Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Right.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Earlier in the day when I first spoke on this bill, I don't think the Senator was in the Chamber. I was very careful to make the point that I supported this bill on the basis of my own judgment about its contents. I then went on to add the point that the administration was supportive of this bill, and obviously one finds some comfort in that since much of what is in the bill involves the executive branch making it work. So particularly on a bill such as this, if they were against it, that would give one pause for thought. I simply say to my colleague, it is a very interesting challenge he puts forward. Without anticipating that he would make such a challenge, I was very careful in my opening statement to make the point that my support for the bill was based on my own judgment about its provisions having worked through it very carefully. Over and above that judgment, I also, of course, alluded to the fact that the administration was very supportive of it.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. It is 212.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will take a few moments to make a brief response to my able colleague from Tennessee. I know the distinguished Senator from Wyoming also wants to speak. Much of what was contained in my colleague's statement I agree with regarding concerns and how to address them. I think there are basic differences of perception of this bill and what it does. As I said at the outset, I am frank to say I think the bill provides greater protection for national security and foreign policy interests than either the previous Export Administration Act or the regime in place under IEEPA. In my opening statement I didn't have the material at hand and I made reference to the significant improvement in the commitment of resources for enforcement which is extremely important in any regime. You can have a nice paper regime, and if you do not have the resources for enforcement it does not have any reality. I will go through those quickly. Beginning on page 296, we have a number of provisions of additional resources for enforcement programs. I want those in the Record because I think they are important: $3.5 million additional authorization to the Department of Commerce to hire 20 additional employees to assist U.S. freight forwarders and other interested parties in developing and implementing on a voluntary basis, a ``best practices'' program to ensure that exports of controlled items are undertaken in compliance with this act. We are trying to draw on the export community, in effect, to become an active partner in trying to maintain the controls and support the regime. The freight forwarders are an integral aspect of the export process. This provision would be very important. We go on to $4.5 million to hire new investigators to be posted abroad in order to verify the end use of high-risk dual-use technology; $5 million for the end-use verification program. That is in addition to the authorization I was just talking about. The station oversees investigators. There is $5 million for upgrading the computer licensing and enforcement system within the Department of Commerce; $2 million for additional license review officers, and $2 million to train license review officers, auditors, and investigators. That is a total of $22 million in additional enforcement programs. It significantly boosts the budget by about 50 percent. We are talking about a 50-percent increase in the commitment of resources. I listened carefully to my colleague. A fair amount of what the Senator discussed involved matters that are not affected in the export control regime. If a nation is transferring military technology, that is not part of the export regime which deals with dual-use technology. We confront that situation in some instances. I was interested by the reference of the Senator to these various commissions. My colleague from Wyoming, in fact, was the cochair of one of those commissions investigating some of the problems. There were a number of references to the commission chaired by Rumsfeld in terms of our export program. I point out to my colleague we have a letter today from the same Rumsfeld, as far as I understand it, endorsing this legislation and urging Members to act on it. That is the very Rumsfeld, unless I am mistaken, being cited in terms of a particular point of view with respect to export controls. One item the Senator mentioned as a possible amendment, the notion that there had to be a unanimous decision of the interagency group with respect to a license approval. What that means is the issue then would never get off of the first tier in terms of going up the appeals process because any one of the departments or agencies involved in the interagency review could, in effect, stop it at that level. That is not the scheme of the legislation. The scheme of the legislation is that the matter can move forward as long as there is a majority decision, but the dissenting voice in the majority decision can take it to the next level for review so it can be moved up the line in terms of the officials examining this matter, and eventually, of course, can be taken right to the President for an ultimate decision that will resolve a dispute between one department and another with respect to the issuance of a license. If they all agree that the license should be issued, it will be issued; if they all agree it should not be issued, it will not be issued. What do you do if they differ? If they differ and you require unanimity for issuing the license, in effect, it is blocked at that level. What this arrangement provides is that you can continue to move forward, but an appeal can be taken to the next level and to the level beyond that and eventually to the President for a determination. I think that is a much fairer process. It is a more open process. It is a more transparent process and that means that the exporters at least will get a decision and will not simply disappear into the great void where they are left without any decision. Much of what has motivated the business community is the argument that ``we need to know, we need a judgment.'' If we can't do the license, let us know we cannot do the license within a limited period of time and we will go on about our business in other ways. If we can do the license, let us know within a period so we are in the bidding or competitive process in terms of trying to land this contract. I don't think we can go from the majority to unanimity because then we are right back where we were. One of the old problems we have confronted is an impediment and a burden on trade without making a contribution to national security that can't be achieved according to the procedures in this legislation. It is not as though we say if there is a majority decision at the lowest level, that decides the matter. That only begins the process and the department that has been outvoted can appeal the matter and take it up the line. It seems to me that is a much more sensible way in which to proceed. I think one of the things this bill provides to industry, which I think they are reasonable in seeking, is a defined process within a limited time period that in the end gives them an answer, yes or no. But it gives them an answer. That is an improvement over current arrangements where they may well be simply left in limbo. It is reasonable to expect the Government decisionmakers and the Government process to work in such a way that in the end they get a decision. One of the premises on tightening up is that if you have foreign availability or mass market, that you are not contributing in any significant way to stemming the spread of technology by inhibiting it because it is available from other sources generally available. So it seems sensible to try to take those goods and services out of the surveillance as a starter. We do not do that anywhere near completely because in both instances we provide authorities whereby that can be suspended. The reason we have the double Presidential authority--for example, on foreign availability--is the part in the foreign availability section is designed to get the executive to try to negotiate and arrive at a multilateral restraint. This technology is available, foreign available, so it can be acquired there--comparable technology. If that is so, we are saying to the President: You should try to see if you can negotiate an agreement. We have the three 6-month periods, the 18-month period, in which if he has not been successful in doing that, that authority, in effect, comes to an end. But we have the general catch- all authority which enables the President to, in effect, limit or control it or prohibit it on the basis of the general authority. The mass marketing does not have that. He can keep rolling that over, if he chooses. But, in any event, he has this reserve power under the enhanced control that enables him to deal with parts and components. It enables him to deal with foreign availability. It enables him to deal with mass marketing in which, in effect, a very, very broad authority and power has been committed to the President. That is one of the reasons it seems to me clear that the administration and the various officials are supportive of this legislation. We are trying to improve the process, provide some certainty in how it works, make sure the private sector gets answers, and at the same time reserve to the President the ultimate authority to make control decisions based on national security and foreign policy interests. So I think the basic scheme, the basic arrangement is one that, in fact, deals more adequately with national security and foreign policy interests than either the existing regime now under IEEPA or the previous Export Administration Act.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as we move forward in the debate, I presumably will have a chance to examine in greater detail the provisions of the legislation. I read through this legislation again over the weekend, from start to finish. I must say to you, on this issue I have always been sensitive to the national security and foreign policy arguments. In the past, in considering this legislation, I have never been one who sort of willy-nilly wanted to remove export controls. I think they have a very important role to play. I think this legislation substantially strengthens the ability of the President and the administration to exercise export controls on behalf of national security and foreign policy interests. So I very much hope my colleagues will be supportive of this legislation as we move ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to take advantage of these few minutes to address a couple of the points the Senator from Arizona raised. First of all, in fiscal year 2000, the data indicates that the average time for the review of a license by the Department of Defense was 13 days. The Department of Energy averaged 22 days. The State Department averaged 9 days. The 30-day time period that is in the bill is identical to the current practice under the Executive order. The amendment would add an additional 60 days in each of two separate circumstances. Of course, one of the things we were trying to do here was to set up a process whereby applicants could get a definitive decision within a defined timeframe. Now there are provisions in the bill to stop the running of a clock, a couple of which directly go to the end user issue which the Senator from Arizona raised, as requiring further time to ascertain the end user issue. There are these exceptions that stop the clock, as it were, on the time period. That involves the identity and reliability of the end user in one instance and additional time to secure the government-to- government assurances regarding end item use. So the very concern that the Senator raised is actually addressed in the legislation in terms of stopping the clock and providing extra time. I think it is important to underscore that one of the things we were trying to provide to the exporters, which we think is important, was that they could get an answer within a defined period of time. Often they are more concerned in some instances in getting an answer. They need to know, yes or no. They are often competing in an environment in which they have to find out whether they can move forward or not. A department having difficulty with the application can simply say: We think it should be denied. Of course, if they say that, you can then start the interagency appeal process working. But of course that extends over a sustained period of time. So we think the framework that is in the legislation really adequately addresses these concerns. It does represent a balance, and, as I indicated earlier, we are giving quite extensive powers to the executive branch in here. One of the things the business community was concerned to get was a framework with some discipline in it into which they could get an answer. If you are left hanging, you don't know what to do. So given the provisions for stopping the clock that are in there, we think to add another 60 days on top of this period would extend the process to such an extent that the exporters really could not function in the real world. Now if the time period was taking a lot longer to get agency response, we could be sensitive to that argument. But that is not the case. In any event, the very people who are concerned with making this work, upon whom the burden would fall, have indicated that they find the time periods that are in the bill quite acceptable and, in fact, are in opposition to the proposed amendment. They are the very ones who would have to make the process work. So I think that is also an important consideration to take into account.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Majority Leader will work to ensure enactment of the SEC pay parity and fee reduction legislation when Congress returns from the August recess. Passage of H.R. 1088 is very important to the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as to the many segments of the securities industry. This bill enjoys wide bipartisan support in the Senate. The Senate version of the bill, S. 143, The Competitive Market Supervision Act of 2001, was passed by the Banking Committee on March 1 by voice vote. It was passed by the full Senate on March 22, by unanimous consent. I want to focus on the importance of the bill's pay parity provisions. These would authorize the Commission to pay its employees on a par with the other Federal financial regulators. Our securities markets are the envy of the world. It is important that the regulator of those markets be in a favorable position to attract and retain qualified employees. Enacting pay parity contributes towards this goal and will result in enhanced supervision of the securities markets.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, earlier this week the Senate lost one of its finest and most respected professional staff members. George William Ashworth, known to all of us as Bill, passed away suddenly on Monday, leaving not only his loving family and a multitude of friends, but a 25-year record of extraordinary public service. I first came to know Bill when I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1977. He had been serving on the staff, which was then nonpartisan, since 1972, after having served two years in the U.S. Army and then covering the Pentagon and national security issues for the Christian Science Monitor. He came to the Committee as a specialist on arms control matters, and provided expert advice to all of us as we considered landmark treaties such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Threshhold Test Ban Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, and the Interim Agreement on Strategic Offensive Arms SALT I. Bill not only understood the details and implications of complex treaty provisions, but could explain them in a way that made clear the vital interests at stake. He had a passion for helping to build an institutional framework for peace and stability, at a time when the threat of mutual assured destruction shaped nearly every aspect of U.S. foreign policy. After 7 years with the committee, Bill was appointed to important positions at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, one of which required Senate confirmation. In 1981, he returned to the Committee staff, this time under the leadership of Senator Claiborne Pell, where again he brought his vast experience to bear on the establishment of sensible and verifiable controls on nuclear arms. Over the next 16 years, until his retirement in 1997, Bill Ashworth became one of the most knowledgeable and influential staff members on national security questions, ranging from conventional weapons sales and military assistance to multilateral arms control treaties. He served as a key staffer for the bipartisan Arms Control Observer Group, briefing Members and planning missions to increase our familiarity with salient issues under negotiations. Many of us relied on his insights and guidance as the Foreign Relations Committee considered amendments to the Arms Export Control Act, controversial arms sales, foreign policy implications of the annual defense authorization and appropriation bills, and resolutions of ratification for the START I and II Treaties, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces INF Treaty, the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, CFE, and the Chemical Weapons Convention, among others. In all these endeavors, Bill developed cooperative working relationships with colleagues on both sides of the aisle while remaining true to his high ideals and strongly-held convictions. He was known as a hard bargainer, who took seriously his role in conducting oversight of the administration and protecting the interests of Committee members. Many an ill-conceived policy was dropped or amended because of Bill's close eye and sharp mind. He served as an example and mentor to my own staff, selflessly providing advice and encouragement at every turn. Bill Ashworth's influence will long be felt in the field to which he devoted his career, but his presence will be sorely missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him. I want to extend my deepest condolences to his wife, Linda, and his daughters, Anne and Jennifer. It was clear to all of us how much Bill adored his family, and I want to thank them for all the late hours and stressful moments they must have endured while he was diligently working to make the world a safer place for all of us.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the fact that the bill pending before us provides an additional $100 million for the New Starts transit program above the amount guaranteed in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This is a critically important investment in our nation's transportation infrastructure which will ultimately provide more transportation options for all Americans. All across the country, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 1999, Americans in 68 urban areas spent 4.5 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $78 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. And the problem is growing. In response, Americans are searching for alternatives. According to the American Public Transportation Association, Americans took over 9.4 billion trips on transit in 2000--the highest level in 40 years. In fact, over the past five years, transit ridership has increased by 21 percent, growing more than four times faster than the U.S. population. Over 200 communities around the country, in urban, suburban, and rural areas, are considering light rail or other fixed guideway transit investments to meet their growing transportation needs. When Congress passed TEA-21 in 1998, we made a significant commitment to supporting communities' public transportation investments. TEA-21 authorized almost $8.2 billion over six years to fund new rail projects; $6 billion of that amount was guaranteed. In the years since TEA-21's passage, it has become clear that communities' need for New Starts funding has grown even faster than anticipated in 1998. Yet the program has consistently been funded only at the guaranteed level, leaving the remaining authorization unutilized. Now, for the first time, the Appropriations Committee has provided funding for New Starts above the amount guaranteed by TEA-21, appropriating $100 million of the $430 million non-guaranteed authorization. I commend the Committee for taking this step toward addressing the growing need for transit funds within TEA-21's statutory framework. Increased investment in transit will ultimately benefit all Americans. For example, as cities and towns across America are discovering, public transit can stimulate the economic life of any community. Studies have shown that a nearby transit station increases the value of local businesses and real estate. Increased property values mean more tax revenues to states and local jurisdictions; new business development around a transit station means more jobs. Moreover, I believe the potential of mass transit to help address our nation's current energy crunch has been consistently overlooked. With gas prices soaring and congestion increasing, public transit offers one of the best solutions to America's growing pains. I am gratified to see that the Appropriations Committee has recognized the strong demand for transit in communities across the country by funding the New Starts program above the guaranteed level. This is an important first step toward addressing America's long-term transportation needs.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in working with the Senators from Washington and Alabama, it is our understanding that they intend to work with the conferees to retain funding at the House level. Because of the Federal Government's ownership, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge continues to be a priority legislative issue for me and for my Senate colleagues. Accordingly, this appropriation will help keep the replacement project on pace and maintain the safety of the current bridge in the interim.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my strong support for the fiscal year 2002 HUD/VA appropriations bill. Chairwoman Mikulski and Senator Bond have done an exemplary job of providing HUD with the resources it needs, even while working within a very tight allocation for all of the agencies within their jurisdiction. The administration's budget request for HUD, the agency that provides housing assistance to this Nation's poorest families and funding for community development and revitalization, was sorely inadequate. The administration's proposal would not even have provided the funding necessary to maintain HUD programs at current levels. Instead of fighting to expand housing opportunities to meet growing needs, the Administration's budget request has put us in the unfortunate position of fighting just to retain current program levels. We have a severe housing crisis in this country, and the need for housing assistance continues to grow. There are almost 5 million very low-income households in this country who have worst case housing needs, either paying more than half of their income towards rent or living in severely substandard housing. Another 2 million people will experience homelessness this year. At a time when so many families are in need of housing assistance, housing programs need additional funding. One area of great concern are the proposed cuts in public housing, a program that provides housing to over 1.3 million of this Nation's poorest households. Senators Mikulski and Bond realized that a significant number of families would be affected if they went along with the proposal to cut over $1 billion in funding for public housing programs. The administration proposed cutting $700 million, or 25 percent, from the Capital Fund, the fund used to repair and modernize public housing. There is a significant need for these funds. HUD estimates that there is currently a $22 billion backlog in needed capital repairs in public housing. A cut of this magnitude would have led to further deterioration of this Nation's public housing stock. The administration's budget says that this program can withstand such a cut because there are unexpended balances in the Capital Fund that can be used to fill in the gaps left by the budget cut. However, this is not the case. HUD's own data show that Capital Funds are being spent well within the legal time-frames established in a bipartisan manner just a few short years ago. Fortunately, the bill before us today provides almost $3 billion for the Capital Fund, helping us to maintain a much needed resource and to ensure that the federal investment in this housing is protected. This is an important accomplishment of the Appropriations Committee. In addition, this bill restores funding for the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which supports anti-crime and anti-drug activities in public housing. The administration's proposed elimination of this program would have resulted in housing authority police officers being laid off, after-school centers being shut down, and safety improvements not being made. The bill before us today provides $300 million for this important program that helps to improve the lives of public housing residents. Unfortunately, the administration's budget did away with other important programs as well, including the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program, which provides funding for housing and economic development in rural areas. This program helps to greatly enhance the capacity of rural non-profits to fund innovative efforts to supply housing and develop rural areas. HUD's own budget justifications state that ``The previous rounds of funding recognize that rural communities face different socio-economic challenges than do cities . . . Many rural areas have been by-passed by employment, and low, stagnating wages. It is imperative that rural regions have greater access to community and economic development funds that would foster investment in economic opportunities.'' I am pleased that the bill before us today provides $25 million in funding for this program which allows rural America to access essential resources. While most of this bill helps to further the goals of ensuring that all Americans have access to decent, safe and affordable housing, I have a number of concerns with provisions in the bill related to Section 8 vouchers. This bill only provides funding for an additional 17,000 section 8 vouchers. This is only half the vouchers requested by the administration, and less than a quarter of the 79,000 new vouchers Congress funded last year. I recognize that the committee is concerned with voucher utilization and the effectiveness of the program, as am I. However, section 8 vouchers work in most areas of the country, allowing families to choose where to reside while lowering their rent burdens. I agree that there are improvements that must be made to strengthen this program and to ensure that all families who receive vouchers are able to find adequate housing. However, I strongly believe that we must continue to expand the voucher program so that we can meet the needs of the many poor families waiting to receive housing assistance. In addition to the decrease in section 8 vouchers, the administration has proposed cutting section 8 reserves by $640 million, from two months to one month. These reserves are used in the event of higher program costs so that the section 8 program can continue to serve the same number of families. The administration is correct that some of these funds may not be necessary; however, HUD must have the flexibility to meet the needs of PHAs that must access more than one month of reserves in order to continue serving the families who currently receive vouchers. The House appropriations bill, which does not give HUD this flexibility, will lead to a reduction in the number of poor families who receive housing assistance. I am pleased that the Senate did not adopt the flawed approach taken by the House, and I hope that the conference report will give HUD the flexibility to provide more than one month of reserves to housing authorities that will otherwise be forced to cut their section 8 programs. I am also concerned by language in this bill that has the potential to reduce funding for critical housing programs by diverting funds from HUD to other agencies. I appreciate and support the efforts of the chair and ranking member to protect funds allocated to the subcommittee. However, I am concerned that, as drafted, this provision could inadvertently result in funds being transferred from already strapped housing programs and hinder the effective functioning of the voucher program. I hope that the final legislation will ensure that all of the funds allocated to housing are used to meet the growing housing needs in this country. As a whole, I support this bill, and commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for reporting out a bill that affirms our commitment to housing this Nation's poor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a young woman, Deborah Vincent, who, in March of this year, began her work with the city of Baltimore's Public Housing authority as its Deputy Executive Director. Sadly, however, Ms. Vincent was diagnosed with leukemia in June and passed away on July 26. There is always a great sense of loss when a person dies in the prime of their life, in this case, loss by those that knew her, her family, friends, colleagues and loved ones. However, I too want to express my loss and the loss to the citizens of Baltimore and the residents of the city's public housing with the passing of Deborah Vincent. Ms. Vincent came to Baltimore after working at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, first as the General Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Public and Indian Housing and then as Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary Andrew Cuomo. At HUD Ms. Vincent worked tirelessly for those in need in this country; for the homeless, for those in need of a place to live, for those in need of assistance to defeat substance abuse, and for those in need of a caring and friendly environment in which to raise their families. At HUD she not only demonstrated her passion to get the job done, but also her compassion for those that have the least in our society. Although only 43-years-old when she died, Ms. Vincent had 20 years of experience managing public housing. From 1981 until 1997, before coming to HUD, she managed the Clearwater Housing Authority in Clearwater, FL. As its executive director, she took the Clearwater Housing Authority from what had been described as a ``shambles'' to one of the outstanding public housing authorities in the nation. Recognizing that those most in need of safe and decent housing in the Clearwater community were those in public housing she mustered her inner strength and began cleaning up Clearwater's public housing projects, getting rid of drug dealers, scofflaws, and improving the quality of life for the residents that remained. Ms. Vincent was also an innovator; under her leadership the Housing Authority established homeownership programs by purchasing condominiums and selling them to qualified public housing residents. Later, recognizing that there was a need for affordable housing for those Clearwater residents that did not qualify for public housing assistance, the Housing Authority purchased a large apartment building and sold the units, at a discount, to those who could not afford to purchase a home at market rates. To this day, Clearwater's Housing Authority is recognized for its innovative housing programs. At the beginning of this statement I said that Ms. Vincent's death was not only a loss to those who knew her, but also to those that were just beginning to know her, the residents of Baltimore and of Baltimore's public housing. Like them, I know all too well the need for the expertise, spirit and compassion that Ms. Vincent brought to her job in just a few short months with the Baltimore Housing Authority. Let us hope that her example of caring will live on in all of us so that we can achieve great things, as she did as a truly dedicated public servant.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as my colleagues are well aware, the people of Turkey, a NATO ally, are experiencing extremely serious economic and political difficulties. On April 10, 2001, at the Bosphorous University in Istanbul, Turkey, our distinguished former colleague in the House of Representatives, the Honorable John Brademas, delivered a most thoughtful address, on this subject, ``Democracy: Challenge to the New Turkey in the New Europe.'' Dr. Brademas' speech was sponsored by TESEV, the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation. Its contents some four months later still resonate with timely wisdom and creative analysis. A long-time and effective advocate of democracy and transparency, John Brademas served for 22 years, 1959-1981, in the House of Representatives from Indiana's Third District, the last four as House Majority Whip. He then became President of New York University, the Nation's largest private university, in which he served for 11 years, 1981-1992. He is now president emeritus. Among Dr. Brademas' involvements include Chairman of the Board of the National Endowment for Democracy, NED, from 1993-2001, and founding director of the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe. Located in Thessalonike, Greece, the Center seeks to encourage peaceful and democratic development of the countries in that troubled region of Europe. I believe that Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and other interested citizens will read with interest Dr. Brademas' significant discussion of the challenge of creating a truly more open and democratic Turkey. I ask unanimous consent to print Dr. Brademas' address in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Mark-to- Market Extension Act of 2001 with my colleagues Senator Reed and Senator Allard, the chair and ranking member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. This legislation will extend the Multifamily Assisted Housing Restructuring and Affordability Act of 1997, MAHRAA, for an additional five years. The legislation will ensure that HUD continues to have the authority to restructure the rents and the mortgages of its FHA-insured section 8 project-based portfolio. These properties have been operating for the past 20 years on long term rental subsidy contracts, many of which are currently paying above-market rents. The program we seek to reauthorize provides HUD with the tools to reduce those rents to market levels and restructure the underlying mortgages so that the new, lower rents will be sufficient to cover the debt. At the same time, the program provides for the rehabilitation of these projects, and requires another long term commitment to keep the properties affordable. This program expires in September. Both HUD and the General Accounting Office believe the program should be reauthorized in order to continue the progress in getting these projects restructured, rehabilitated, and on a sound footing for the taxpayer, for the owner, and for the resident. In a hearing on this program held on June 19, we heard from all the stakeholders, HUD, and the GAO. We have adopted many of the recommendations heard at that hearing in this legislation. Some of the changes we have included should further reduce the costs of the program to the federal government, while simultaneously allowing for more extensive rehabilitation and more economic certainty for property owners. The bill also extends the authorization for funding for tenants, non-profits, and public agencies that participate in the restructuring process. I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Mark-to- Market Extension Act of 2001 with my colleagues Senator Reed and Senator Allard, the chair and ranking member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. This legislation will extend the Multifamily Assisted Housing Restructuring and Affordability Act of 1997, MAHRAA, for an additional five years. The legislation will ensure that HUD continues to have the authority to restructure the rents and the mortgages of its FHA-insured section 8 project-based portfolio. These properties have been operating for the past 20 years on long term rental subsidy contracts, many of which are currently paying above-market rents. The program we seek to reauthorize provides HUD with the tools to reduce those rents to market levels and restructure the underlying mortgages so that the new, lower rents will be sufficient to cover the debt. At the same time, the program provides for the rehabilitation of these projects, and requires another long term commitment to keep the properties affordable. This program expires in September. Both HUD and the General Accounting Office believe the program should be reauthorized in order to continue the progress in getting these projects restructured, rehabilitated, and on a sound footing for the taxpayer, for the owner, and for the resident. In a hearing on this program held on June 19, we heard from all the stakeholders, HUD, and the GAO. We have adopted many of the recommendations heard at that hearing in this legislation. Some of the changes we have included should further reduce the costs of the program to the federal government, while simultaneously allowing for more extensive rehabilitation and more economic certainty for property owners. The bill also extends the authorization for funding for tenants, non-profits, and public agencies that participate in the restructuring process. I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New York, after which it is the intention we go to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. SARBANES. Fine. I will hold my time down because I do want to get to the Murkowski amendment and the Senator from Alaska is in the vicinity. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1218, the renewal authorization legislation for the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, commonly known as ILSA. This legislation was reported favorably out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs by a vote of 19-2. We made some modifications. Therefore, a committee print served as the vehicle for the committee markup, but this committee print paralleled closely with the renewal legislation introduced by Senator Schumer of New York and Senator Smith of Oregon which garnered 79 cosponsors. I am including in the Record the full list of the 79 cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I especially thank Senators Schumer and Smith for their leadership on this issue. We are very appreciative of the very vigorous effort they mounted with respect to this issue. The existing ILSA legislation expires on August 5 of this year. Therefore, we need to move quickly to approve this legislation. This will extend ILSA for another 5 years. It will lower the threshold for foreign investment in the Libyan energy sector from $40 million to $20 million to trigger sanctions. That puts Libya on a par with Iran at the existing requirement, and it closes a loophole in the existing legislation making it clear that modification or addition to an existing contract would be treated as a new contract for purposes of evaluating whether such amendment or modification would invoke the sanctions. There has been a loophole with respect to companies operating in Libya, and we need to address that. With respect to the Iran portion of ILSA I wish I could come to the Chamber and report there has been a significant change in Iranian conduct that warrants a response from the Congress in terms of when we consider whether to extend these sanctions forward. Unfortunately, Iran's support for terrorism continues unabated. The latest State Department Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000 states: Iran remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. Its revolutionary guard corps, the IRGC, and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, MOIS, continue to be involved in the planning and execution of terrorist acts and continue to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Iran is also stepping up efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The latest unclassified CIA report to Congress on worldwide weapons of mass destruction acquisition notes: Iran remains one of the most active countries seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction and advanced chemical weapons technology from abroad. In doing so, Iran is attempting to develop an indigenous capability to produce various types of weapons--chemical, biological, and nuclear-- and their delivery systems. In June of this year, when the Justice Department handed down indictments in the Khobar Towers bombing case, a case in which 19 of our airmen in Saudi Arabia were killed in 1996, the Attorney General stated publicly that Iranian officials ``inspired, supported, and supervised members of Saudi Hezbollah,'' which is the group that carried out the attack. As for Libya, very briefly, it has fulfilled only one aspect of the U.N. Security Council resolutions relating to the Pan Am 103 bombing; namely, the handing over of the suspects for trial. Libya has not fulfilled the requirement to pay compensation to the families of the victims, to accept responsibility for the actions of its intelligence officers, and to renounce fully international terrorism. In fact, President Bush on April 19 of this year stated: We have made it clear to the Libyans that sanctions will remain until such time as they not only compensate for the bombing of the aircraft, but also admit their guilt and express remorse. Because Iran and Libya have not clearly fulfilled the requirements of ILSA, I believe that not to extend ILSA for a full 5 years would send the wrong signal. Failure to do so would be seen as a sign of lack of resolve on the part of the United States. I also believe that placing Libya on a par with Iran with regard to ILSA's conditions sends a strong signal to Libyan leader Qadhafi that the pressure will be kept on until he fulfills all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions concerning the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which I remind my colleagues killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. This legislation had overwhelming support in the committee in being brought before the Senate. It has been endorsed by a clear majority--a very substantial majority--of Members of this body, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 ILSA Cosponsors Senators Schumer, Smith (OR), Hollings, Rockefeller, Reed, Levin, Durbin, Carnahan, Johnson, Gregg, Cleland, Campbell, Murray, Allard, Mikulski, Ensign, Collins, Bob Smith, Lieberman, Harry Reid. Senators Corzine, Sessions, Kyl, McConnell, Boxer, Santorum, Shelby, Voinovich, Breaux, Torricelli, Clinton, Stabenow, Harkin, Kohl, Daschle, Bob Graham, Inouye, Thomas, Helms, Brownback. Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Grassley, Craig, Warner, Biden, Bingaman, McCain, Sarbanes, Bennett, Wyden, Hutchinson, Bunning, Dorgan, Crapo, Bill Nelson, Edwards, Kerry, Hatch, Lott. Senators Cochran, Frist, Akaka, Conrad, Bayh, Dayton, Allen, Snowe, Miller, Wellstone, Landrieu, Dodd, Cantwell, Ben Nelson, Leahy, Bond, Lincoln, DeWine, and Murkowski.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his courtesy. I say to other colleagues who want to speak on the bill itself, we will still reserve some time and they can speak later, but Senator Murkowski has been waiting for quite a while to bring up his amendment. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Kennedy, and then I assure the Senator from Alaska, we will go to his amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thought I would make a very short opening statement. Senator Murkowski is here and wants to launch into the debate of his amendment. We want to move along, and I am hopeful we will be able to yield back a considerable amount of time on the bill itself and time with respect to the Murkowski amendment. Altogether, there is 2\1/2\ hours allotted for all of that: 1 hour on the bill and 1\1/2\ hours on the Murkowski amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.