and look forward to working with her.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman for these assurances and commend him and the staff for the terrific work in crafting this conference agreement. alaska's cook inlet

Mr. SARBANES. I would also like to clarify that it was the conference committee's intent that the funding provided for the Chesapeake Bay shoreline erosion study will also include an examination of management measures to address the sediments behind the dams on the lower Susquehanna River.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman in a colloquy regarding two provisions in the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.

Mr. SARBANES. I want to clarify that it was the conference committee's intent that a portion of the additional funding provided in the Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance account for the Jennings Randolph Lake project will be used to develop access to the Big Bend Recreation area on the Maryland Side of the Jennings Randolph Lake immediately downstream from the dam.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Vince Meehan of my staff have the privilege of the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of this legislation--in particular, title III, the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Antiterrorism Act, which was included as part of the antiterrorism legislation. Of course, that bill was approved yesterday by the House of Representatives and will be approved very shortly by this body. Title III represents the most significant anti-money-laundering legislation in many, many years--certainly since money laundering was first made a crime in 1986. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which I have the privilege of chairing, marked up and unanimously approved the key anti-money-laundering provisions on October 4. Those provisions were approved unanimously, 21-0. Those were approved as Title III of S. 1510, the Uniting and Strengthening America Act on October 11 by a vote of 96-1. H.R. 3004, the Financial Antiterrorism Act, which contained many of the same provisions and added important additional provisions, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 412-1 on October 17. Title III of this conference report represents a skillful melding of the two bills and is a result of the strong contribution made by House Financial Services Committee and chairman Michael Oxley and ranking member John LaFalce, working with Senator Gramm, the ranking member of the Senate committee, and myself. President Bush said on September 24, when he took executive branch action on the money-laundering issue: We have launched a strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network. Title III of our comprehensive antiterrorism package supplies the armament for that strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network. Terrorist attacks require major investments of time, planning, training, practice, and financial resources to pay the bills. Osama bin Laden may have boasted, ``Al-Qaida includes modern, educated youth who are as aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands,'' but with title III, we are sealing up those cracks. Money laundering is the transmission belt that gives terrorists the resources to carry out their campaigns of carnage, but we intend, with the money-laundering title of this bill, to end that transmission belt in its ability to bring resources to the networks that enable terrorists to carry out their campaigns of violence. I need not bring to the attention of my colleagues the fact that public support across the country for anti-money-laundering legislation is extremely strong. Jim Hoagland put it plainly in the Washington Post: This crisis offers Washington an opportunity to force American and international banks to clean up concealment and laundering practices they now tolerate or encourage, and which terrorism can exploit. This legislation takes up that challenge in a balanced and forceful way. Title III contains, among other provisions, authority to take targeted action against countries, institutions, transactions, or types of accounts the Secretary of the Treasury finds to be of primary money- laundering concern. It also contains critical requirements of due diligence standards directed at correspondent accounts opened at U.S. banks by foreign offshore banks and banks in jurisdictions that have been found to fall significantly below international anti-money-laundering standards. It prohibits U.S. correspondent accounts for offshore shell banks, those banks that have no physical presence or employees anywhere and that are not part of a regulated and recognized banking company. The title also contains an important provision from the House bill that requires the issuance of regulations requiring minimum standards for verifying the identity of customers opening and maintaining accounts at U.S. financial institutions, and it very straightforwardly requires all financial institutions to establish appropriate anti- money-laundering programs. Title III also includes several provisions to enhance the ability of the Government to share more specific information with banks, and the ability of banks to share information with one another relating to potential terrorist or money-laundering activities. In addition, it provides important technical improvements in anti- money-laundering statutes, existing statutes, and mandates to the Department of the Treasury to act or formulate recommendations to improve our anti-money-laundering programs. This is carefully considered legislation. While the committee moved expeditiously, its movement was based upon and reflects the efforts which have been made over a number of years on this issue. As I indicated earlier, Senator Carl Levin, Senator Kerry, and in addition, Senator Charles Grassley have led farsighted efforts to keep money-laundering issues on the front burner. Others in the Congress have also been involved with this issue over time. The House Banking Committee, under the leadership of then-Chairman Jim Leach and ranking member John LaFalce, approved a money-laundering bill in June of 2000 by a vote of 31-1. It was very similar to the legislation introduced by Senator Kerry. As the successor to Congressman Leach, House Financial Services Chairman Oxley has continued the commitment to fighting money launderers to maintain the integrity of our financial system and, now, to help ensure the safety of our citizens. We have been guided in our work by the testimony presented to the committee on September 26. We heard from a number of expert witnesses and from the Under Secretary of the Treasury Gurule, Assistant Attorney General Chertoff, and Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, the former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. All of the witnesses advocated stronger and more modern money-laundering laws. Before describing the provisions of Title III in greater detail, I want to single out a number of our colleagues and their staffs for their extraordinary contributions. I have already spoken about House Financial Services Committee Chairman Oxley and ranking member LaFalce, but I want to note their personal willingness and that of their staffs to work overtime to ensure that the House and Senate reached agreement on this important legislation. In fact, last week when the office buildings were closed down, we met here in a room in the Capitol on Wednesday evening, well beyond midnight, and resumed early the next morning and continued throughout the day on Thursday, finally resolving all of our issues by the end of that afternoon. I am truly grateful to all the members of the Senate Banking Committee for their strong, positive, and constructive contributions to the Senate-approved version of Title III. I indicated it was approved by the committee on a 21-0 vote. Ranking member Senator Gramm provided critical support. Senators Stabenow, Johnson, and Hagel were instrumental in producing a compromise to resolve a dispute over one of the package's most important provisions. Senator Enzi brought his expertise as an accountant to bear in refining another critical provision. Senator Schumer, who has been involved in past efforts to address money-laundering activities, played an important role, as did Senators Dodd, Bayh, Carper, Corzine, Allard, and Crapo who either offered amendments or made other important contributions for improvements in this title. I also want to take a moment to recognize those members of our staff who devoted so many hours to crafting this important and comprehensive legislation, literally all night in a couple of instances along the way in the legislative process: Steve Kroll, Patience Singleton, Steve Harris, Lynsey Graham, Vince Meehan, Marty Gruenberg, and Jesse Jacobs on the Banking Committee's majority staff. And on the Banking Committee's minority staff, I want to underscore the work of Wayne Abernathy, Linda Lord, and Madelyn Simmons. I also thank Elise Bean from Senator Levin's staff and John Phillips from John Kerry's staff who worked closely with us and made significant contributions. Finally, I take special note of Laura Ayoud of the Legislative Counsel's office. Mrs. Ayoud worked countless hours from the very beginning so that the committee print and a substitute for the Banking Committee markup were all produced on time and with the utmost accuracy and professionalism. I must say, I think the Senate is extremely fortunate to have professionals of the caliber of Mrs. Ayoud in the Legislative Counsel's office. I tip my hat not only to her, but to the extraordinary record of professionalism and dedicated service which the Legislative Counsel's office renders to the Senate. Title III addresses all aspects of our defenses against money laundering. Those defenses generally fall into three parts. The first is the Bank Secrecy Act passed in 1970. It requires financial institutions to keep standardized transaction records and report large currency transactions and suspicious transactions, and it mandates reporting of the movement of more than $10,000 in currency into and out of our country. The Bank Secrecy Act is so named because it bars bank secrecy in America by preventing financial institutions from maintaining opaque records or disregarding their records altogether. Secrecy is a hiding place for crime, and Congress has barred our institutions from allowing those hiding places. The second part of our money-laundering defenses are the criminal statutes first enacted in 1986 that make it a crime to launder money and that allow criminal and civil forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. The third part is a statutory framework that allows information to be communicated to and between law enforcement officials. Our goal must be to assure, to the greatest extent consistent with reasonable privacy protections--and we understood the necessity of balancing these considerations--to assure ourselves that necessary information can be used by the right persons in real time to cut off terrorism and crime. Title III modernizes provisions in all three areas to meet today's threats in a global economy. Its provisions are divided into three subtitles dealing respectively with international counter-money- laundering measures, sections 311 through 330; Bank Secrecy Act amendments and related improvements, sections 351 through 366; and currency crimes and protections, sections 371 through 377. There are 46 provisions in Title III. At this time, I want to summarize some of the bill's most important provisions. Section 311 gives the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with other senior government officials, authority to impose one or more of five new ``special measures'' against foreign jurisdictions, entities, transactions or accounts that in the determination of the Secretary, after consultation with other senior federal officials, poses a ``primary money laundering concern'' to the United States. The special measures all involve special recordkeeping and reporting measures--to eliminate the curtains behind which launderers hide. In extreme cases the Secretary is permitted to bar certain kinds of inter-bank accounts from especially problematic jurisdictions. The statute specifies the considerations the Secretary must take into account in using the new authority and contains provisions to supplement the Administrative Procedure Act to assure that any remedies--except certain short-term measures--are subject to full comment from all affected persons. This new provision gives the Secretary real authority to act to close overseas loopholes through which U.S. financial institutions are abused. At present the Secretary has no weapons except Treasury Advisories, which do not impose specific requirements, or full economic sanctions which suspend financial and trade relations with offending targets. President Bush's invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, IEEPA, several weeks ago was obviously appropriate. But there are many other situations in which we will not want to block all transactions, but where we will want to do more than simply advise financial institutions about under-regulated foreign financial institutions or holes in foreign countermoney laundering efforts. Former Deputy Secretary Eizenstat testified before the Committee in September that adding this tool to the Secretary's arsenal was essential. Section 312 focuses on another aspect of the fight against money laundering, the financial institutions that make the initial decisions about what foreign banks to allow inside the United States. It requires U.S. financial institutions to exercise appropriate due diligence when dealing with private banking accounts and interbank correspondent relationships with foreign banks. With respect to foreign banks, the section requires U.S. financial institutions to apply appropriate due diligence to all correspondent accounts with foreign banks, and enhanced due diligence for accounts sought by offshore banks or banks in jurisdictions found to have substandard money laundering controls or which the Secretary determines to be of primary money laundering concern under the new authority given him by section 311. The section also specifies certain minimum standards for the enhanced due diligence that U.S. financial institutions are required to apply to accounts opened for two categories of foreign banks with high money laundering risks--offshore banks and banks in jurisdictions with weak anti-money laundering and banking controls. These minimum standards were developed from, and are based upon, the factual record and analysis contained in the comprehensive report on correspondent banking and money laundering that was prepared by the staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which Senator Levin chairs. Section 312 is essential to title III. It addresses, with appropriate flexibility, mechanisms whose very importance for the conduct of commercial banking makes them special targets of money launderers, as illustrated in Senator Levin's extensive reports and hearings. The intent of the statute is to provide special due diligence rules which will apply to correspondent relationships maintained for foreign financial institutions not merely by domestic banks but by all types of financial institutions operating in the United States, subject to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to define the appropriate correspondent relationships by regulation where appropriate. Given the scope of the applicable definition of correspondent account, in new section 5318A (which also applies for purposes of new section 5318(i)), the general due diligence obligations of new section 5318(i)(1) apply to all correspondent accounts maintained by U.S. financial institutions for any foreign financial institution (i.e., not simply foreign depository institutions). The statutory intent with respect to private banking accounts is similar; that is, the statute is intended to provide special due diligence rules for private banking accounts maintained for non-United States persons not merely by depository institutions operating in the United States, but by all types of financial institutions operating in the United States and defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312, subject to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to define the appropriate definitions of the relevant terms by regulation. The question has been raised whether the due diligence provisions of section 312 are ``discretionary.'' The answer is no. The provisions are to apply whether or not any rules are issued by the Treasury or whether the Treasury takes any other implementing action (in contradistinction to the provisions of new section 5318A, which must be affirmatively invoked by the Secretary. The Secretary is given authority to issue regulations ``further delineating'' the ``due diligence policies, procedures, and controls'' required by new subsection 5318(i), but those regulations must of course be consistent with the statutory language and intent to require all U.S. financial institutions to exercise the required standard of care in dealing with the risk of the misuse of the financial mechanisms with which the subsection deals. A provision of section 319 of title III requires foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts in the United States to appoint agents for service of process within the United States and authorizes the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a summons or subpoena to any such foreign bank seeking records, wherever located, relating to such a correspondent account. U.S. banks must sever correspondent arrangements with foreign banks that do not either comply with or contest any such summons or subpoena, upon notification from the Attorney General or Secretary of the Treasury. All of these provisions send a simple message to foreign banks doing business through U.S. correspondent accounts: be prepared, if you want to use our banking facilities, to operate in accordance with U.S. law. Section 313 of title III also builds on the factual record before the Banking Committee to bar from the United States financial system pure ``brass-plate'' shell banks created outside the U.S. that have no physical presence anywhere and are not affiliated with any recognized banking institution. These shell banks carry the highest money laundering risks in the banking world because they are inherently unavailable for effective oversight--there is no office where a bank regulator or law enforcement official can go to observe bank operations, review documents or freeze funds. Thus the ban on provision of correspondent banking services for such brass-plate institutions is a particularly important part of title III. New 31 U.S.C. 5318(j) is intended to be vigorously enforced and strictly applied, especially in light of the relief provided in the statute for special banking vehicles that are affiliated with operating institutions and are subject to financial supervision along with those institutions. Section 325 permits the Secretary to deal with abuse of another recognized commercial banking mechanism--concentration accounts that are used to commingle related funds temporarily in one place pending disbursement or the transfer of funds into individual client accounts. Concentration accounts have been used to launder funds, and the bill authorizes the Secretary to issue rules to bar the use of concentration accounts to move client funds anonymously, without documentation linking particular funds to their true owners. I believe that the Secretary must move promptly to exercise the regulatory authority granted by this section. Section 326 will help ensure that individuals opening accounts with U.S. financial institutions provide information adequate to enable law enforcement and supervisory agencies to identify accounts maintained by individuals suspected of terrorist activities. The section requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations in consultation with each federal functional regulators to set minimum standards and procedures concerning the verification of customers' identity, maintenance of records of identity verification, and consultation at account opening of lists of known or suspected terrorists provided to the financial institution by a government agency. This section also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit recommendations to Congress, within 6 months of enactment, on the most effective way to require foreign nationals to provide financial institutions in the United States with accurate identity information. It is the intent of section 326 that regulations pursuant to that section do not place obligations solely on the shoulders of the Nation's financial institutions, without placing any obligations on their customers. The contemplated regulations should therefore include provisions relating to the obligations of individuals to provide accurate information in connection with account-opening procedures, so that in appropriate cases penalties may apply under the Bank Secrecy Act to customers who willfully mislead bank officials about matters of customer identity. Section 352 requires financial institutions to establish minimum antimoney laundering programs that include appropriate internal policies, management, employee training, and audit features. This is not a ``one-size-fit-all'' requirement; in fact its very generality recognizes that different types of programs will be appropriate for different types and sizes of institutions. It is our intention, by using general language in the amended provision, that the content of the relevant antimoney laundering programs will necessarily vary with the details of the particular financial institutions involved and the money laundering risks to which the nature of such institution and its financial products exposes the institution. Treasury regulations pursuant to this section should allow adjustment of the extent of antimoney laundering programs for smaller businesses but not exempt businesses from the requirement altogether simply because of their size. A number of improvements are made to the suspicious activity reporting rules. First, technical changes strengthen the safe harbor from civil liability for institutions that report suspicious activity to the Treasury, Sec. 351. The provisions not only add to the protection for reporting institutions; they also address individual privacy concerns by making it clear that government officers may not disclose suspicious transaction reports information except in the conduct of their official duties. Section 356 also requires the issuance of final suspicious transaction reporting rules applicable to brokers and dealers in securities by July 1, 2002; senior officials of the relevant agencies must meet expeditiously to resolve the policy issues raised at staff levels about the content of the necessary regulations and the extent to which suspicious transaction reporting rules should be the same for banking and securities. Sections 359 and 373 of the title deal with underground banking systems such as the Hawala, which is suspected of being a channel used to finance the al Qaeda network. Section 359 makes it clear that underground money transmitters are subject to the same recordkeeping rules--and the same penalties for violating those rules--as above- ground, recognized, money transmitters. It also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress, within 1 year, on the need for additional legislation or regulatory controls relating to underground banking systems. Section 373 clarifies that operators of a money transmitter business can be prosecuted under Federal law for operating an illegal money transmitting business if they do not have a required State license. Section 360 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the United States Executive Director of each of the international financial institutions to use such Director's ``voice and vote'' to support loans and other use of resources to benefit nations that the President determines to be contributing to efforts to combat international terrorism, and to require the auditing of each international financial institution to ensure that funds are not paid to persons engaged in or supporting terrorism. Section 371 creates a new Bank Secrecy Act offense involving the bulk smuggling of more than $10,000 in currency in any conveyance, article of luggage or merchandise or container, either into or out of the United States, and related forfeiture provisions. This provision has been sought for several years by both the Departments of Justice and Treasury. Other provisions of the bill address relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. These provisions were worked out with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and are included in title III because of their close relationship to the provisions of title 31 added or modified by title III. The most important is section 315, which expands the list of specified unlawful activities under 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957 to include foreign corruption offenses, certain U.S. export control violations, offenses subject to U.S. extradition obligations under multilateral treaties, and various other offenses. The Department of Justice should make use of the expanded authority, created by section 315, to make the risk of detection to foreign kleptocrats immediate and palpable. Section 316 establishes procedures to protect the rights of persons whose property may be subject to confiscation in the exercise of the government's antiterrorism authority. This provision is designed to assure that there is no situation in which the defendant in a forfeiture action will lack the opportunity to challenge the forfeiture simply because of the authority under which the forfeiture is sought. Section 319 treats amounts deposited by foreign banks in interbank accounts with U.S. banks as having been deposited in the United States for purposes of the forfeiture rules, but grants the Attorney General authority, in the interest of fairness and consistent with the United States' national interest, to suspend a forfeiture proceeding based on that presumption. This closes an important forfeiture loophole. A third important set of provisions modernize information-sharing rules to reflect the reality of the flight against money laundering and terrorism. Section 314 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to encourage cooperation among financial institutions, financial regulators and law enforcement officials and to permit the sharing of information by law enforcement and regulatory authorities with such institutions regarding persons reasonably suspected, based on credible evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities. The section also allows banks to share information involving possible money laundering or terrorist activity among themselves--with notice to the Secretary of the Treasury. Section 330 states the sense of Congress that the President should direct certain cabinet officers to seek negotiations with foreign supervisory agencies to ensure that foreign institutions maintain adequate records relating to any foreign terrorist organization or person engaged in any financial crime and to make such records available to U.S. law enforcement and financial supervisory personnel. Section 355 permits but does not require, a bank to include information, in a response to a request for an employment reference by a second bank, about the possible involvement of a former institution- affiliated party in potentially unlawful activity, and creates a safe harbor from civil liability for the bank that includes such information in response to an employment reference request, except in the case of malicious intent. Section 358 contains amendments to various provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act to permit information subject to those statutes to be used in the conduct of United States intelligence or counterintelligence activities to protect against international terrorism. Section 361 seeks to enhance the ability of FinCEN to address money laundering and terrorism. The section makes FinCEN a bureau of the Treasury and requires the Secretary to establish operating procedures for the government-wide data access service and communications center that FinCEN operates. In recognizing FinCEN's evolution and maturity, it is not our intention to require existing delegations of authority to be reissued simply because FinCEN's organizational status has changed from Treasury office to Treasury bureau. The modernization of our money-laundering laws represented by Title III is long overdue. It is not the work of one or two weeks but represents years of careful study and a bipartisan effort to produce prudent and effective legislation. The care taken in producing the legislation extends to several provisions calling for reporting on the effect of the legislation and a provision for a three-year review of the effectiveness of the legislation. Title III responds, as I have indicated, to the statement of Assistant Attorney General Chertoff, the head of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division. I want to express my appreciation to him, Under Secretary Gurule at the Treasury, and his associates for their help in this effort. At the hearing on September 26, Assistant Attorney General Chertoff said, and I quote him, ``We are fighting with outdated weapons in the money-laundering arena today.'' Without this legislation, the cracks in the financial system of which bin Laden spoke would remain open. We should not, indeed we cannot, allow that to continue. And that is why enactment of this legislation is so important. Title III is a balanced effort to address a complex area of national concern. It is the result of a truly bipartisan effort on both sides of Congress working closely with the executive branch, with the White House, with the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. I very strongly urge support for this essential component of the antiterrorism package. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Before I make my statement and before Senator Levin leaves the floor, I wish to acknowledge the very substantial contribution that Senator Levin made to the money-laundering title that is in this bill, which I think is an extremely important title. In fact, you can't watch any program on television that has experts talking about what we ought to be doing with respect to this terrorism challenge when either the first or second thing they mention is to dry up the financial sources of the terrorists, and that, of course, comes right back to the money laundering. Senator Levin, over a sustained period of time, in the government operations committee, held some very important hearings, issued very significant reports, and formulated a number of recommendations. This title is, in part, built on the recommendations that Senator Levin put forward at an earlier time. I simply acknowledge his extraordinary contribution to this issue. I acknowledge Senator Kerry as well. There were two proposals. They both had legislation in them and we used those as building blocks in formulating this title. We think it is a very strong title and that it can be a very effective tool in this war against terrorism, and against drugs, and against organized crime. It should have been done a long time ago, but it is being done now. Before the able Senator from Michigan leaves the floor, I thank him and acknowledge his tremendous contribution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to support an amendment to the fiscal 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill to address the emergency needs of the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) and ensure that the critical work done at this world-renowned facility can carry on without delay. In the early evening of September 24, BARC, the United States Department of Agriculture's flagship research center, was severely impacted by a tornado which had just ripped through the University of Maryland College Park, killing two students and contributing to the death of a volunteer firefighter. While thankfully none of the 500 employees working on BARC's stricken western campus were injured, the facility itself sustained significant damage. All 90 of BARC's greenhouses, housing innovative and important research were damaged, with 40,000 square feet of greenhouse space being totally destroyed and another 90,000 square feet receiving severe to moderate damage. Each of the 15 major buildings on BARC's West- campus suffered roof damage and many of these lost their windows, leading to rain damage in laboratories and offices. In addition, scientists lost over $3 million in equipment and reagents. In fact, in one newly renovated building, hazardous chemical spills precluded security windows against the rain or the use of emergency generators to run freezers, exacerbating the loss of experimental materials. As a result, critical research projects were set back from six months to as much as three years. On Monday, I toured the facility with BARC Director Dr. Phyllis Johnson to see the tornado's damage firsthand. Nearly a month after this disaster, the impact of the storm is still terribly evident. My amendment directs the Secretary of Agriculture, within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to submit a reprogramming request to address the $21.7 million in damages at BARC. The majority of this funding, $12,250,000, will be used for greenhouse replacement and repair. The remaining funds will contribute to a variety of infrastructure needs, including roof repair, electrical and mechanical systems repair, and replacement of critical lab equipment and reagents. This funding is essential to allowing the scientists and researchers at BARC to continue to carry on BARC's mission of conducting research to develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high national priority, including ensuring high-quality, safe food, sustaining a competitive agricultural economy, and providing economic opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and society as a whole. In my view, it is critical that the staff at BARC have the tools and facilities to be able to continue this vital mission, one that benefits all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. amendment no. 2013

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of S. 1510, the Uniting and Strengthening America Act of 2001, and in particular, Title III of S. 1510, the International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 2001. Title III was reported out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which I am privileged to chair, a week ago today by a unanimous vote of 21 to 0. President Bush said on September 24: ``We have launched a strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network.'' Title III of our comprehensive anti-terrorism package supplies the armament for that strike. Osama bin Laden may have boasted that ``al- Qaeda [includes] modern, educated youth who are aware of the cracks inside the western financial system, as they are aware of the lines in their hands.'' With Title III, we are sealing up those cracks. Title III contains, among other things, authority to take targeted action against countries, institutions, transactions, or types of accounts the Secretary of the Treasury finds to be of ``primary money- laundering concern.'' It also contains requirements for due diligence standards directed at corresponding accounts opened at U.S. banks by foreign offshore banks and banks in jurisdictions that have been found to fall significantly below international anti-money laundering standards. It contains a bar on the maintenance of U.S. correspondent accounts for offshore shell banks--those banks that have no physical presence or employees anywhere, and that are not part of a regulated and recognized banking company. There is also a requirement that all financial institutions establish anti-money laundering programs. Title III also contains several provisions that should enhance the ability of the Government to share more specific information with banks, and the ability of banks to share information with one another relating to potential terrorist or money-laundering activities, and a large number of important technical improvements in anti-money laundering statutes, as well as, mandates to the Department of the Treasury to act or formulate recommendations to improve our anti-money laundering programs. The problem of money laundering is not a new one. There have been significant efforts for some time in Congress to cut the financial lifelines on which criminal operations depend. Senator John Kerry's exhaustive investigation nearly a decade ago into the collapse of a shady institution called BCCI, which he found was established with ``the specific purpose of evading regulation or control by governments,'' led him to introduce anti-money laundering legislation. A bill similar to his was approved last year by the Banking Committee of the House of Representatives on a 31 to 1 vote. Recent investigations by Senator Carl Levin's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations produced two excellent reports on the ways criminals use financial institutions to launder funds and how we can counter these activities. Senator Levin's reports demonstrated dramatically how correspondent banking facilities and private banking services impede financial transparency and hide foreign client identity and activity, thereby contributing to international money laundering. Senator Charles Grassley has also advocated for stronger money laundering legislation, and sponsored the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, which mandates the development of an annual national money laundering strategy. Two weeks ago we held our own hearings in the Banking Committee. We heard from a number of expert witnesses and from Under Secretary of the Treasury Gurule; Assistant Attorney General Chertoff; and Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, the former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. On October 4, the Banking Committee marked-up and reported out our own bill. The committee print was built, in a sense, on the foundation given to us by Senators Kerry, Levin, Grassley, and by others in this institution. Before describing the provisions of Title III in greater detail, I want to thank all members of the Banking Committee for their contributions to this legislation. As I indicated, it came out of the committee on a vote of 21 to 0. The Ranking Member, Senator Gramm, provided crucial support. He raised certain issues which were addressed in the course of the mark-up involving, among other things, important due process protections. Senators Stabenow and Johnson were instrumental in producing a compromise to resolve a dispute over one of the package's most important provisions. Senator Enzi contributed his experience as an accountant in refining another critical provision. Senator Schumer, who has been involved in past efforts to address money laundering activities, played an important role, as did Senators Allard, Bayh, Corzine, and Crapo, who offered amendments and contributed important improvements to various parts of the subtitle. I am deeply grateful to all of the members of the committee for their strong, positive, and constructive contributions and for their willingness to work day and night. It is my understanding that the committee staff went three consecutive nights without any sleep in order to prepare this legislation. This is carefully considered legislation because it reflects and builds upon efforts which have been made over a number of years. Earlier today, our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee in the House of Representatives marked-up a bill, many of the provisions of which are identical or virtually identical to those contained in Title III of the package now before us. Public support across the country for anti-money laundering legislation is extremely strong. Jim Hoagland put it plainly in the Washington Post: This crisis offers Washington an opportunity to force American and international banks to clean up concealment and laundering practices they now tolerate or encourage and which terrorism can exploit. Terrorist attacks require major investments of time, planning, training, practice, and financial resources to pay the bills. Money laundering is the transmission belt that gives terrorists the resources to carry out their campaigns of carnage. We intend, with Title III of this legislation, to end that transmission belt and its ability to bring resources to the networks that enable terrorists to carry out their campaigns of violence. Title III addresses all aspects of our defenses against money laundering. Those defenses generally fall into three parts. The first is the Bank Secrecy Act, ``BSA'', passed in 1970. It requires financial institutions to keep standardized transaction records and report large currency transactions and suspicious transactions and mandates reporting of the movement of more than $10,000 in currency into or out of the country. The statute is called the ``bank secrecy act,'' because it bars bank secrecy in America, by preventing financial institutions from maintaining opaque records, or discarding their records altogether. Secrecy is the hiding place for crime, and Congress has barred our institutions from allowing those hiding places. The financial institutions covered by that act include banks, broker- dealers, casinos, and non-bank transmitters of funds, currency exchangers, and check cashers--all financial services businesses through which our citizens--and criminals hiding as legitimate citizens--can move funds into and through our economy. Unfortunately, reporting regulations covering some of these institutions have not yet been promulgated. The second part of our money laundering defenses are the criminal statutes first enacted in 1986 that make it a crime to launder money and allow criminal and civil forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. The third part is the statutory framework that allows information to be communicated to and between law enforcement officials. Our goal must be to assure--to the greatest extent consistent with reasonable privacy protections--that the necessary information can be used by the right persons in ``real time'' to cut off terrorism and crime. Title III modernizes provisions in all three areas to meet today's threats in a global economy. Its provisions are divided into five subtitles, dealing, respectively, with ``international counter-money laundering measures''--sections 311-328--``Bank Secrecy Act improvements''--sections 331-342--bulk cash smuggling--section 351 and anti-corruption measures--sections 361-363. There are 39 provisions in Title III. At this time, I want to summarize some of the bill's most important provisions. Section 311 gives the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with other senior government officials, authority to impose one or more of five new ``special measures'' against foreign jurisdictions, entities, transactions or accounts that the Secretary, after consultation with other senior federal officials, determines to pose a ``primary money laundering concern'' to the United States. The special measures all involve special recordkeeping and reporting measures--to eliminate the curtains behind which launderers hide. In extreme cases the Secretary is permitted to bar certain kinds of inter-bank accounts from especially problematic jurisdictions. The statute specifies the considerations the Secretary must take into account in using the new authority and contains provisions to supplement the Administrative Procedure Act to assure that any remedies--except certain short-term measures--are subject to full comment from all affected persons. This new provision gives the Secretary real authority to act to close overseas loopholes through which U.S. financial institutions are abused. At present the Secretary has no weapons except Treasury Advisories--which don't impose specific requirements--or full economic sanctions that suspend financial and trade relations with offending targets. President Bush's invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) several weeks ago was obviously appropriate. But there are many other situations in which we will not want to block all transactions, but in which we will want to do more than simply advise financial institutions about under-regulated foreign financial institutions or holes in foreign counter-money laundering efforts. Former Deputy Secretary Eizenstat testified before the Committee that adding this tool to the Secretary's arsenal was essential. Section 312 focuses on another aspect of the fight against money laundering, the financial institutions that are on the front lines making the initial decisions about what foreign banks to allow inside the United States. It requires U.S. financial institutions to exercise appropriate due diligence when dealing with private banking accounts and interbank correspondent relationships with foreign banks. With respect to foreign banks, the section requires U.S. financial institutions to apply appropriate due diligence to all correspondent accounts with foreign banks, and enhanced due diligence for accounts sought by offshore banks or banks in jurisdictions found to have substandard money laundering controls or which the Secretary determines to be of primary money laundering concern under the new authority given him by section 311. The section also specifies certain minimum standards for the enhanced due diligence that U.S. financial institutions are required to apply to accounts opened for two categories of foreign banks with high money laundering risks--offshore banks and banks in jurisdictions with weak anti-money laundering and banking controls. These minimum standards were developed from, and are based upon, the factual record and analysis contained in the Levin staff report on correspondent banking and money laundering. Section 312 is essential to Title III. It addresses, with appropriate flexibility, mechanisms whose very importance for the conduct of commercial banking makes them special targets of money launderers, as illustrated in Senator Levin's extensive reports and hearings. A related provision, in section 319, requires foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts in the United States to appoint agents for service of process within the United States and authorizes the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a summons or subpoena to any such foreign bank seeking records, wherever located, relating to such a correspondent account. U.S. banks must sever correspondent arrangements with foreign banks that do not either comply with or contest any such summons or subpoena, and if the Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury asks them to sever the arrangements. These provisions send a simple message to foreign banks doing business through U.S. correspondent accounts: be prepared, if you want to use our banking facilities, to operate in accordance with U.S. law. Section 313 also builds on the factual record before the Banking Committee to bar from the United States financial system pure ``brass- plate'' shell banks created outside the U.S. that have no physical presence anywhere and are not affiliated with recognized banking institutions. These shell banks carry the highest money laundering risks in the banking world because they are inherently unavailable for effective oversight--there is no office where a bank regulator or law enforcement official can go to observe bank operations, review documents or freeze funds. Section 327 permits the Secretary to deal with abuse of another recognized commercial banking mechanism--concentration accounts that are used to commingle related funds in one place temporarily pending disbursement or the transfer of funds into individual client accounts. Concentration accounts have been used to launder funds, and the bill permits the Secretary to issue rules to bar the use of concentration accounts to move client funds anonymously, without documentation linking particular funds to their true owners. Section 332 requires financial institutions to establish minimum anti-money laundering programs that include appropriate internal policies, management, employee training, and audit features. This is not a ``one size fits all'' requirement; in fact its very generality recognizes that different types of programs will be appropriate for different types and sizes of institutions. A number of improvements are made to the suspicious activity reporting rules. First, technical changes strengthen the safe harbor from civil liability for institutions that report suspicious activity to the Treasury. The provisions not only add to the protection for reporting institutions; they also address individual privacy concerns by making it clear that government officers may not disclose suspicious transaction reports information except in the conduct of their official duties. The Act also requires the issuance of suspicious transaction reporting rules applicable to brokers and dealers in securities within 270 days of the date of enactment. Sections 341 and 342 of the Title deal with underground banking systems such as the Hawala, which is suspected of being a channel used to finance the al Qaeda network. Section 341 makes it clear that underground money transmitters are subject to the same recordkeeping rules--and the same penalties for violating those rules--as above- ground, recognized, money transmitters. It also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress, within one year, on the need for additional legislation or regulatory controls relating to underground banking systems. Section 342 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the United States Executive Director of each of the international financial institutions to use such Director's ``voice and vote'' to support loans and other use of resources to benefit nations that the President determines to be contributing to efforts to combat international terrorism, and to require the auditing of each international financial institution to ensure that funds are not paid to persons engaged in or supporting terrorism. Section 351 creates a new Bank Secrecy Act offense involving the bulk smuggling of more than $10,000 in currency in any conveyance, article of luggage or merchandise or container, either into or out of the United States, and related forfeiture provisions. This provision has been sought for several years by both the Departments of Justice and Treasury. Other provisions of the bill address relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. These provisions were worked out with the Judiciary Committee and are included in Title III because of their close relationship to the provisions of Title 31 added or modified by Title III. The most important is section 315, which expands the list of specified unlawful activities under 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957 to include foreign corruption offenses, certain U.S. export control violations, offenses subject to U.S. extradition obligations under multilateral treaties, and misuse of funds of international financial institutions. Section 316 establishes procedures to protect the rights of persons whose property may be subject to confiscation in the exercise of the government's anti-terrorism authority. Section 319 treats amounts deposited by foreign banks in interbank accounts with U.S. banks as having been deposited in the United States for purposes of the forfeiture rules, but grants the Attorney General authority, in the interest of fairness and consistent with the United States' national interest, to suspend a forfeiture proceeding based on that presumption. This closes an important forfeiture loophole. Section 321 allows the United States to exclude any alien that the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is or has engaged in or abetted certain money laundering offenses. A third important set of provisions modernize information sharing rules to reflect the reality of the fight against money laundering and terrorism. Section 314 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to encourage cooperation among financial institutions, financial regulators and law enforcement officials and to permit the sharing of information by law enforcement and regulatory authorities with such institutions regarding persons reasonably suspected, based on credible evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities. The section also allows banks to share information involving possible money laundering or terrorist activity among themselves--with notice to the Secretary of the Treasury. Section 335 permits, but does not require, a bank to include information, in a response to a request for an employment reference by a second bank, about the possible involvement of a former institution-affiliated party in potentially unlawful activity, and creates a safe harbor from civil liability for the bank that includes such information in response to an employment reference request, except in the case of malicious intent. Given its different focus, it is not my intention to similarly limit a bank's safe harbor from civil liability for the filing of suspicious activity reports under the Bank Secrecy Act. Section 340 contains amendments to various provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to permit information subject to those statutes to be used in the conduct of United States intelligence or counterintelligence activities to protect against international terrorism. The modernization of our money laundering laws represented by Subtitle III is long overdue. It is not the work of one week or one weekend, but represents years of careful study and a bipartisan effort to produce a piece of prudent legislation. The care taken in producing the legislation extends to several provisions calling for reporting on the legislation's effect and a provision for a three-year review of the legislation's effectiveness. Title III responds, as I've indicated, to the statement of Assistant Attorney General Chertoff, the head of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, at the Banking Committee's September 26 hearing that ``[w]e are fighting with outdated weapons in the money laundering arena today.'' Without this legislation, the cracks in the system of which bin Laden boasted will remain open. We should not, indeed we can not, allow that to happen, any more than we can delay dealing with the financial aspects of the terrorist threat. Title III is a balanced effort to address a complex area of national concern. I strongly urge my colleagues to follow the unanimous recommendation of the Banking Committee and support this important component of the anti-terrorism package. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of Title III be included in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator for his question. Yes, that is also my understanding of Section 314.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the leader.

Mr. SARBANES. I understand it is the intention, then, of the leadership to complete the counterterrorism bill this evening; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, if we can complete work on the counterterrorism bill this evening, then we will not be in tomorrow, or at least we will not be transacting business that requires votes tomorrow. Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor an extraordinary Marylander and steward of the Chesapeake Bay, Fran Flanigan. Fran is stepping down from a long and distinguished career as executive director of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and I want to express my personal congratulations and thanks for her outstanding and dedicated service. When the history of the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort is finally written there are many people who will be recognized for the role they played in helping to ``Save the Bay.'' But Fran's hard work and creativity over the past three decades will distinguish her as one of the true leaders in this important endeavor. Fran has been a determined advocate for the Chesapeake Bay from virtually the inception of the Bay program. In December 1983, she organized a 3-day conference which brought together the Governors of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the EPA Administrator, members of the State legislatures and many other individuals and organization. That conference resulted in the signing of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement which formally bound the Federal and State governments to work together to restore the Bay and effectively initiated the cooperative Chesapeake Bay Program. I became acquainted with Fran during that historic summit and have had the opportunity to work closely with her and her non-profit organization, the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, later the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, for many years. I can personally attest to the tremendous energy and creativity which she consistently brought to her work. Fran has an amazing ability to pull people together and has been called upon time and time again to convene stakeholder roundtables on key issues and expand public involvement. Whether the subject was agriculture, toxic pollution or land use, Fran would try to find common ground and a way to ensure that different States and interest groups moved forward together for the betterment of the Chesapeake Bay. Fran Flanigan and Alliance have been very forward thinking and helped move the Bay cleanup program upstream into the rivers that flow into the Chesapeake. She reoriented the Alliance to work at a more local level and promote local restoration activities, all in an effort to better acquaint the public with the resources they were working to protect and restore. She knew that public participation in the efforts to clean up the Bay were essential and the key to keeping the Bay cleanup effort on course and worked hard to keep the public informed about key Chesapeake issues through the Alliance's outstanding white papers, fact sheets, newsletters and the Bay Journal. She also helped organize everything from small watershed groups to huge public outreach efforts such as those needed before the signing of the 1987 and 2000 Bay Agreements. Fran has been there on the front line from the very start of the Bay program and, even in retirement, I know will continue to be involved in the Bay efforts. Her dedication and efforts over the years have earned her the respect and admiration of everyone with whom she has worked. She has been instrumental in bringing to so many people an enjoyment and sense of ownership of the Chesapeake Bay. I join with her many colleagues and friends in extending my best wishes and thanks for her leadership and commitment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, nearly one month has passed since the ferocious attacks of September 11th. Words remain inadequate to describe or define the event. Analysts are beginning to assess the immediate costs in economic terms. Someday, perhaps, historians will succeed in cataloguing, analyzing and calculating the losses. But some losses--families torn apart, communities devastated--will remain forever beyond calculation. However, the tragic events of September 11th leave no question that our airport security system is in need of reformation. The ability of hijackers to ease through our Nation's airport screeners has created fear among the American public about flying and has led to a significant downturn in the travel and tourism industry. Around the country, air travelers now patiently wait in long lines after emergency security procedures have been instituted to prevent further tragedies. Thousands of employees, not only from the airline industry, but also well beyond it, have lost their jobs. During these difficult times, it is imperative that Congress act to protect Americans from future terrorism and to provide economic assistance to those left unemployed because of the horrendous acts of September 11th. I strongly support S. 1447 because it takes vital steps to strengthen our Nation's airport security system, to ensure safety for crews and passengers, and to bolster our economy. Among the most important provisions in this bill is the federalization of airport security personnel. I support this plan because it is a clear solution to one of the most troublesome aspects of our current airport security operations: the failure of screeners to detect dangerous objects. The atrocities of the recent terrorist attacks highlight the inadequacies of the current screening system. Under the system, airlines, subject to Federal Aviation Administration requirements, are responsible for administering screening of passengers and their carry-on luggage. Airlines generally contract out their screening responsibility to private security companies, often awarding contracts based upon the lowest bid rather than superior security systems. Allowing airlines such authority has resulted in a system that too often promotes lower costs over the safety of passengers. Recent separate studies by the GAO and the DOJ's Inspector General revealed the serious inadequacies of the current screening system and causes for its failures. Among the problems noted by the IG report was the frequent failure of the airlines to conduct background checks of employees with access to secure areas and the ability of IG personnel to access secure areas without being challenged by security 68 percent of the time. The GAO report which concluded that screener performance in major U.S. airports was unsatisfactory, attributed the poor performance of security screeners to a high employee turnover rate, more than 100 percent per year at many airports--low wages, insufficient training, and inadequate monitoring of screeners. Federalizing security operations throughout U.S. airports is the best answer for improving screener performance. It would raise wages, lower employee turnover, promote career loyalty among screeners, create uniform training among security personnel, and, as a result, strengthen the performance of screeners to discover dangerous objects. Once the Federal government ensures that screeners are performing their duties in strict adherence to the highest safety standards, the public will gain greater confidence in airport security. In light of the current campaign against terrorism, now is the time to incorporate this change. As a recent New York Times editorial stated, ``airports are a front line in the struggle against terrorism, and it no longer makes sense to delegate their policing to the private sector, which emphasizes low cost as opposed to security.'' I agree with this assessment. I also want to underscore my support for Senator Carnahan's amendment to provide much-needed relief for the thousands of hard-working employees in the airline industry who have lost their jobs as a result of the horrific attack on our Nation on September 11th. This amendment will provide unemployment benefits, health care and training to airline industry employees who have been laid off due to the marked decrease in air travel in this country. The airline industry has been most directly affected in the aftermath of the attack, but the ripple effect of the attacks is being felt throughout other industries as well. Hotel, travel, and tourism employees, who number in the hundreds of thousands, are at risk of losing their jobs due to the nationwide decrease in travel. In Maryland, tourism is a $7.7 billion industry. It means jobs for our people and revenues for our State and local programs. While we are moving vigorously to encourage travelers to come to Maryland this fall, a decrease in tourism is expected in the State, as it is nationwide. While it is crucial that we provide support to airline workers at this time, we should also remember the plight of the hundreds of thousands of other workers across the State of Maryland and the country whose livelihood may be affected. The terrorist attacks of September 11th were intended to create fear in Americans and our way of life, including air travel. This legislation will help to ease fears about air travel and the state of our economy by strengthening our airport security system. In this regard, I urge the Senate to pass this legislation expeditiously.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a great American, former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who passed away on October 5 at the age of 98. Senator Mansfield's legacy as a Member of Congress will leave a shadow as long as his very life. Born in New York, the son of Irish immigrants, in 1903, Michael Joseph Mansfield experienced tragedy at an early age when his mother died when he was only 3. Sent to live with relatives in Great Falls, MT, Senator Mansfield soon began a lifetime of hard work, first in the family grocery store, then enlisting in the Navy before his 15th birthday, and later, when the Navy discharged the young Senator Mansfield after discovering he was underage, serving in the United States Army and Marine Corps, all before the age of 20. In 1922, Senator Mansfield returned to Montana and began working as a ``mucker'' in the copper mines near Butte, MT. Five years later, he met Maureen Hayes, to whom he would be married from 1932 until her death just last year. It was his wife that encouraged Senator Mansfield to continue his education, first at the Montana School of Mines then completing his high school education through correspondence courses. In 1930, he left the copper mines and enrolled in the University of Montana where he later became a professor of Far Eastern and Latin American history and political science after completing graduate work at the University of California at Berkeley. Although he did not follow a traditional path, Senator Mansfield's education provided him with the background that would allow him to become one of Congress' foremost experts on foreign affairs. After losing his first bid for elected office, Senator Mansfield was elected to the House of Representatives in 1942 and was immediately assigned to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Just two years later, then- Representative Mansfield was sent on a confidential fact-finding mission to China by President Franklin Roosevelt, returning in 1945 to report on the state of that nation. In 1952, he narrowly defeated an incumbent to win a seat in the Senate where he was again called upon to use his expertise on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, completing another fact-finding trip, this time to Indochina, and serving as a representative to the Manila Conference. Outside the realm of foreign affairs, Senator Mansfield quickly rose through the ranks of Senate leadership, first as party whip in 1957 and becoming the Democratic Majority Leader just four years later in 1961. In his 16 years as Majority Leader, Senator Mansfield helped steer the Nation through some of our most difficult times. After President Kennedy's assassination in 1963, Senator Mansfield delivered a eulogy at a Capitol Rotunda memorial service that was broadcast across the country and helped all Americans mourn the loss of our great President. Senator Mansfield was a vocal critic of our Nation's involvement in the Vietnam War, and warned three administrations, from Eisenhower to Johnson, about the extent of U.S. military actions there. Although his position on the Vietnam War strained his relations with the Johnson administration, he was able to work with the President on passage of landmark civil rights legislation. The turmoil of that era was immediately followed by the Watergate scandal that resulted in the resignation of President Nixon and shook the faith of some Americans in our government. But throughout all of these trying times, Senator Mansfield led the Senate with quiet determination that exemplified his service in Congress. And that truly is how we will remember Senator Mansfield. Through the most difficult of times, Senator Mansfield led this great body with a sense of purpose and integrity. He put his trust in the rules and procedures of the Senate to reach a result that was right for the American people. He encouraged Committee Chairmen to lead Senate debate on bills under their jurisdiction, and inspired young Senators to make their voices heard on the floor. He delegated responsibility to others, making the Senate a more democratic place, instead of a body dominated by the ``old guard.'' And when the Senate failed to live up to the high ideals embodied in the Constitution, Senator Mansfield would say so. It has been reported many times in the past few days that Senator Mansfield nearly resigned his position as Majority Leader in 1963. Following President Kennedy's assassination, Senator Mansfield put that speech aside, but delivered the remarks in 1998 as part of a lecture series in the Old Senate Chamber. We would be wise to remember those words now, and to follow Senator Mansfield's example of thoughtful consideration and respect for others in the difficult times we face today. Senator Mansfield's service to our Nation did not end with the 16 years he spent as Majority Leader. His expertise on Far East matters led very different Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, to choose him as their ambassador to Japan. Ambassador Mansfield spent 11 years in this difficult diplomatic post. After leaving Tokyo in 1987, the Japanese ambassador to this country predicted the Ambassador ``could have run for prime minister and won.'' Leaving public service, Senator Mansfield would still not retire and served as a senior advisor on East Asian affairs to Goldman, Sachs until his recent death. He remained active in policy matters and the Senate remained close to his heart as he attended the Senate's weekly prayer breakfasts on a regular basis. Mike Mansfield brought to the United States Senate some of the best characteristics of Montanans, he addressed issues in a straight- forward, honest way, never forgot the people that put him in office, provided a calming influence in good times and bad. In a turbulent and uncertain time, Senator Mansfield was a beacon of dignity, common sense, intelligence, and above all, wisdom. I would like to offer my condolences to his daughter, Anne, his granddaughter, and his many friends and admirers here in Washington and in his beloved home State of Montana.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 42, a bill to memorialize our Nation's fallen firefighters by lowering the American flag to half-staff in honor of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emmitsburg, MD. This measure is similar to legislation that I introduced earlier this year. Both bills seek to recognize the courage and commitment of America's fire service and to pay this special tribute to those firefighters who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Our Nation's firefighters are among our most dedicated public servants. From major cities such as New York to our smaller rural communities, every day America's firefighters answer emergency calls, willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect the lives and property of their fellow citizens. Sadly, this dedication to service can result in tragedy. Few would question the fact that our fallen firefighters are heroes. Throughout our Nation's history, we have recognized the passing of our public servants by lowering our Nation's flag to half-staff in their honor. In the past, this list has included elected officials, members of the Armed Services, and America's peace officers. In my view, our fallen firefighters are equally deserving of this high honor. For the past 19 years, a memorial service has been held on the campus of the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg to honor those firefighters who have given their lives while protecting the lives and property of their fellow citizens. Since 1981, the names of 2,081 fallen firefighters have been inscribed on plaques surrounding the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial, Congressionally designated monument to these brave men and women. On October 7, at the 20th Annual National Memorial Service, an additional 101 names will be added. I am pleased that President and Mrs. Bush will be present this year to lead the Nation in honoring these fallen fire heroes and to pay special tribute to those firefighters who perished as a result of the events of September 11. Over the years, I have worked very closely with the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation to ensure that National Memorial Service is an occasion befitting the sacrifices that these individuals have made, In my view, lowering the United States flag to half-staff is an essential component of this ``Day of Remembrance.'' It will be a fitting tribute to the men and women who die each year performing their duties as our nation's career and volunteer firefighters. It will also serve to remind us of the critical role played by the 1.2 million fire service personnel who risk their lives every day to ensure our safety and that of our communities. I express my gratitude to those Senators who agreed to cosponsor my legislation, S.J. Res. 18, and urge my colleagues to support the swift passage of H.J. Res. 42.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I submitted S. Res. 168 with my colleague, Senator Mikulski, honoring Cal Ripken, Jr. On Saturday October 6, 2001, at Oriole Park at Camden Yards, not far from my home in Baltimore, Cal Ripken, Jr. will play in his final baseball game. Cal Ripken's career will have spanned 21 seasons in the major leagues, every one of them with the Baltimore Orioles. In fact, beginning with Cal's father, Cal Ripken, Sr., there has been a Ripken in the Orioles organization for 45 consecutive years. Over the past 21 years, Cal Ripken, Jr. has built what will be a lasting legacy not only as one of the greatest players in the history of professional baseball, but as a true ambassador of the game and a shining example of sportsmanship, character, and the American work ethic. An entire generation was born and grew up watching Cal Ripken play baseball every day the right way. Many of my constituents in Maryland have rooted for the Orioles knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that Cal Ripken would be playing, first at Memorial Stadium and then later at Camden Yards, and that they would be able to see Cal give that one game everything that he had. Not only will the city of Baltimore miss Cal's number 8 on the left-side of the infield and in the heart of the line- up, but all residents of Maryland, and millions of Americans, from die- hard baseball fans, to those who have only seen one game, will always associate the Baltimore Orioles with their legendary shortstop, Cal Ripken. Cal Ripken's achievements on the field of play are legendary: Ripken is one of only seven players in history to record both 400 home runs and 3,000 hits and along with fellow Oriole, longtime teammate, and good friend, Eddie Murray, they are the only infielders to accomplish this feat. Simply put, Cal redefined the position of shortstop in every respect: offense, defense, durability, consistency, and popularity. Listing all of Cal's baseball accomplishments could go on forever, but there is one record for which he is best known, and that in Maryland is simply referred to as ``The Streak.'' For 17 straight years, Ripken played in every single game on the Baltimore Orioles' schedule, never succumbing to injury or weakness, always willing to do his best to help the Orioles over an amazing 2,632 consecutive games. It is this consistency and work ethic that has so endeared him to the American public, and was so stirringly celebrated on the evening of September 6, 1995, the day that he played has 2,131st consecutive game, surpassing the record set by the ``Iron Horse,'' Hall-of-Famer Lou Gehrig. I will repeat what I said on this very floor on September 7, 1995: throughout both ``The Streak'' and the rest of Cal's storybook career, Cal played baseball for one reason and one reason only: because he loves the game. And, Cal, the game loves you. When Cal was approaching Mr. Gehrig's record in 1995, it was a turbulent time in the history of Major League Baseball; the sport was trying to recover from the damage done by a players' strike in the 1994 season that canceled the World Series for the first time in history. There was a breach of trust between the sport and its fans, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Cal Ripken's journey toward this great record was a focus point in the healing process that ultimately restored much of the good will lost for America's pastime. Ripken, over the course of 21 consecutive seasons, spent hours before and after games signing autographs for countless fans. There were jokes in the Baltimore clubhouse that if anything were to end ``The Streak,'' it would be an injury to his right hand from signing too many autographs. But it is this willingness to go the extra mile, to not treat his fame and influence as a burden but to welcome his responsibility to the public, particularly to children, as a role model that distinguishes Cal Ripken from even the greatest athletes and enables him to transcend his sport. Unlike so many of our modern athletes, Cal Ripken embraced his status as a role model. With his wife Kelly by his side, the Ripkens engaged in charity work ranging from literacy programs to fighting Lou Gehrig's disease, as well as working tirelessly to promote the game of baseball to all children, especially those that are disadvantaged. Fittingly, one of the many tasks that Cal will devote himself to in his retirement is the Cal Ripken Little League Division of Babe Ruth Baseball, which has over 700,000 children learning the fundamentals of baseball. Another project that Cal will be working on is that of building Inspiration Field in his home community of Harford County, Maryland. Cal has always been devoted to his Maryland roots, but beyond that is his devotion to his family, his mother Vi, his late father Cal Ripken, Sr., his wife Kelly, and his children Ryan and Rachel. Cal has shown this devotion countless times, and I know that in his retirement, Cal, will have more time to enjoy the loving family that we are all proud to know simply as the Ripkens. But here, as with the statistics and records, listing Cal's charitable programs and donations and noting his loving role as son, husband, and father, can not fully capture the phenomenal manner in which Cal Ripken has lived his life and given back to his community. Cal was born in Havre de Grace, MD, and was raised in the neighboring City of Aberdeen. He was drafted by the Baltimore Orioles organization in 1978, and spent every year of his professional career, except one, playing baseball in the State of Maryland. Cal Ripken's career has been the fulfillment of the childhood dream of so many of us, to become an athletic superstar and play your entire career for your hometown team. And beyond that, Cal Ripken has lived this dream with the dignity, honor, humility, charity, passion, and pure love of baseball that make myself, the City of Aberdeen, the City of Baltimore, the State of Maryland, and the United States of America proud to call Cal a legend and a role model for us all. I urge my colleagues to join us in honoring and congratulating Cal Ripken's amazing and storybook career by saying thank you Cal.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his question. The Defense Production Act reauthorization that is awaiting further action in the Senate would currently reauthorize the act for two years and would make a number of technical corrections.

Mr. SARBANES. In light of U.S. national security needs, I feel Congress is justified in extending the DPA's authorization for two years. I am prepared, however, to work with the Senator from Wyoming to review his concerns with the DPA when the Banking Committee considers its future reauthorization.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I rise in recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month. Each year, from September 15 through October 15, we recognize the contributions that Hispanic Americans bring to the United States. During this Hispanic Heritage Month, our Nation is in the process of coming to terms with the unspeakably savage attacks of September 11th and bracing for what may follow. Yet, in the wake of these heinous terrorist acts, we have demonstrated one of our greatest strengths, the ability to unite in times of crises. A major element of that unity is recognizing and embracing our diversity. This month we do so by showing our respect and appreciation for the rich cultural heritage Hispanic Americans bring to our Nation. Recent census figures show that there are more than 35 million Hispanic Americans in this country. Their ranks have increased 58 percent through the last decade. Hispanic Americans will soon be the largest minority group in the United States, making up 24 percent of the population by 2050. In my State of Maryland, the number of Hispanics grew more than 82 percent since 1990, making up more than 4 percent of the population statewide. I know that Hispanic Americans will continue to bring great contributions to Maryland's culture and economy. Like America, the Hispanic culture within our country is diverse. Whether we look to the large Puerto Rican community in New York, the influx of Central Americans to the Washington Metropolitan region, Mexican Americans who have a long history in California, or Cuban Americans who have made South Florida their home, Hispanic American culture reflects the breadth and depth of the cultures of their nations of origin. Hispanic Americans are changing the face of America, challenging our tendency to view the world in terms of black and white and teaching us to accept ethnic diversity as well as racial differences. I strongly believe that we will live up to the ideals of our Nation's founding only when all Americans have equal access to the building blocks of a strong society, education, employment, health care, housing and political participation. We must make sure that basic services and opportunities are available to Hispanic Americans. And, as this segment of the population grows, it will be increasingly important for educators, hospitals, civil services, and financial institutions to be able to communicate effectively, provide bilingual materials where appropriate, and be aware of cultural differences when delivering services. Hispanic Americans deserve to take full part in their communities and language barriers should not prevent them from doing so. Throughout our history, different groups have come to this country contributing their culture, values and strengths to make the United States the strong diverse country that it is. The story of immigrants searching for a better life is a story that has been replayed countless times throughout our history, sustaining the growth of America since her beginning. Hispanic Americans continue this tradition and I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize their heritage this month.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, my longtime Chief of Staff, Peter Marudas, retired recently from public service. It has been both an honor and privilege to work with Peter these many years. He has been not only a superb member of my staff, but also among my closest and dearest friends. I consider myself, and the citizens of Maryland, fortunate to have benefited from his service, counsel, and commitment to the highest standards of conduct and ethics. In addition to his many years of service in the United States Senate, Peter's illustrious career includes service for several other public officials, including three former Baltimore City Mayors: Theodore McKeldin, Thomas A. D'Alesandro III, and Kurt Schmoke. While working at the highest levels, Peter has remained a down-to-earth, committed public servant, known for his exuberant good humor and generosity. The attached Baltimore Sun article of August 18, 2001, accurately reflects not only Peter's individual and unique personality, but also the admiration and esteem in which he is held by all who are privileged to know him. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, we have all experienced a daunting national tragedy. It touches every single one of us. As Americans, we stand united behind our President, speaking with one voice as we move forward in the wake of this tragedy, and move forward as a nation we will. This is the time to bring to bear all of our country's formidable resources of heart and mind. We must reach out to those families who have suffered grievous loss and to the communities torn apart by this savage act. The challenge we now face will not be surmounted overnight. We must seek out the facts which will be the basis for our response. We must have a binding determination, a steely resolve to see that those responsible for these heinous acts will be held accountable. We should not fool ourselves that we will find a quick or simple answer, but we will persevere, and we will work in concert with democratic forces the world over to see that this terrible scourge, which has just had such devastating consequences, is eliminated altogether. I thank and praise the heroic efforts, the courage, and the sacrifice of our police, our firefighters, our emergency medical service personnel--all of the rescue workers who have been involved in addressing this tragic situation in New York, in Pennsylvania, and here in Washington. In fact, numerous firefighters and emergency medical service personnel from my own State have responded to the attack upon the Pentagon, and my thanks go out to all of them for their prompt efforts. This morning, the Baltimore Sun ran a very strong editorial entitled ``Answer Terror with Resolution.'' Answer terror with resolution. It went on in the course of that editorial to say: The Nation needs unity, clarity, purpose . . . Courage and steadfastness of an unremarkable, everyday persevering kind, are required. A well-directed and effective response from government is required. Resolve is required to continue on our path to do what is right. These are the ways the terrorists lose. We are resolved and determined that they shall lose. I ask unanimous consent that the full editorial from this morning's Baltimore Sun be printed in the Record.