Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. For nearly 40 years, researchers and scientists at SCMRE have been leaders in the field of preservation research and analysis. They have contributed greatly to the conservation efforts of museums and institutions throughout the nation and around the world by offering training programs and technical assistance. I would like to quote from an editorial that appeared on May 8 in the New York Times that captures the importance of preserving this facility: . . . [C]aring for artworks, which can often be done in museum labs, is far different from scientifically studying how to care for them. Over the years, the Materials Research Center has created an extensive store of archaeological data based on its work on collections from around the world. It makes no sense for the Smithsonian--the most remarkable accumulation of objects on earth--to close a national laboratory whose very purpose is to analyze the material basis of its collections. I thank the chairman for his time and commend him for his leadership and assistance in this matter.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleagues Senators Biden, McCain, Campbell, Mikulski and Carper, to recognize the courage and commitment of America's fire service and to pay special tribute to those firefighters who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Specifically, this legislation requires that the United States flag be flown at half-staff at all Federal facilities on the occasion of the annual National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service at Emmitsburg, MD. Our Nation's firefighters are among our most dedicated public servants. Indeed, 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 nineteen 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, a Congressionally designated monument to these brave men and women. On October 7, at the 20th Annual National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service, an additional 93 names will be added. Over the years, I have worked very closely with the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation to ensure that the National Fallen Firefighters 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 roughly 100 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 ask unanimous consent that this joint resolution be printed in the Record and urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to express my serious concern about a provision in Senator McCain's amendment which I believe would significantly undermine the commitment we made in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, (TEA-21), to address our citizens' mobility needs. This provision would rescind funding for two crucial programs run by the Federal Transit Administration: the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, and the Transit Planning and Research Program. TEA-21 created the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program to provide transit grants to assist states and localities in developing flexible transportation services to connect welfare recipients and other low- income people to jobs and other employment-related services. In addition, the program provides support for transportation services to suburban employment centers from urban, suburban, and rural locations-- ``reverse commutes''--for all populations. Even in a time of low unemployment, a person who cannot get to the workplace cannot hold a job. Not everyone can afford access to an automobile, especially those who are looking for employment. Public transportation can be a vital component in helping these individuals leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce. In fact, investment in public transportation benefits all Americans. As the numbers emerging from the 2000 Census show, the shape of America has changed in recent years. The fact is that two-thirds of all new jobs are now located in the suburbs, while much of the workforce lives in the city. For millions of Americans, transit is the answer to this spatial mismatch. And 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. I am therefore quite concerned to see that the McCain amendment would take over $200 million away from transit programs. This amendment would be a significant setback in our efforts to make transit services more accessible and improve the quality of life for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleagues Senators Biden, McCain, Campbell, Mikulski and Carper, to recognize the courage and commitment of America's fire service and to pay special tribute to those firefighters who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Specifically, this legislation requires that the United States flag be flown at half-staff at all Federal facilities on the occasion of the annual National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service at Emmitsburg, MD. Our Nation's firefighters are among our most dedicated public servants. Indeed, 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 nineteen 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, a Congressionally designated monument to these brave men and women. On October 7, at the 20th Annual National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service, an additional 93 names will be added. Over the years, I have worked very closely with the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation to ensure that the National Fallen Firefighters 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 roughly 100 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 ask unanimous consent that this joint resolution be printed in the Record and urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help protect our nation's natural resources and improve the visitor experience in our National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. The Transit in Parks Act, or ``TRIP,'' will establish a new Federal transit grant initiative to support the development of mass transit and alternative transportation services for our national parks, wildlife refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Baucus, Bayh, Cleland, Corzine, Dodd, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, Snowe, Stabenow, Thompson, and Wyden, who are cosponsors of this legislation. Let me begin with a little history. When the National parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. Travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was long, difficult, and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our Nation's great natural wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the National park lands to millions of Americans. Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars has resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has almost five million visitors a year. As many as 6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,400 parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot. In 1975, the total number of visitors to America's national parks was 190 million. By 1999, that number has risen to 287 million annual visitors, almost equal to one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This dramatic increase in visitation has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other pars: Yosemite, which has more than four million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than three million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent harm to our nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage. Visitor access to the parks is vital not only to the parks themselves, but to the economic health of their gateway communities. For example, visitors to Yosemite infuse $3 billion a year into the local economy of the surrounding area. At Yellowstone, tourists spend $725 million annually in adjacent communities. Wildlife-related tourism generates an estimated $60 billion a year nationwide. If the parks are forced to close their gates to visitors due to congestion, the economic vitality of the surrounding region would be jeopardized. The challenge for park management has always been twofold: to conserve and protect the Nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. Until now, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads, primarily for private automobile access. The TRIP legislation recognizes that we need to do more than simply build roads; we must invest in alternative transportation solutions before our national parks are damaged beyond repair. In developing solutions to the parks' transportation needs, this legislation builds upon the 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, in which the two Departments agreed to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around National Parks. The findings in the MOU are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind. In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or scenic areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas. On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed. In addition, the TRIP legislation is designed to implement the recommendations from a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in public lands that I was able to include in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, as section 3039. The study is nearing completion, and is expected to confirm what those of us who have visited our National parks already know: there is a significant and well-documented need for alternative transportation solutions in the national parks to prevent lasting damage to these incomparable natural treasures. The Transit in Parks Act will go far toward meeting this need. The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded mass transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources and wildlife habitats, to prevent or mitigate adverse impact on those resources and habitats, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. The new Federal transit grant program will provide funding to the Federal land management agencies that manage the 379 various sites within the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands, including National Forest System lands, and to their state and local partners. The program will provide capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. The bill authorizes $65 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2007. It is anticipated that other resources, both public and private, will be available to augment these amounts. The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement in the 1997 MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The bill further provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. The projects eligible for funding would be developed through the TEA-21 planning process and prioritized for funding by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation. It is anticipated that the Secretary of the Interior would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major National parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this section, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional public transit system. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance. In addition, I firmly believe that this program will create new opportunities for the Federal land management agencies to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the TEA-12 planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks-- quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities. As we begin a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and Federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is strongly supported by the American Public Transportation Association, the National Parks Conservation Association, Environmental Defense, Community Transportation Association, Friends of the Earth, National Association of Counties, American Planning Association, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Smart Growth America, Scenic America, National Center for Bicycling and Walking, National Association of Railroad Passengers, Great American Station Foundation, and others. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to recognize the enormous environmental and economic benefits that transit can bring to our national parks. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help protect our nation's natural resources and improve the visitor experience in our National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. The Transit in Parks Act, or ``TRIP,'' will establish a new Federal transit grant initiative to support the development of mass transit and alternative transportation services for our national parks, wildlife refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Baucus, Bayh, Cleland, Corzine, Dodd, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, Snowe, Stabenow, Thompson, and Wyden, who are cosponsors of this legislation. Let me begin with a little history. When the National parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. Travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was long, difficult, and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our Nation's great natural wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the National park lands to millions of Americans. Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars has resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has almost five million visitors a year. As many as 6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,400 parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot. In 1975, the total number of visitors to America's national parks was 190 million. By 1999, that number has risen to 287 million annual visitors, almost equal to one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This dramatic increase in visitation has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other pars: Yosemite, which has more than four million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than three million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent harm to our nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage. Visitor access to the parks is vital not only to the parks themselves, but to the economic health of their gateway communities. For example, visitors to Yosemite infuse $3 billion a year into the local economy of the surrounding area. At Yellowstone, tourists spend $725 million annually in adjacent communities. Wildlife-related tourism generates an estimated $60 billion a year nationwide. If the parks are forced to close their gates to visitors due to congestion, the economic vitality of the surrounding region would be jeopardized. The challenge for park management has always been twofold: to conserve and protect the Nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. Until now, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads, primarily for private automobile access. The TRIP legislation recognizes that we need to do more than simply build roads; we must invest in alternative transportation solutions before our national parks are damaged beyond repair. In developing solutions to the parks' transportation needs, this legislation builds upon the 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, in which the two Departments agreed to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around National Parks. The findings in the MOU are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind. In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or scenic areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas. On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed. In addition, the TRIP legislation is designed to implement the recommendations from a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in public lands that I was able to include in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, as section 3039. The study is nearing completion, and is expected to confirm what those of us who have visited our National parks already know: there is a significant and well-documented need for alternative transportation solutions in the national parks to prevent lasting damage to these incomparable natural treasures. The Transit in Parks Act will go far toward meeting this need. The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded mass transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources and wildlife habitats, to prevent or mitigate adverse impact on those resources and habitats, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. The new Federal transit grant program will provide funding to the Federal land management agencies that manage the 379 various sites within the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands, including National Forest System lands, and to their state and local partners. The program will provide capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. The bill authorizes $65 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2007. It is anticipated that other resources, both public and private, will be available to augment these amounts. The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement in the 1997 MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The bill further provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. The projects eligible for funding would be developed through the TEA-21 planning process and prioritized for funding by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation. It is anticipated that the Secretary of the Interior would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major National parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this section, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional public transit system. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance. In addition, I firmly believe that this program will create new opportunities for the Federal land management agencies to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the TEA-12 planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks-- quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities. As we begin a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and Federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is strongly supported by the American Public Transportation Association, the National Parks Conservation Association, Environmental Defense, Community Transportation Association, Friends of the Earth, National Association of Counties, American Planning Association, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Smart Growth America, Scenic America, National Center for Bicycling and Walking, National Association of Railroad Passengers, Great American Station Foundation, and others. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to recognize the enormous environmental and economic benefits that transit can bring to our national parks. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, during the next few days, we have the opportunity to finish important work that was started years ago. We can finally enact meaningful patient protection legislation by passing the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. The time has come to ensure that patients of managed care organizations receive the protections that they deserve and HMOs can be held accountable when they wrongfully delay or deny coverage. Many times, it is difficult for people to understand how the issues we debate here relate to their everyday lives, but that is not the case with patients' rights legislation. The preponderance of managed care organizations makes it crucial that participants in these plans have basic protections. Over 25 percent of the U.S. population is enrolled in an HMO. Over 60 percent of Americans and over 75 percent of insured employees are in some form of managed care. Receiving health care through managed care organizations is not a matter of choice for most of the 160 million Americans in these plans and uniformly providing quality care should be the standard for health insurers. I hear from my constituents about this issue constantly and they are anxious for this legislation to be debated, voted on, and signed into law. They want guaranteed access to specialists. They want to be sure they can receive emergency services as soon as possible and from any appropriate provider. They want to be able to participate in life- saving clinical trials. They want a fair, independent and timely appeals process when HMOs deny care. And they want to know that their HMOs will be held accountable for the harm caused by wrongful denials or delays in coverage. The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act ensures patients receive common sense protections and this bill provides these protections without significantly increasing health care costs or unfairly opening employers up to liability. Like my colleagues, I have heard from hundreds of constituents who are deeply concerned about the unfair treatment they receive from their HMOs. They have been in situations that any of us would dread. They discover they are ill, or that their child or spouse is ill. These situations are taxing enough, but many of my constituents and many Americans throughout this country find that in addition to fighting a personal or family illness, they have to muster extra strength to battle their HMO. When people are at their most vulnerable, they are being treated unfairly and being denied the care to which they are entitled. This legislation will put a stop to these practices. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill would not subject an employer to liability for HMOs unless the employer ``directly participates'' in a health treatment decision. Only those very large employers who run their own HMO would be liable. So if an employer were not acting as an HMO, they would not be held accountable as an HMO. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this legislation would only modestly increase costs--4.2 percent over 10 years. Of this modest increase, only .8 percent is attributed to the liability provisions of the bill. As we debate this measure, the experience of one of my constituents comes to mind. She is a young woman who loves the outdoors. One weekend during a hiking trip in the Shenandoah Mountains, she lost her footing and plummeted to the ground from a 40-foot cliff. Though she suffered significant injuries, she was fortunate to have survived. Unfortunately, her fight to get well was not the only challenge she faced after her accident. Her HMO denied her claim on the grounds that she had failed to gain pre-authorization for her emergency room visit. She fractured her arms, pelvis and skull. Her survival was largely dependent upon her being airlifted from the trail to a nearby hospital and her bills climbed to over $10,000. Apparently her HMO wanted her to call for preauthorization before she received emergency care. This would have been an impressive feat for her considering she was unconscious at the foot of a mountain. I am unsure exactly when this young woman was supposed to have made this call to her HMO. When she was unconscious on the ground with broken bones? Or maybe when she was in the helicopter being flown to the emergency room? The fact that she had to fight with her HMO to pay the claims for over a year illustrates the importance of this legislation. All this time, the unpaid hospital bills stacked up and almost forced her into bankruptcy. Unlike many stories, this one did not end as tragically as it could have. This young woman did eventually get her insurer to pay her medical expenses, but only after the Maryland Insurance Administration ordered the HMO to do so. Her unnecessary ordeal and other stories that end up in tragedy show us that the time has come to stop the delaying tactics and pass meaningful patient protection legislation. If an HMO wrongfully denies care, if it purposely limits diagnostic tests, if it refuses to cover necessary emergency care, if it withholds access to a needed specialist all in the name of saving money, then the patient who was harmed by these actions should have the right to hold that HMO accountable. Now we have a bipartisan effort to move this legislation. The authors of this bill have worked tirelessly to try to please opponents and they have made significant adjustments. They have limited punitive damages in Federal court to $5 million. They have allowed State caps on damages to stand. They have prohibited parallel causes of action in Federal and State court. However, they have not and should not refuse to abandon the main principles of any true patient protection legislation. We have to make sure any bill we pass is as strong as the bill the House passed in 1999. I commend Senator Daschle for placing such a high priority on patients' rights legislation. His decision to make it the first bill to be debated on the floor under his leadership shows his commitment to this issue. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy legislation provides strong, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. This bill is long overdue and we should pass it now.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing two measures to expand restoration and protection efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring these measures are my colleagues Senators Warner, Allen, and Mikulski. Nearly two decades ago, the Bay area States and the Federal Government signed an historic agreement to work together to restore the Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary and one of the most productive ecosystems in the world. In 1987, the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the Administrator of the EPA, on behalf of the Federal Government, reaffirmed their commitment to that compact and agreed to 29 specific goals and action plans including the unprecedented goal of a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous loads to the main stem of the Bay by the year 2000. Last year, the State and the Federal Government conducted an extensive evaluation of cleanup progress since the 1980s and determined that, despite important advances, efforts must be redoubled to restore the integrity of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. A new Chesapeake 2000 agreement was signed to serve as a blueprint for the restoration effort over the next decade. To meet the goals established in the new agreement, it is estimated that the local, State and Federal Governments must invest $8.5 billion over the course of the next ten years. Thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created, and pollution from all sources will have to be further reduced. While $8.5 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that the health of Chesapeake is vital not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the nation. The Chesapeake Bay watershed is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the fin fish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration. Over the years, human activities have profoundly impacted the Bay. Untreated sewage, deforestation, toxic chemicals, runoff and increased development have degraded the Bay's water quality and contributed to the decline of such key species as oysters and blue crabs and the underwater grasses they favor for habitat. We have lost not only thousands of jobs in the fishing industry but much of the wilderness that defined the watershed. By the year 2020, an additional three million people are expected to settle in the watershed and this growth could eclipse the nutrient reduction and habitat protection gains of the past. Not meeting the investment needs of the next 10 years risks reversing all that has been achieved over the past two decades in cleaning up the Bay. The first measure we are introducing would establish a grant program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, nutrient over-enrichment remains the most serious pollution problem facing the Bay. The overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous continues to rob the Bay of life sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 35 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 110 million pounds from the current 300 million pounds to less than 190 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent. There are 288 major wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: Pennsylvania, 124, Maryland, 62, Virginia, 70, New York, 18, Delaware, 3, Washington, D.C., 2, and West Virginia, 9. These plants contribute about 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year, one fifth, of the total loads of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/ liter would remove 46 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year or 40 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits as well, they provide significant savings in energy usage, 20 to 30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, five to 15 percent. They are one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing nutrients discharged to the Bay. My legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading all 288 plants with nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/liter. The total cost of these upgrades is estimated at $1.2 billion, with a federal share of $660 million. Any publically owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to threat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs. The second measure would reauthorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric, NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Office. I first introduced a similar measure in June, 2000, but unfortunately it was not acted upon prior to the adjournment of the 106th Congress. The NOAA Chesapeake Bay office, NCBO, was first established in 1992 pursuant to Public Law 102-567. It serves as the focal point for all of NOAA's activities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and is a vital part of the effort to achieve the long-term goal of the Bay Program, restoring the Bay's living resources to healthy and balanced levels. During the past nine years, the NCBO has made great strides in realizing the objectives of the NOAA Authorization Act of 1992 and the overall Bay Program living resource goals. Working with other Bay Program partners, important progress has been made in surveying and assessing fishery resources in the Bay, developing fishery management plans for selected species, undertaking habitat restoration projects, removing barriers to fish passage, and undertaking important remote sensing and data analysis activities. NOAA's responsibilities to the Bay restoration effort are far from complete, however. Some populations of major species of fish and shellfish in Chesapeake Bay such as shad and oysters, remain severely depressed, while others, such as blue crab are at risk. Bay-wide, some 16 of 25 ecologically important species are in decline or severe decline, due to disease, habitat loss, over-fishing and other factors. The underwater grasses that once sustained these fisheries are only at a fraction of their historic levels. Research and monitoring must be continued and enhanced to track living resource trends, evaluate the responses of the estuary's biota to changes in their environment and establish clear management goals and progress indicators for restoring the productivity, diversity and abundance of these species. Chesapeake 2000, the new Bay Agreement, has identified several living resource goals which will require strong NOAA involvement to achieve. The legislation which we are introducing would provide NOAA with additional resources and authority necessary to ensure its continued full participation in the Bay's restoration and in meeting with goals and objectives of Chesapeake 2000. First, the legislation authorizes and directs NOAA to undertake a special five-year study, in cooperation with the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay and appropriate other federal agencies, to develop the knowledge base required for understanding multi-species interactions and developing multi-species management plans. To date, fisheries management in Chesapeake Bay and other waters, has been largely based upon single-species plans that often ignore the critical relationships between water and habitat quality, ecosystem health and the food webs that support the Bay's living resources. There is a growing consensus between scientific leaders and managers alike that we must move beyond the one-species-at- a-time approach toward a wider, multi-species and ecosystem perspective. Chesapeake 2000 calls for developing multi-species management plans for targeted species by the year 2005 and implementing the plans by 2007. In order to achieve these goals, NOAA must take a leadership role and support a sustained research and monitoring program. Second, the legislation authorizes NOAA to carry out a small-scale fishery and habitat restoration grant and technical assistance program to help citizens organizations and local governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed undertake habitat, fish and shellfish restoration projects. Experience has shown that, with the proper tools and training, citizens' groups and local communities can play a tremendous role in fisheries and habitat protection and restoration efforts. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation's oyster gardening program, for example, has proven to be highly successful in training citizens to grow oysters at their docks to help restore oysters' populations in the Bay. The new Bay Agreement has identified a critical need to not only to expand and promote community-based programs but to restore historic levels of oyster production, restore living resource habitat and submerged aquatic vegetation. The NOAA small-grants program, which this bill would authorize, would complement EPA's Chesapeake Bay small watershed program, and make ``seed'' grants available on a competitive, cost- sharing basis to local governments and nonprofit organizations to implement hands-on projects such as improvement of fish passageways, creating artificial or natural reefs, restoring wetlands and seagrass beds, and producing oysters for restoration projects. Third, the legislation would establish an internet-based Coastal Predictions Center for the Chesapeake Bay. Resource managers and scientists alike agree that we must make better use of the various modeling and monitoring systems and new technologies to improve prediction capabilities and response to physical and chemical events within the Bay and tributary rivers. There are substantial amounts of data collected and compiled by Federal, state and local government agencies and academic institutions including information on weather, tides, currents, circulation, climate, land use, coastal environmental quality, aquatic living resources and habitat conditions. Unfortunately, little of this data is coordinated and organized in a manner that is useful to the wide range of potential users. The Coastal Predictions Center would serve as a knowledge bank for assembling monitoring and modeling data from relevant government agencies and academic institutions, interpreting that data, and organizing it into products that are useful to resource managers, scientists and the public. Finally, the legislation would direct NOAA to implement an education program targeted toward the 3 million pupils in kindergarten through 12th grade in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. One of the key goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement is to expand education and public awareness of the Bay and local watersheds. Among other activities, the Agreement calls for providing meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experiences for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school, incorporating the Chesapeake Bay watershed into school curricula, and providing students and teachers alike with information to increase awareness of Bay living resource and other issues. Our legislation would enable NOAA to enter into partnerships with non- profit environmental organizations in the region experienced in conducting environmental education programs, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Living Classrooms Foundation, for example, and to expand opportunities for students and teachers to participate in Bay and other field and classroom learning experiences which support Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection efforts. The legislation increases the authorization for the NOAA Bay Program from the current level of $2.5 million to $8.5 million per year to enhance current activities and to carry out these new initiatives. For more than a decade, funding for NOAA's Bay Program has remained static at an annual average of $1.9 million. If we are to achieve the ultimate, long-term goal of the Bay Program, protecting, restoring and maintaining the health of the living resources of the Bay, additional financial resources must be provided. These two measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to save the Chesapeake Bay. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other organizations in the watershed. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the measures and supporting letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the two measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing two measures to expand restoration and protection efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring these measures are my colleagues Senators Warner, Allen, and Mikulski. Nearly two decades ago, the Bay area States and the Federal Government signed an historic agreement to work together to restore the Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary and one of the most productive ecosystems in the world. In 1987, the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the Administrator of the EPA, on behalf of the Federal Government, reaffirmed their commitment to that compact and agreed to 29 specific goals and action plans including the unprecedented goal of a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous loads to the main stem of the Bay by the year 2000. Last year, the State and the Federal Government conducted an extensive evaluation of cleanup progress since the 1980s and determined that, despite important advances, efforts must be redoubled to restore the integrity of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. A new Chesapeake 2000 agreement was signed to serve as a blueprint for the restoration effort over the next decade. To meet the goals established in the new agreement, it is estimated that the local, State and Federal Governments must invest $8.5 billion over the course of the next ten years. Thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created, and pollution from all sources will have to be further reduced. While $8.5 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that the health of Chesapeake is vital not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the nation. The Chesapeake Bay watershed is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the fin fish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration. Over the years, human activities have profoundly impacted the Bay. Untreated sewage, deforestation, toxic chemicals, runoff and increased development have degraded the Bay's water quality and contributed to the decline of such key species as oysters and blue crabs and the underwater grasses they favor for habitat. We have lost not only thousands of jobs in the fishing industry but much of the wilderness that defined the watershed. By the year 2020, an additional three million people are expected to settle in the watershed and this growth could eclipse the nutrient reduction and habitat protection gains of the past. Not meeting the investment needs of the next 10 years risks reversing all that has been achieved over the past two decades in cleaning up the Bay. The first measure we are introducing would establish a grant program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, nutrient over-enrichment remains the most serious pollution problem facing the Bay. The overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous continues to rob the Bay of life sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 35 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 110 million pounds from the current 300 million pounds to less than 190 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent. There are 288 major wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: Pennsylvania, 124, Maryland, 62, Virginia, 70, New York, 18, Delaware, 3, Washington, D.C., 2, and West Virginia, 9. These plants contribute about 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year, one fifth, of the total loads of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/ liter would remove 46 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year or 40 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits as well, they provide significant savings in energy usage, 20 to 30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, five to 15 percent. They are one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing nutrients discharged to the Bay. My legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading all 288 plants with nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/liter. The total cost of these upgrades is estimated at $1.2 billion, with a federal share of $660 million. Any publically owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to threat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs. The second measure would reauthorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric, NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Office. I first introduced a similar measure in June, 2000, but unfortunately it was not acted upon prior to the adjournment of the 106th Congress. The NOAA Chesapeake Bay office, NCBO, was first established in 1992 pursuant to Public Law 102-567. It serves as the focal point for all of NOAA's activities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and is a vital part of the effort to achieve the long-term goal of the Bay Program, restoring the Bay's living resources to healthy and balanced levels. During the past nine years, the NCBO has made great strides in realizing the objectives of the NOAA Authorization Act of 1992 and the overall Bay Program living resource goals. Working with other Bay Program partners, important progress has been made in surveying and assessing fishery resources in the Bay, developing fishery management plans for selected species, undertaking habitat restoration projects, removing barriers to fish passage, and undertaking important remote sensing and data analysis activities. NOAA's responsibilities to the Bay restoration effort are far from complete, however. Some populations of major species of fish and shellfish in Chesapeake Bay such as shad and oysters, remain severely depressed, while others, such as blue crab are at risk. Bay-wide, some 16 of 25 ecologically important species are in decline or severe decline, due to disease, habitat loss, over-fishing and other factors. The underwater grasses that once sustained these fisheries are only at a fraction of their historic levels. Research and monitoring must be continued and enhanced to track living resource trends, evaluate the responses of the estuary's biota to changes in their environment and establish clear management goals and progress indicators for restoring the productivity, diversity and abundance of these species. Chesapeake 2000, the new Bay Agreement, has identified several living resource goals which will require strong NOAA involvement to achieve. The legislation which we are introducing would provide NOAA with additional resources and authority necessary to ensure its continued full participation in the Bay's restoration and in meeting with goals and objectives of Chesapeake 2000. First, the legislation authorizes and directs NOAA to undertake a special five-year study, in cooperation with the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay and appropriate other federal agencies, to develop the knowledge base required for understanding multi-species interactions and developing multi-species management plans. To date, fisheries management in Chesapeake Bay and other waters, has been largely based upon single-species plans that often ignore the critical relationships between water and habitat quality, ecosystem health and the food webs that support the Bay's living resources. There is a growing consensus between scientific leaders and managers alike that we must move beyond the one-species-at- a-time approach toward a wider, multi-species and ecosystem perspective. Chesapeake 2000 calls for developing multi-species management plans for targeted species by the year 2005 and implementing the plans by 2007. In order to achieve these goals, NOAA must take a leadership role and support a sustained research and monitoring program. Second, the legislation authorizes NOAA to carry out a small-scale fishery and habitat restoration grant and technical assistance program to help citizens organizations and local governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed undertake habitat, fish and shellfish restoration projects. Experience has shown that, with the proper tools and training, citizens' groups and local communities can play a tremendous role in fisheries and habitat protection and restoration efforts. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation's oyster gardening program, for example, has proven to be highly successful in training citizens to grow oysters at their docks to help restore oysters' populations in the Bay. The new Bay Agreement has identified a critical need to not only to expand and promote community-based programs but to restore historic levels of oyster production, restore living resource habitat and submerged aquatic vegetation. The NOAA small-grants program, which this bill would authorize, would complement EPA's Chesapeake Bay small watershed program, and make ``seed'' grants available on a competitive, cost- sharing basis to local governments and nonprofit organizations to implement hands-on projects such as improvement of fish passageways, creating artificial or natural reefs, restoring wetlands and seagrass beds, and producing oysters for restoration projects. Third, the legislation would establish an internet-based Coastal Predictions Center for the Chesapeake Bay. Resource managers and scientists alike agree that we must make better use of the various modeling and monitoring systems and new technologies to improve prediction capabilities and response to physical and chemical events within the Bay and tributary rivers. There are substantial amounts of data collected and compiled by Federal, state and local government agencies and academic institutions including information on weather, tides, currents, circulation, climate, land use, coastal environmental quality, aquatic living resources and habitat conditions. Unfortunately, little of this data is coordinated and organized in a manner that is useful to the wide range of potential users. The Coastal Predictions Center would serve as a knowledge bank for assembling monitoring and modeling data from relevant government agencies and academic institutions, interpreting that data, and organizing it into products that are useful to resource managers, scientists and the public. Finally, the legislation would direct NOAA to implement an education program targeted toward the 3 million pupils in kindergarten through 12th grade in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. One of the key goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement is to expand education and public awareness of the Bay and local watersheds. Among other activities, the Agreement calls for providing meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experiences for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school, incorporating the Chesapeake Bay watershed into school curricula, and providing students and teachers alike with information to increase awareness of Bay living resource and other issues. Our legislation would enable NOAA to enter into partnerships with non- profit environmental organizations in the region experienced in conducting environmental education programs, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Living Classrooms Foundation, for example, and to expand opportunities for students and teachers to participate in Bay and other field and classroom learning experiences which support Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection efforts. The legislation increases the authorization for the NOAA Bay Program from the current level of $2.5 million to $8.5 million per year to enhance current activities and to carry out these new initiatives. For more than a decade, funding for NOAA's Bay Program has remained static at an annual average of $1.9 million. If we are to achieve the ultimate, long-term goal of the Bay Program, protecting, restoring and maintaining the health of the living resources of the Bay, additional financial resources must be provided. These two measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to save the Chesapeake Bay. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other organizations in the watershed. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the measures and supporting letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the two measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this is a technical correction to last year's Manufactured Housing Improvement Act. I ask for its immediate approval. This legislation is being cosponsored by Senators Gramm, Reed, Shelby, Allard, Bayh, Enzi, Schumer, and Bond. Last year, in a bipartisan effort, Congress passed the ``American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000.'' Title VI of that law is the ``Manufactured Housing Improvement Act'' originally introduced by Senators Shelby, Bayh, Johnson, and others. Unfortunately due to a technical problem with the law, the manufactured housing program, run by HUD, may be forced to shut down as early as next week. Last year's legislation was the result of extensive bipartisan negotiations, and negotiations with industry and consumer groups, all of whom supported the final product. The legislation passed by unanimous consent in both the Senate and the House. The new law enacted is a long-overdue and significant streamlining and reform of the manufactured housing program. It also provides expanded consumer protections, improved safety requirements, and a process that allows for faster updating of regulations. The manufactured housing program is funded through fees HUD levies on the industry. Prior to the new Act, HUD could spend those funds as needed. However, to maintain better oversight of the program, the new law made the spending of the fees subject to appropriations. Unfortunately, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act passed after the VA-HUD appropriations bill, so the appropriators could make no provision for the spending of the funds HUD has collected since the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act passed on December 27, 2000. As a result, HUD has continued to collect the fees, but it is unable to spend them without specific authorization in an appropriations bill to do so. Clearly it was not our intent for this to happen. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today will allow HUD to continue to run the program until the next VA-HUD Appropriations bill passes. I also want to be clear that these funds are subject to all other requirements contained in the National Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. I ask that it be passed.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 800

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of ``Older Americans Month.'' Since 1963 when President Kennedy began this important tradition, each May has been designated as a time for our country to honor our older citizens for their many accomplishments and contributions to our Nation. Those of us who have worked diligently in the U.S. Senate to ensure that older Americans are able to live in dignity and independence during their later years look forward to this opportunity to pause and reflect on the contributions of those individuals who have played such a major role in the shaping of our great Nation. We honor them for their hard work and the countless sacrifices they have made throughout their lifetimes, and look forward to their continued contributions to our country's welfare. Today's older citizens have witnessed more technological advances than any other generation in our Nation's history. Seniors today have lived through times of extreme economic depression and prosperity, times of war and peace, and incredible advancements in the fields of science, medicine, transportation and communications. They have adapted to these changes remarkably well while continuing to make meaningful contributions to this country. Recent Census figures reveal that the number of Americans 85 and older grew 37 percent during the 1990's while the nation's overall population increased only 13 percent. Baby boomers, who represented one-third of all Americans in 1994, will enter the 65-years-and-older category over the next 13-34 years, substantially increasing this segment of our population. At the same time the number of older Americans is skyrocketing, they are in much better health and far less likely than their counterparts of previous generations to be impoverished, disabled or living in nursing homes. More older Americans are working and volunteer far beyond the traditional retirement age to give younger generations the benefit of their wisdom. These figures show that commitment to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and investment in biomedical research and treatment are improving the quality of life for older Americans. One of our national goals must be to ensure all older Americans experience these improvements. We must continue to enact meaningful legislation to help meet the needs of this valuable and constantly expanding segment of our society. By 2020, Medicare will be responsible for covering nearly 20 percent of the population. Yet 3 in 5 Medicare beneficiaries lack affordable, prescription drug coverage. Though Medicare works, it was created in a different time before the benefits of prescription medicines had become such an integral part of health care. Today it is unthinkable to think of quality healthcare coverage without including the medicines that treat and prevent illnesses. I have and will continue to fight for Medicare prescription drug coverage. As a cosponsor of the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 2001, I recognize the predicament many older Americans are in as they struggle to live independently on a fixed income and afford costly prescription drugs. It is imperative that we address the needs of the Americans who have devoted so much of their life experience and achievement to better our society. The celebration of Older Americans Month provides us with the opportunity to highlight the importance of the Older Americans Act. As a vigorous and consistent supporter of measures to benefit older Americans, I am pleased that Congress and President Clinton reauthorized this important legislation last year. I commend my colleague from Maryland, Senator Barbara Mikulski, for her tireless efforts in pressing for enactment of The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000. This legislation funds a dynamic network of community and home-based services so critical to many of our Nation's seniors, including home care, ombudsman services for residents in long-term care facilities, and subsidized employment for older workers. One of the most beneficial provisions of the Act is the creation of the National Family Caregiver Support Program. The Administration on Aging estimates that each day, as many as 5 million older Americans are recipients of care from more than 22 million informal caregivers. On average, these caregivers will limit their professional opportunities and lose an average of $550,000 in total wage wealth as they care for their loved ones. Women are 50 percent more likely to be informal caregivers, and as a result, they are more likely to risk their health, earnings and retirement security. As programs such as Medicare and Medicaid continue to feel the pressures of the current Federal budget process, the noble and compassionate work of these dedicated individuals is particularly critical. The National Family Caregiver Support Program addresses the challenges faced by informal caregivers. It authorizes funding for distribution of information to caregivers regarding available services, caregiver training, and respite services to provide families temporary relief from caregiving responsibilities. I have always believed strongly that this wise population contributes greatly to American society. Our Nation's older generations are an ever-growing resource that deserves our attention, our gratitude, and our heart-felt respect. As observance of Older American Month comes to a close, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to implement public policies that affirm the contributions of older Americans to our society and ensure that they continue to thrive with dignity.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Howard Baker to be U.S. Ambassador to Japan. I must say, and I am merely here speaking to the Japanese, I think this nomination is yet again a clear indication of the importance the United States attaches to the relationship with Japan. For now what will be a quarter of a century, we have sent Senator Mike Mansfield, Speaker Tom Foley, and now Senator Howard Baker as our representatives to the Japanese Government and to the Japanese people. I hope it is fully appreciated in Japan--and I think it is--exactly what this means in terms of how highly we value this relationship, how important we think it is to the course of events internationally and, of course, how much it reflects the very strong conviction on the part of all of us here that Howard Baker and his wife Nancy will do an outstanding job representing us. I have taken the floor of the Senate on occasion to oppose ambassadorial nominations, particularly non-career ambassadorial nominations. I do not take the position that all Ambassadors should come out of the career service because I think we can draw from outside of the career service to bring people who can make a real contribution--and there is something of a tradition of that in our country--although I think it is very important that the large majority of the positions go to career people in part to help maintain the morale of the Foreign Service, so someone going into the Foreign Service at a young age and committing a career to the Foreign Service, who has an opportunity to rise and become an Ambassador, is not cut off as they move up the ladder because the Ambassadors are all brought in from outside. That would have a very harmful impact on the morale of the Foreign Service, and I think having a Foreign Service with high morale is a very important thing in contributing to America's interests and objectives around the world. If someone were to come to me and say, ``You have admitted you would accept non-career people; you do not have an absolutely rigid position on that; what kind of people is it you are looking for in terms of non- career people to become Ambassadors,'' I would start right off by saying I would be looking for someone like Howard Baker. This can be the mold, in a sense, of what we are looking for from outside the career foreign service. We have all known Howard well in the Senate. We hold him in enormous respect. He is a man of great wisdom and judgment, of never-failing courtesy. All here who have dealt with him always sensed the respect he extended to others which, of course, evoked a respect from others back towards him. We need to remember that lesson around here sometimes. Over the years we saw him exercise power with a sensitivity and a responsibility that is a real tribute to him as a leader. We have a lot of difficult issues that arise from time to time with Japan. We ought not let those issues cause us to lose sight of how important having a strong positive relationship is with that country. I am sure Howard Baker, as his predecessors, Tom Foley and Mike Mansfield, have done, will be able to communicate that to the Japanese people and communicate back to Members of the Congress the situation that exists. One of the things that both Ambassador Mansfield and Ambassador Foley did was maintain contacts with Members of Congress. Having come out of the institution, they appreciated the role it plays in these relationships. I think that is one of the strengths that Howard Baker will bring to this ambassadorship. Second, he served in the White House as chief of staff, so he knows the workings of the executive branch. He can bring that expertise also to bear as he assumes this very important responsibility. I think Nancy Baker will be an extremely important dimension to this ambassadorship. I know at one point there was talk of a co- ambassadorship. I don't quite see how you do that, given the direct responsibilities on an Ambassador, but I am sure she will add a very significant and extra dimension to this representation that our country will have in Japan. I am pleased to take the floor, along with my other colleagues, in support of this nomination. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his very eloquent statement about Howard Baker, about their relationship in the Senate, and about his character. This is a man of character. This is a man of wisdom. This is a man of judgment. This is a man of civility. I am delighted he will be our Ambassador to Japan. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the tax reconciliation legislation pending before the Senate. Unfortunately, this tax bill spends vast sums of money, based on shaky economic forecasts, and disguises its true cost by phasing in most of its tax relief far into the future. As a result, this legislation poses a real risk to our Nation's fiscal health without providing the tax relief Americans have been promised for years to come. Let me begin by clearly stating that I am not opposed to responsible tax relief. I believe we can craft a fiscally responsible tax cut that does not endanger our economy and provides meaningful tax relief, including targeted measures, a component of across-the-board reductions, and an economic stimulus package. That being said, I must oppose the massive tax bill before the Senate today for several reasons. Foremost among them is my deep concern that, if we pass this legislation, we will be repeating the mistake we made in 1981 and squandering the fiscal security we have worked so hard to achieve. In 1981, Congress complied with the President's request for a large tax cut. The Nation felt the negative effects of that tax cut for more than a decade, as Federal deficits grew and the national debt exploded. It took the country nearly 20 years to recover from that tax cut, and move from a period of record budget deficits, to economic prosperity and budget surpluses. Today, we again have an opportunity to shape the course of our country for the better, and part of that course should include responsible tax cuts. I have supported proposals to devote a full third of our projected non-Social Security surplus, approximately $900 billion, to tax relief. It is my strong belief that we should devote a full third of the surplus to paying down our national debt. Simply put, if we don't take measures to reduce the debt in times of surplus, when will we? The remaining third of the surplus is needed to address the priorities I hear from the Marylanders I meet every day, access to healthcare, education, a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, protecting Social Security, enforcing our Nation's laws, addressing rising energy costs, and on and on. A $1.35 trillion tax cut will not allow us to act on these crucial areas, particularly when it is based on a highly speculative ten-year forecast of our Nation's future revenues. This bill is based on economic projections of a $2.6 trillion non-Social Security surplus. That surplus is not cash-in-hand being held by the Federal Government, it is a prediction that in the future this money will materialize. Based on that prediction, the tax bill would spend $1.35 trillion over the next ten years, despite a national debt of more than $5.6 trillion, or $20,227.19 for every man, woman, and child in our country. I believe it is unwise to base such a massive tax cut on projected income that may never come to pass. The serious limitations of economic projections are clearly illustrated by recent experience: just six years ago, in January 1995, the Congressional Budget Office projected that we would finish the year 2000 with a $342 billion deficit. Instead, we saw a surplus of $236 billion, a swing of $578 billion. In fact, most of the projected surplus over the next 10 years is expected to occur in the outyears, when projections are the most uncertain: Almost 70 percent of the non-Social Security surplus is projected to occur in 2007-2011, the last 5 years of the projection period. I believe it would be the height of folly to commit these uncertain surpluses to large, permanent tax cuts, as this tax bill does. While I am concerned about tax reductions amounting to $1.35 trillion, the cost of the tax bill this decade, I am even more disturbed by the exploding cost of these tax measures in years to come. The authors of this legislation have employed a variety of tactics to disguise the true cost of the bill. Most significantly, the various tax cuts provided by this legislation are slowly phased in over ten years to keep costs under the $1.35 trillion maximum dictated by the budget resolution. Other provisions granting tax relief actually expire in the middle of the ten-year period covered by the bill. I am opposed to such shell games that hide the true cost of this legislation for two reasons. First, the American public is being promised tax relief and likely doesn't understand that the changes which may benefit them the most will not arrive for years to come. Whatever your own tax cut priority, odds are it will not be realized for a long time. Marriage penalty relief does not begin until the year 2005. The final rate cut in the upper income tax brackets does not occur until 2007. The increase in the child credit to $1,000 does not take effect until 2011. The full increase in IRA contribution limits and the repeal of the estate tax do not take effect until 2011. In addition to this extreme backloading of costs, this tax legislation actually ``sunsets'' several important provisions in order to hold down costs. Most of the alternative minimum tax, or ``AMT'', relief provided in the bill is actually eliminated in 2006. As a result, the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT would explode this decade to nearly 40 million taxpayers by 2011, more than 25 times the number of Americans now affected by the AMT. Provisions aimed at encouraging small businesses to fund employee pensions expire in 2006. And deductions for education expenses end in 2005. The American people have been sold this bill as providing all of this relief, and have not been told how long they are going to have to wait to get it, and that it is not actually permanent relief. Even more importantly, such accounting gimmicks disguise the real cost that this legislation will impose on our Nation. The true cost of this package will rise to anywhere from $3.5 trillion to $4 trillion over ten years once it is fully implemented, which coincidentally occurs right at the time the baby boomers retire. If we enact this drastic cut, where will we find the resources to meet the needs of an aging population? How will we invest in national priorities like education, a well-prepared military, and a prescription drug benefit in Medicare? I strongly believe that we cannot enact such a huge tax cut, based on shaky economic forecasts, that will consume such a vast amount of resources just as our Nation's need is the greatest. Finally, I believe it is worth noting who receives the benefits of this tax reconciliation bill. As I have said before, I am not opposed to a component of across-the-board tax relief. For example, the new 10 percent tax bracket created in this bill would benefit all Americans who pay taxes, including those with the highest incomes in our country. I would also support legislation to ease the marriage penalty and significantly increase the estate tax exemption so that our families can pass on more to future generations. However, a disproportionate percentage of the benefits of this legislation is given to the wealthiest in our country. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, thirty-five percent of the benefits of this tax bill goes to the richest one percent of taxpayers--who have an average income of $1,117,000. While they get 35 percent of the benefits of this bill, that top one percent of taxpayers pays only 20 percent of all Federal taxes. In contrast, this legislation fails to provide tax relief for many of our Nation's hardest-working taxpayers. The tax bill we are considering today provides no tax relief to the many American families who pay no income taxes, but who pay substantial payroll taxes. These low-income workers have not benefitted from our Nation's booming economy in recent years. Between 1992 and 1998, the bottom 95 percent of Americans experienced an eight percent rise in their after-tax incomes, while the top one percent of taxpayers saw their after-tax income increase by 47 percent. We should find some way to give those workers who have not participated in our recent economic prosperity, but still pay substantial payroll taxes, the relief they so desperately need. Nonetheless, some will argue that wealthy Americans pay more taxes and, therefore, deserve a larger tax cut. That may be true if only the dollar amount of the tax cut is considered, but the tax bill we are debating gives a larger percentage of its tax cuts to high-income Americans. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this tax bill, when fully phased in, will increase the after-tax income of the richest one percent of Americans by an average of five percent. In contrast, the bill will increase the after-tax income of the middle fifth of American taxpayers by only 2.2 percent, and the poorest 20 percent of families in our country will see their income increase by only 0.8 percent. Therefore, this legislation would increase the after- tax income of our richest Americans more than twice as fast as those in the middle class, and six times faster than families in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale. Clearly, this bill denies middle-class and lower-income Americans tax relief in order to benefit the wealthiest in our country. I believe that by passing this tax bill we will throw away an unprecedented opportunity to develop a sound fiscal policy for our Nation. We have an unparalleled opportunity to pay down the Nation's debt, to invest in our future, and to shore up vital programs. If we act prudently, we can ensure that the Federal government will have the resources to meet our obligations after the baby boomers retire and beyond. We can do a reasonable tax cut in response to the problems confronting working families all across the Nation, and we can do all this in a very balanced way. Because this legislation would squander our best chance for investing in America's future, lifting the debt burden off the next generation, and providing a reasonable tax cut for our working families, I strongly oppose this excessive tax bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I know I speak for all of my colleagues in thanking His Holiness, Catholicos Karekin the Second, the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, for leading the Senate in prayer this morning. His prayer, I must say, was inspiring. I hope all of us took to heart particularly his admonition that we should show wisdom in our dealings with one another. His Holiness is the world leader of the Armenian Church, which traces its roots to the first century preaching of Jesus' Apostles, Saint Thaddeus and Saint Bartholomew. The Armenian Church is among the Orthodox churches, which, along with the Catholic and Protestant Churches, constitutes one of three branches of Christianity. The Catholicos was elected democratically by an assembly of clergy and lay delegates from around the world in October 1999. He is the 132nd in a continuous line of catholicoi. He sits in Armenia and administers the Armenian Church from the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and has authority over Dioceses on five continents. In the United States, there are well over 1 million Armenian Americans who live in all parts of our country. They have made very important contributions to all aspects of American life. His Holiness is well known not only for his spiritual leadership but his charitable works to help the needy, his educational programs, and his management skills. He is also recognized in the international religious community, where he sought to draw churches closer together. He has met with John Paul II and will be meeting in September with Pope John Paul II when he comes to visit Armenia. The Catholicos is visiting the United States to celebrate the 1700th anniversary of the conversion of Armenia to Christianity. He is meeting with U.S. religious leaders and the Armenian-American communities. The theme of his visit is ``Walking Together in the Light of the Lord.'' Mr. President, we are pleased and honored that he is here with us today.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 3 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I claim 1 minute under the procedure to speak on the motion.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on more than one amendment it has been said that for 8 years we had a Democratic President and we didn't do anything about this issue. We spent most of those 8 years working ourselves out of the deficit box into which we have been placed by the previous administrations. It is only now when we have some surpluses that we can start talking about doing something about these issues. How were you going to do something when you had a deficit? This is a very worthy cause for using some of those surpluses that we now have. I urge support for the Reid amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I have already expressed my opposition, in general, to the tax reconciliation bill the Senate is currently considering. But I want to take a moment, while Senator Bingaman's amendment is pending before us, to highlight a provision in that amendment which I believe can play a significant role in addressing our Nation's current energy problems. This provision is modeled after a bill I cosponsored, S. 217, the Commuter Benefits Equity Act, and represents an important step forward in our efforts to fight pollution and congestion by supporting public transportation. The Internal Revenue Code currently allows employers to provide a tax-free transit benefit to their employees of up to $65 per month to pay for the cost of commuting by public transportation or vanpool. This program is designed to encourage Americans to leave their cars behind when commuting to work. However, despite the success of this program in taking cars off the road, our tax laws still reflect a bias toward driving. The Internal Revenue Code allows employers to offer a tax-free parking benefit to their employees of up to $180 per month. The striking disparity between the amount allowed for parking, $180 per month, and the amount allowed for transit, $65 per month, undermines our commitment to supporting public transportation use. The pending amendment would address this discrepancy by raising the maximum monthly transit benefit to equal the parking benefit. 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 pleased that this measure has been included in this package of energy-related tax provisions, because I believe support for mass transit should be a component of any energy package.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SARBANES. Is it the Chair's ruling that a request for a quorum is not in order because there are still 2 minutes remaining on the amendment?

Mr. SARBANES. Would a request for a quorum be in order at the conclusion of the 2 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized at the conclusion of the 2 minutes to make his suggestion.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?