Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent to speak for another 30 seconds.

Mr. SARBANES. The New York Times, in an editorial opposing this nomination, made reference to President Bush's inaugural visions of ``a single nation of justice and opportunity.'' In my view John Ashcroft does not carry out that vision. I oppose his nomination. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. In commenting on John Ashcroft's distortion of Judge White's record, said: Whatever the reasons for Mr. Ashcroft's actions, they speak to a willingness to pursue his own agenda by any means necessary, without regard to veracity or fairness. This from an editorial in the Baltimore Sun entitled ``Ashcroft isn't right for attorney general.'' I just want to add one other instance or example of the kind of approach and attitude in John Ashcroft's record that concerns me. When he was attorney general of the State of Missouri, charged with carrying out the laws, he repeatedly, in school segregation cases, was rebuked and overruled by the courts, both State and Federal courts, on very sensitive and important school segregation cases. In my view, he has had a consistent record of being at the extreme, of taking positions well outside the mainstream. And we are now faced with the question of whether he should be placed in a position where he will have broad discretion and will be making very sensitive judgments. It is a position that the whole country looks to to sustain its civil rights and its civil liberties. The Nation needs to have confidence that the person serving as Attorney General will personify fairness and justice to all our people all across our country.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the call for the quorum be rescinded.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, first I want to say to the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--for 17 days, from January 3 until January 20--the very able and distinguished Senator from Vermont, I commend him for the hearings he held on the nomination of John Ashcroft to be the Attorney General of the United States. I had the opportunity to watch some of the hearings. I followed them in the press. I think the able Senator from Vermont conducted a very comprehensive, very careful hearing with respect to former Senator Ashcroft. I think he is much to be commended for doing an outstanding job. He obviously took very seriously the responsibilities of the Senate with respect to its constitutional advise and consent role. I thought a major effort was obviously made to hear from all sides on this important question. It meant going late into the evening on more than 1 day. But I thought it was a model of how hearings ought to be conducted. It was not pro forma. It really probed deeply into some very basic and fundamental questions, and I, for one, want to express my very deep appreciation to the Senator from Vermont for the way he planned and conducted those hearings. The Senate is in his debt.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft to be the Attorney General of the United States. I do not do this lightly. I recognize, of course, the argument that is made that Presidents ought to be able to have their Cabinet picks. I have generally in the past, although not always, deferred to that concept, although I think it obviously can be overdone, and the Senate needs to be careful not to be taken down the path in which we simply become rubber stamps with respect to nominations for the Cabinet. If that is what the Founding Fathers had intended, presumably they never would have put the advise and consent function in the Senate with respect to nominees to the executive branch of the Government. Of course, the judiciary is an entirely separate matter since it is an independent branch of the Government, and I think there the standard is much higher and much less acknowledgment or deference should be given to the President's judgment. But I recognize the argument that is made with respect to Cabinet members. On the other hand, I think it is very important when we consider Cabinet appointments, and particularly an office such as the Attorney General, to be very careful in judging how the very important responsibilities of that office will be carried out. I thought the Senator from Vermont made a very important contribution to this debate in his statement when he outlined the importance of the position of the Attorney General. I am not sure enough focus has been placed on that dimension. The Senator pointed out that it is a position of extraordinary importance; that the judgment and priorities of the person who is the Attorney General affect the lives of all Americans; that the Attorney General is the lawyer for all the people and the chief law enforcement officer in the country. The Attorney General controls a very large budget, over $20 billion. He directs the activities of almost 125,000 attorneys, investigators, Border Patrol agents, deputy marshals, correctional officers, and other employees in over 2,700 Department of Justice facilities throughout this country and in 120 foreign cities. He supervises the selection and actions of the 93 U.S. attorneys and their assistants; the U.S. marshals; supervises the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Drug Enforcement Agency; the Bureau of Prisons; and many other Federal law enforcement components. Furthermore, the Attorney General evaluates judicial candidates, recommends judicial nominees to the President, advises the executive branch on the constitutionality of bills and laws, determines when the Federal Government will go into court, what statutes to defend in court, what arguments to make to the Supreme Court and other courts. In other words, as the Senator from Vermont pointed out, the Attorney General exercises a very broad discretion in terms of the judgments he makes and the actions he takes. Therefore, it simply does not dispose of the issue of how someone will perform in the office to assert that he will carry out the laws of the United States. I would hope so. It is not much of a threshold for a Cabinet nominee to assert that, if confirmed, he will carry out the laws of the United States? That is the minimum threshold. In the instance of the Attorney General, there is a broad range of activities that are subject to his judgment and discretion, subject to the Attorney General's sense of priorities, and that, of course, is what raises some very difficult questions with respect to this nomination. Senator Ashcroft has never hidden the fact that he has planted himself at the extreme of the political spectrum. In fact, he has taken pride in that fact and asserted it in the course of his political career. Moderation is not a word which enters into his political thinking. In fact, on more than one occasion, he has belittled moderation, as the Washington Post pointed out in an editorial just a few days ago. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to printed the editorial in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. I now quote from that editorial: More troubling than his views have been Mr. Ashcroft's inflammatory political tactics. On a range of issues--as a governing philosophy, in fact--Mr. Ashcroft has explicitly belittled moderation; he would now assume a job that demands a sense of balance, of respect for opposing views. . . . Those of us who have interacted with him in the Senate have spoken about the intensity and the zeal of his positions as an advocate, and I recognize that. In fact, he has asserted it as one of his great political strengths and something in which he takes a great deal of pride. He has taken a number of positions which are well outside the mainstream of thinking--most Americans, I think, are in the middle of the road. Senator Ashcroft has been quoted as saying that there are only two things you find in the middle of the road--a moderate and a dead skunk. I think one will find most of the American people are in the middle of the road. There are extreme ideological positions here which of course, raise important questions. In fact, when Senator Ashcroft held up the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be the head of the Civil Rights Division--a man of extraordinary qualification and dedication, a life story that ought to command the respect and admiration of all Americans--he argued that Lee is ``an advocate who is willing to pursue an objective and to carry it with the kind of intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not with the kind of balance that belongs to administration . . . his pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that will be necessary for the person who runs the [Civil Rights] Division.'' That is the mental framework, the perspective that he brought to this very important nomination as the head of the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice. I do not intend to simply turn that standard and apply it to him but I do think it is indicative of an attitude and of a mindset that gives me great pause when I come to consider someone who is going to exercise the kind of discretion and broad range of judgments that are placed in the hands of the Attorney General of the United States under the statutes of our country. Another instance I want to point to which has given me great concern is what John Ashcroft did to Judge Ronnie White. As others have spoken at length on that, I will not go into it in any great detail, But Judge White was ambushed on the floor of the Senate. That, simply put, is what it amounted to. And that ambush was, in effect, staged by John Ashcroft. Judge White is a man who worked his way up, the classic American opportunity story, to become a judge on the highest court of the State of Missouri, an African American who broke a barrier when he went on that court. He was then nominated to be a Federal district judge. His nomination was brought out of the Judiciary Committee. The arguments used on the floor to ambush him were not raised in the Committee. On the floor the Senate was told that ``he has a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' Imagine saying that about a sitting judge of the State's highest court, a statement which upon examination cannot be sustained. Furthermore, Senator Ashcroft argued about White that, if confirmed ``he will use his lifetime appointment to push law in a pro-criminal direction consistent with his own personal political agenda.'' No wonder that legal columnist Stuart Taylor, wrote in an article that John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge White alone makes him unfit to be Attorney General. The reason is that during an important debate on a sensitive matter, then-Senator Ashcroft abused the power of his office by descending to demagoguery, dishonesty and character assassination. The Baltimore Sun, in an editorial of yesterday--I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Schumer and Warner in introducing the Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2001. This measure is another important step forward in our efforts to make transit services more accessible and improve the quality of life for commuters throughout the nation. All across the nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute's Annual Mobility Report, in 1997, Americans in 68 urban areas spent 4.3 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $72 billion in lost time and wasted fuel, and the problem is growing. One way in which federal, state, and local governments are responding to this problem is by promoting greater use of transit as a commuting option. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that last year, Americans took over 9.4 billion trips on transit, the highest level in more than 40 years. But we need to do more to encourage people to get out of their cars and onto public transportation. The Internal Revenue Code currently allows employers to provide a tax-free transit benefit to their employees. Under this ``Commuter Choice'' program, employers can set aside up to $65 per month of an employee's pre-tax income to pay for the cost of commuting by public transportation or vanpool. Alternatively, an employer can choose to offer the same amount as a tax-free benefit in addition to an employee's salary. This program is designed to encourage Americans to leave their cars behind when commuting to work. By all accounts, this program is working. In the Washington area, for example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority reports that 168,500 commuters take advantage of transit pass programs offered by their employers. That means fewer cars on our congested streets and highways. Employees of the federal government account for a large percentage of those benefitting from this program in the Washington area. Under an Executive Order issued by President Clinton, all federal agencies in the National Capital Region, which includes Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, as well as several counties in Northern Virginia, are required to offer this transit benefit to their employees. The Commuter Choice program is now being used by 115,000 Washington-area federal employees who are choosing to take transit to work. However, despite the success of the Commuter Choice 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 $175 per month. The striking disparity between the amount allowed for parking--$175 per month--and the amount allowed for transit--$65 per month--undermines our commitment to supporting public transportation use. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would address this discrepancy by raising the maximum monthly transit benefit to $175, equal to the parking benefit. The federal government should not reward those who drive to work more richly than those who take public transportation. Indeed, since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, federal transportation policy has endeavored to create a level playing field between highways and transit, favoring neither mode above the other. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would ensure that our tax laws reflect this balanced approach. In addition, the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remedy another inconsistency in current law. Private-sector employers can offer their employees the transit benefit in tandem with the parking benefit, to help employees pay for the costs of parking at transit facilities, commuter rail stations, or other locations which serve public transportation or vanpool commuters. However, under current law, federal agencies cannot offer a parking benefit to their employees who use park-and-ride lots or other remote parking locations. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remove this restriction, allowing federal employees access to the same benefits enjoyed by their private-sector counterparts. The Washington Metropolitan Region is home to thousands of federal employees. It is also one of the nation's most highly congested areas, with the second longest average commute time in the country. This area ranks third in the nation in the number of workers commuting more than 60 minutes to work, and has the highest per vehicle congestion cost and the second highest per capita congestion cost in the nation. It is clearly in our interest to support programs which encourage federal employees to make greater use of public transportation for their commuting needs. The simple change made by the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would provide a significant benefit to those federal employees whose commute to work includes parking at a transit facility. For example, a commuter who rides the Metrorail System to work and parks at the Wheaton park- and-ride lot pays about $50 monthly for parking, on top of the cost of riding the train. A private-sector employee whose employer provides the parking benefit in addition to salary could receive $600 a year tax free to help pay these parking costs. Federal government employees should be allowed the same benefit. I support the Commuter Benefits Equity Act because it creates parity--parity in the tax code between the parking and transit benefits, and parity for federal employees with their private-sector counterparts. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by supporting public transportation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Commuter Benefits Equity Act.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Schumer and Warner in introducing the Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2001. This measure is another important step forward in our efforts to make transit services more accessible and improve the quality of life for commuters throughout the nation. All across the nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute's Annual Mobility Report, in 1997, Americans in 68 urban areas spent 4.3 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $72 billion in lost time and wasted fuel, and the problem is growing. One way in which federal, state, and local governments are responding to this problem is by promoting greater use of transit as a commuting option. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that last year, Americans took over 9.4 billion trips on transit, the highest level in more than 40 years. But we need to do more to encourage people to get out of their cars and onto public transportation. The Internal Revenue Code currently allows employers to provide a tax-free transit benefit to their employees. Under this ``Commuter Choice'' program, employers can set aside up to $65 per month of an employee's pre-tax income to pay for the cost of commuting by public transportation or vanpool. Alternatively, an employer can choose to offer the same amount as a tax-free benefit in addition to an employee's salary. This program is designed to encourage Americans to leave their cars behind when commuting to work. By all accounts, this program is working. In the Washington area, for example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority reports that 168,500 commuters take advantage of transit pass programs offered by their employers. That means fewer cars on our congested streets and highways. Employees of the federal government account for a large percentage of those benefitting from this program in the Washington area. Under an Executive Order issued by President Clinton, all federal agencies in the National Capital Region, which includes Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, as well as several counties in Northern Virginia, are required to offer this transit benefit to their employees. The Commuter Choice program is now being used by 115,000 Washington-area federal employees who are choosing to take transit to work. However, despite the success of the Commuter Choice 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 $175 per month. The striking disparity between the amount allowed for parking--$175 per month--and the amount allowed for transit--$65 per month--undermines our commitment to supporting public transportation use. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would address this discrepancy by raising the maximum monthly transit benefit to $175, equal to the parking benefit. The federal government should not reward those who drive to work more richly than those who take public transportation. Indeed, since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, federal transportation policy has endeavored to create a level playing field between highways and transit, favoring neither mode above the other. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would ensure that our tax laws reflect this balanced approach. In addition, the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remedy another inconsistency in current law. Private-sector employers can offer their employees the transit benefit in tandem with the parking benefit, to help employees pay for the costs of parking at transit facilities, commuter rail stations, or other locations which serve public transportation or vanpool commuters. However, under current law, federal agencies cannot offer a parking benefit to their employees who use park-and-ride lots or other remote parking locations. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act would remove this restriction, allowing federal employees access to the same benefits enjoyed by their private-sector counterparts. The Washington Metropolitan Region is home to thousands of federal employees. It is also one of the nation's most highly congested areas, with the second longest average commute time in the country. This area ranks third in the nation in the number of workers commuting more than 60 minutes to work, and has the highest per vehicle congestion cost and the second highest per capita congestion cost in the nation. It is clearly in our interest to support programs which encourage federal employees to make greater use of public transportation for their commuting needs. The simple change made by the Commuter Benefits Equity Act would provide a significant benefit to those federal employees whose commute to work includes parking at a transit facility. For example, a commuter who rides the Metrorail System to work and parks at the Wheaton park- and-ride lot pays about $50 monthly for parking, on top of the cost of riding the train. A private-sector employee whose employer provides the parking benefit in addition to salary could receive $600 a year tax free to help pay these parking costs. Federal government employees should be allowed the same benefit. I support the Commuter Benefits Equity Act because it creates parity--parity in the tax code between the parking and transit benefits, and parity for federal employees with their private-sector counterparts. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by supporting public transportation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Commuter Benefits Equity Act.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I introduce this resolution congratulating the Baltimore Ravens on their remarkable championship season. On Super Bowl Sunday, the Baltimore Ravens completed an incredible season, beating the New York Giants by a score of 34 to 7 to become the 2000-2001 National Football League Champions. At the beginning of the season, very few of the experts thought the Ravens would have a chance at glory. And as the team endured a five game stretch without a touchdown, the nay sayers grew and many wrote the Ravens off entirely. But during the season's early rough spots, when the team could have fallen to pieces, no one pointed fingers or assigned blame. Instead, under the leadership of a great coaching staff, they grew together and formed a remarkable bond not only amongst each other but also with the fans of Baltimore. And then, with the NFL's best defense leading the way, the Baltimore Ravens began to string together win after win. The victories weren't always pretty, but the team always found a way to win--with a new hero stepping forward to make something happen. Week in and week out, Matt Stover, Quadry Ismail, Shannon Sharpe, Duane Starks, Jamal Lewis, Jermaine Lewis, Ray Lewis, Trent Dilfer, Rod Woodson, Tony Siragusa, Sam Adams, Jonathan Ogden, and countless others took it upon themselves to make the big play. Still, even through the playoffs, the experts kept scratching their heads wondering how the Ravens were beating their highly acclaimed opponents. To the very end, the doubters outweighed the believers. Only the Ravens themselves and the fans of Baltimore truly dared to believe that a Championship season was possible. Finally, after a hard fought, playoff run--on the road--against the AFC's finest, the Ravens have brought the Lombardi Trophy home to Baltimore. And now the experts believe. The game was a defensive masterpiece as those who know and have followed the Ravens would expect. But what makes this victory particularly special is that the Ravens played as a team, with remarkable cohesiveness and spirit. And in the world spotlight, they were able to display their diverse, but largely unsung, talents. Jamie Sharper's interception, Jermaine Lewis's terrific kickoff return, Brandon Stokely's outstanding touchdown reception, Jamal Lewis's diving touchdown run, Trent Dilfer's pain-filled, but error-free game, Kyle Richardson's coffin corner punts and Ray Lewis's MVP Award-winning performance, are just a few of the individual efforts that combined to secure this victory. The list goes on and on. And Finally, I want to take a moment to recognize the leadership of Coach Brian Billick who is in his second year as head coach of the Ravens. We all know that to be champions requires a strong commitment to working harder than the rest. The Ravens' Super Bowl win is a credit to an extraordinary effort by the entire Baltimore Ravens' organization, from Art Modell down--but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the motivational push, level head and remarkable football mind demonstrated by Coach Billick and his coaching staff throughout the season, and especially during the playoff run. Most importantly, he helped Baltimore believe through thick and thin. There is a statue of Edgar Allen Poe located in the plaza of the University of Baltimore Law School not too far from PSiNet Stadium, with an engraving that reads, ``Dreaming dreams that no mortal ever dared to dream before; To thee the laurels belong''. Today the Lombardi Trophy belongs to the Baltimore Ravens because they dared to dream when no one else believed a championship was possible. I congratulate them and their worthy opponents, the New York Giants, on a tremendous season and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring our friend and former colleague, Senator Alan Cranston, who died on December 31, 2000 at the age of 86 in his native California. While Alan Cranston was elected to the United States Senate in 1968, his public service began years before when he served in the Executive Offices of the President in 1942 as Chief of the Foreign Language Division of the Office of War Information. Declining a deferment, he enlisted as a private in the United States Army in 1944. First assigned to an infantry unit, he became editor of ``Army Talk'' and was a Sergeant by V-J Day. He went on to serve two terms as State Controller of California before being elected to the United States Senate. Alan Cranston served the people of California with distinction in the U.S. Senate for 24 years. He chaired the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, providing invaluable assistance to our Nation's servicemen and women. He was in the forefront in the U.S. Senate on numerous issues of national importance, including mass transit, civil rights, the environment, women's rights, housing and education. I was privileged to serve with Senator Cranston on the Foreign Relations Committee where he played an important role during Senate consideration of the SALT II and START treaties, helped pave the way for ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, and was active in efforts to promote peace in the Middle East. Senator Cranston was a tireless advocate for world peace and the defense of democratic institutions. Throughout his Senate service, Alan Cranston worked diligently to promote the reduction and, ultimately, the elimination of nuclear weapons. After retiring in 1993, he continued his extraordinary commitment and devotion to these critical efforts. He chaired the State of the World Forum, a widely respected organization for the discussion of global problems based in San Francisco. He was also founder and President of the Global Security Institute, concentrating on a world- wide effort to reduce, marginalize and eliminate nuclear weapons. Mr. President, Alan Cranston was a leader in the U.S. Senate, a well- respected member of this body. He had a unique ability to achieve consensus under difficult circumstances and his wise counsel will be missed by every member with whom he served. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him and to extend my deepest sympathies to his family. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Enzi, Senator Johnson, and Senator Gramm to introduce the Export Administration Act of 2001. The legislation we are introducing today is very similar to the legislation that was reported out of the Senate Banking Committee in the last Congress by a unanimous 20-0 vote. The Export Administration Act provides the President authority to control exports for reasons of national security and foreign policy. Let me begin by saying that I believe there is a very strong national interest in Congress reauthorizing the Export Administration Act. The EAA has not been reauthorized since 1990 except for temporary extensions in 1993, 1994, and last year. At the end of the last Congress we passed a temporary extension of the EAA that expires on August 20 of this year. Prior to this most recent temporary extension, the authority of the President to impose export controls had been exercised pursuant to the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). In my view, Congress should put in place a permanent statutory framework for the imposition of export controls. They should not be imposed in effect on a permanent basis pursuant to an emergency economic authority of the President. Just one example of the implications of depending on IEEPA is that the penalties that may be imposed for violations of export controls under IEEPA are significantly less than those imposed under the EAA. I believe this legislation is a carefully balanced effort to provide the President authority to control exports for reasons of national security and foreign policy, while also responding to the need of U.S. exporters to compete in the global marketplace. Extensive consultation took place with representatives of the previous Administration, including the Commerce Department, the Defense Department, the intelligence agencies and the National Security Council, as well as representatives of the different industry groups. I also understand that during the campaign then-Governor Bush also endorsed this legislation, and we would hope to work closely with the new Administration on this bill. I would like to commend Senator Enzi (who was the chairman of the International Trade and Finance Subcommittee of the Banking Committee in the last Congress), Senator Johnson (who was the ranking member of the Subcommittee), and Senator Gramm, as well as their staffs, for their efforts to develop a bipartisan consensus on this legislation. The legislation generally tracks the authorities provided the President under the Export Administration Act which expired in 1990. However a significant effort was made, with the assistance of the Legislative Counsel's Office, to provide these authorities in a more clear and straightforward manner. We believe this will make the statute both easier for the executive branch agencies to administer and for exporters to comply with. The bill also makes a number of significant improvements to the EAA. I would like to mention just a few. The legislation provides for the first time a statutory basis for the resolution of interagency disputes over export license applications. The intent is to provide an orderly process for the timely resolution of disputes, while allowing all interested agencies a full opportunity to express their views. This was an issue of great concern to the Administration, the national security community, and industry. I believe we have reached a reasonable resolution of this issue in the bill. The bill significantly increases both criminal and civil penalties for violations of the Export Administration Act, reflecting the seriousness of such violations. The bill provides new authority to the President to determine that a good has mass market status in the United States and should therefore be decontrolled. The President retains authority to set aside a mass market determination if he determines it would constitute a serious threat to national security and continued export controls would be likely to advance the national security interests of the United States. This was a provision of great importance to U.S. exporters. At the urging of Senator Enzi, the bill contains a provision that would require the President to establish a system of tiers to which countries would be assigned based on their perceived threat to U.S. national security. The intent is to provide exporters a clear guide as to the licensing requirements of an export of a particular item to a particular country. The bill would also require that any foreign company that declined a U.S. request for a post-shipment verification of an export would be denied licenses for future exports. The President would have authority to deny licenses to affiliates of the company, and to the country in which the company is located as well. On balance, I believe this bill is a very balanced piece of work. It commanded unanimous bipartisan support in the Banking Committee in the last Congress. It is my belief that it will receive broad bipartisan support in the Banking Committee and in the full Senate in this Congress. I believe it will be the first bill the Banking Committee will act on this year, and I would hope we could move it quickly to consideration by the full Senate. Early action by the full Senate would, in turn, give the House more time to act on the bill. I am hopeful that this will be the Congress in which the Export Administration Act is enacted back into law.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Enzi, Senator Johnson, and Senator Gramm to introduce the Export Administration Act of 2001. The legislation we are introducing today is very similar to the legislation that was reported out of the Senate Banking Committee in the last Congress by a unanimous 20-0 vote. The Export Administration Act provides the President authority to control exports for reasons of national security and foreign policy. Let me begin by saying that I believe there is a very strong national interest in Congress reauthorizing the Export Administration Act. The EAA has not been reauthorized since 1990 except for temporary extensions in 1993, 1994, and last year. At the end of the last Congress we passed a temporary extension of the EAA that expires on August 20 of this year. Prior to this most recent temporary extension, the authority of the President to impose export controls had been exercised pursuant to the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). In my view, Congress should put in place a permanent statutory framework for the imposition of export controls. They should not be imposed in effect on a permanent basis pursuant to an emergency economic authority of the President. Just one example of the implications of depending on IEEPA is that the penalties that may be imposed for violations of export controls under IEEPA are significantly less than those imposed under the EAA. I believe this legislation is a carefully balanced effort to provide the President authority to control exports for reasons of national security and foreign policy, while also responding to the need of U.S. exporters to compete in the global marketplace. Extensive consultation took place with representatives of the previous Administration, including the Commerce Department, the Defense Department, the intelligence agencies and the National Security Council, as well as representatives of the different industry groups. I also understand that during the campaign then-Governor Bush also endorsed this legislation, and we would hope to work closely with the new Administration on this bill. I would like to commend Senator Enzi (who was the chairman of the International Trade and Finance Subcommittee of the Banking Committee in the last Congress), Senator Johnson (who was the ranking member of the Subcommittee), and Senator Gramm, as well as their staffs, for their efforts to develop a bipartisan consensus on this legislation. The legislation generally tracks the authorities provided the President under the Export Administration Act which expired in 1990. However a significant effort was made, with the assistance of the Legislative Counsel's Office, to provide these authorities in a more clear and straightforward manner. We believe this will make the statute both easier for the executive branch agencies to administer and for exporters to comply with. The bill also makes a number of significant improvements to the EAA. I would like to mention just a few. The legislation provides for the first time a statutory basis for the resolution of interagency disputes over export license applications. The intent is to provide an orderly process for the timely resolution of disputes, while allowing all interested agencies a full opportunity to express their views. This was an issue of great concern to the Administration, the national security community, and industry. I believe we have reached a reasonable resolution of this issue in the bill. The bill significantly increases both criminal and civil penalties for violations of the Export Administration Act, reflecting the seriousness of such violations. The bill provides new authority to the President to determine that a good has mass market status in the United States and should therefore be decontrolled. The President retains authority to set aside a mass market determination if he determines it would constitute a serious threat to national security and continued export controls would be likely to advance the national security interests of the United States. This was a provision of great importance to U.S. exporters. At the urging of Senator Enzi, the bill contains a provision that would require the President to establish a system of tiers to which countries would be assigned based on their perceived threat to U.S. national security. The intent is to provide exporters a clear guide as to the licensing requirements of an export of a particular item to a particular country. The bill would also require that any foreign company that declined a U.S. request for a post-shipment verification of an export would be denied licenses for future exports. The President would have authority to deny licenses to affiliates of the company, and to the country in which the company is located as well. On balance, I believe this bill is a very balanced piece of work. It commanded unanimous bipartisan support in the Banking Committee in the last Congress. It is my belief that it will receive broad bipartisan support in the Banking Committee and in the full Senate in this Congress. I believe it will be the first bill the Banking Committee will act on this year, and I would hope we could move it quickly to consideration by the full Senate. Early action by the full Senate would, in turn, give the House more time to act on the bill. I am hopeful that this will be the Congress in which the Export Administration Act is enacted back into law.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand shortly the nomination of Mel Martinez to be Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development will be before us. I rise in support of this nomination. Mr. Martinez appeared before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on January 17, where he made clear his commitment to providing affordable housing and economic opportunity for all Americans, both in his oral testimony and in his response to questions. His nomination was brought to the Senate floor with a recommendation for approval--a unanimous recommendation for approval in the committee. Mr. Martinez has a compelling life story. His parents sent him to this country at the age of 15, with thousands of other Cuban children, as part of the ``Pedro Pan'' operation, in an effort to security the liberty and opportunity that we enjoy as Americans. He lived with a foster family, learned English, went to college and law school, practiced law for 25 years, and became deeply committed to serving his community. I believe this history has instilled in Mr. Martinez an understanding of and empathy for the less fortunate that will serve him well in his new role as Secretary of HUD. Mr. Martinez most recently served as the county chairman of Orange County, FL. Prior to that, he served on the Orlando Housing Authority Board of Directors for 4 years, including 2 years as its chair in the mid-1980s. He served as vice president of Catholic Social Services in the Diocese in Orlando throughout the 1980s and as president of the Orlando Utilities Commission from 1994 to 1997 and as a lawyer in his own firm. He has served his community in many ways as a volunteer member of numerous organizations. As chairman of the Orlando Housing Authority, Mr. Martinez worked with his colleagues on the board to pass a measure that took about $1 million of reserve funds to build affordable housing for the elderly, as well as transitional housing for low-income single mothers. He consistently showed a willingness to meet and work with residents of public housing and other low-income residents of distressed neighborhoods in Orlando. These efforts lead me to believe that as Secretary, Mr. Martinez will make every effort to make good on his promise ``to work hard to ensure that every American has every opportunity to have affordable housing.'' Last year, a number of bipartisan proposals providing for funding the construction of affordable housing were offered in the Congress. I look forward to working with the new Secretary on legislation that will help us achieve the lofty goal he has set out. As many of my colleagues know, HUD has had a history of being a troubled agency. While many of its programs do a good job of providing decent homes to millions of poor and working families, it has proven to be a difficult department to manage. In 1994, in fact, HUD was placed on the General Accounting Office's high-risk list, the only agency to be so listed. However, as a result of concentrated efforts by Secretary Cuomo and his top staff, the GAO announced last week that HUD is now off the high-risk list. HUD achieved this result by working tirelessly to correct the problems in financial oversight and procurement systems. It is widely recognized that Secretary Cuomo has devoted significant time and effort to address these managerial issues, and I commend him for his success. This is by no means to say all of HUD's problems have been solved, but it does mean that Mr. Martinez will take over the Department with a management system in place that is moving HUD in the right direction. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Martinez made it clear that he understood the progress that has been made while committing himself to continue the efforts to improve the operations of the Department. I was also encouraged that Mr. Martinez recognized the importance of the Community Reinvestment Act in making housing opportunities more available to all Americans. Several committee hearings have established the fact that CRA is a crucial tool that is needed to make a number of other housing programs effective. The low-income housing tax credit, the community development block grant, and the HOME program all depend, to some extent, on bank credit made available largely because of the CRA. Finally, I note that this nomination has the support of a wide range of housing groups. A number of letters of support have been sent to the committee which are part of the hearing record. Included among these supporters are a number of industry groups, public housing organizations, and others. I note in particular a very strong letter of support sent to us by our former colleague, Senator Mack, who has high praise for the nominee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mack's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of these remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, Mel Martinez understands the job ahead of him. He has committed to expanding housing opportunities for all Americans. I look forward to working with him, and I commend his nomination to my colleagues for their approval. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Washington, DC, January 16, 2001. Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Dirksen Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sarbanes: As a former member of this committee, it is an honor and privilege to introduce my friend Mel Martinez, Secretary-designee of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. As a fellow Floridian, I have had the opportunity to know and personally work with Chairman Martinez in his various roles in local county government since the early days of my Senate career. I have found him to be an exceptional individual who has the intelligence, integrity and compassion to guide this agency and serve its constituents. The Secretary-designee through his life experiences understands the courage, drive and determination it takes to achieve the American dream. As you and I know, very difficult problems can be overcome when individuals work together. Mel Martinez understands what is takes to bring people together with a deep concern for those who are less fortunate and striving for a better future. With his personal perspective and insight, I am sure you could not find a better person to improve the lives of those that look to us for assistance. Therefore, with complete confidence, I strongly recommend Mel Martinez and urge your favorable consideration of him for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Sincerely, Connie Mack.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very important issue: the protection of every American's personal, sensitive, financial information that is held by their financial institutions. Few Americans understand that, under Federal law, a financial institution could take information it obtains about a customer through his or her transactions, and sell or transfer that information to an affiliated company without the customer being able to object. And the customer has no right to get access to or correct that information. The amount of information that could be disclosed is enormous. It includes: savings and checking account balances; certificate of deposit maturity dates and balances; any check an individual writes; any check that is deposited into a customer's account; stock and mutual fund purchases and sales; and life insurance payouts. In considering this issue, I start with the threshold question: whose information is it? Is it the individual's or the institution's? I believe this information belongs to the individual. To help alleviate the concerns of American consumers, I am introducing legislation that would give customers the right to choose whether their financial institutions should be allowed to transfer this date for unintended uses. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Dodd, Reed, Kerry, Harkin and Edwards are joining me in co-sponsoring the Financial Information Privacy Protection Act of 2001. I want to particularly recognize Senator Leahy, chairman of the Democratic Privacy Caucus, for his strong leadership on the privacy issue over the years. This bill seeks to protect a fundamental right of privacy for every American who entrusts his or her highly sensitive and confidential financial information to a financial institution. Every American should at least have the opportunity to say ``no'' if he or she does not want that nonpublic information disclosed. Every American should have the right to have especially sensitive information held by his or her financial institution kept confidential unless consent is given. Every American should be allowed to make certain that the information is accurate and, if it is not, have it corrected. And, put quite simply, these rights should be enforced. The Financial Information Privacy Protection Act of 2001 would accomplish these objectives. Today's technology makes it easier, faster, and less costly than ever for institutions to have immediate access to large amounts of customer information; to analyze that data; and to send that data to others. With the passage of financial services modernization legislation in 1999, banks, securities firms and insurance firms are now allowed to affiliate and offer their multiple products to each other's customers. As a result, many financial institutions are warehousing large amounts of sensitive information and sharing it throughout the affiliate structure without the customer being fully informed of what financial information is being disclosed or the purposes for which it will be used. While cross-marketing can bring new and beneficial products to receptive consumers, it can also result in unwanted invasions of personal privacy. Surveys have consistently shown that the public is widely concerned about its privacy. For example, a recent AARP survey found that 96% of respondents were unwilling to let a company freely share their financial information with other financial companies. The survey also asked, ``[w]ho owns financial information provided in a business transaction?'' and 93% of respondents answered that the information belongs to the ``customer'' while only 4% answered that it belongs to the `'business'' (and 3% said they did not know). Congress has already protected citizens' privacy on prior occasions. In response to public concerns, Congress passed privacy laws restricting companies' disclosure of customer information without customer consent, such as in the Cable Communications Policy Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act. Yet while video rentals and cable television selections are prohibited by law from being disclosed, millions of Americans cannot object to disclosure of their financial transactions to their financial institutions' affiliates and certain other financial companies for purposes inconsistent with those for which they gave their data. Other important privacy concerns, such as the privacy of bankruptcy court records, fall outside of this bill. Last week, the Clinton administration published a study ``Financial Privacy in Bankruptcy'' with important recommendations that should be carefully considered. I commend the Administration for its many efforts to protect individuals' right to privacy. Along with medical records, financial records rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most expect will be kept confidential. However, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial information has been increasingly put at risk with the move to an economy in which the selling or sharing of consumers' personal information is highly profitable--and legal. The Financial Information Privacy Protection Act of 2001 contains key financial privacy protections that are consistent with the expectations of Americans and good business practices. The Act would provide consumers with: An ``opt out'' for affiliate sharing, allowing customers to object to financial institutions sharing their financial data with all affiliated firms. An ``opt in'' for sharing some types of sensitive financial or medical information. A financial institution would need to have a consumer's affirmative consent before releasing his or her medical information or personal spending habits (e.g., credit card charges, check payees) to either an affiliate or an unaffiliated third party. Rights of access and correction. A consumer would be able to see the information to be released and correct material errors. To preclude abuse of this protection, the bill allows the institution to charge for access to this information. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, enacted in November 1999, contains some limited Federal financial privacy protections for consumers. While an important beginning, these protections fail to meet the expectations of Americans. It does not contain the important protections that I have just referred to. Many groups have criticized the current law as inadequate. I agree. This bill would not affect Section 507 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which I authored, which provides that these Federal privacy protections do not pre-empt stronger State privacy laws. States with citizens who want stronger privacy protections than contained in Federal law would still be able to enact such laws. A number of consumer groups, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, Privacy Times, United Auto Workers and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, have stated their support of this bill. Mr. President, I would ask that their letter of endorsement be included at the end of my remarks. Professor Peter Swire, Professor of Law at Ohio State University and formerly the Clinton Administration's Chief Counselor for Privacy, has said: ``The bill is carefully crafted to provide the greatest protections for the most sensitive financial information. At the same time, the bill helps create an efficient financial system by allowing the use of information in situations where the risk to privacy is minimal.'' The issue of financial privacy cuts across philosophical lines. For example, Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum have spoken out for financial privacy protections even stronger than those contained in this bill. She has written, ``Some banks shamelessly admit they profile their customers so the bank can advise telemarketers which products a customer might like. But why should banks be able to make secret profits off of customers' personal information such as deposits, checks, phone numbers or credit card numbers? Many of us don't want to be solicited by any telemarketers.'' Columnist William Safire has written frequently about the need for stronger privacy protections. For instance, in an editorial in the New York times of October 30, 2000, Mr. Safire pointed out that many people are concerned about financial records, and other records, ``being passed around by conglomerated banks, insurance companies and H.M.O.'s. Personal freedom is diminished when the most intimate secrets can be monitored by employers and merchants.'' As we proceed in an age of technological advances and cross-industry marketing of financial services, we need to be mindful of the privacy concerns of the American public. Consumers who wish to keep their sensitive financial information private should be given a right to do so. The passage of the financial information Privacy Protection Act of 2001 would be a major step toward that goal. Congress can and should provide that privacy protection by giving consumers, at a minimum, the rights of consent and access. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Mr. Richard Metrey, who retired last week after 41 years of Government service in the United States Navy. Throughout his career, Richard Metrey has distinguished himself through his leadership, commitment and dedication to public service, and by making government work better and more efficiently. Beginning as a project engineer in the Ships Machinery Division of the former Bureau of Ships, he swiftly worked his way up through the ranks into positions in senior management, including Head of the Combat Systems Branch in the Naval Sea Systems Command and Program Manager for the Navy Advanced Prototyping Program. For the last fifteen years, Mr. Metrey has served as Technical Director of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, where he has had a profound impact on the Navy's approach to researching, developing, testing and evaluating naval vehicles. During this time, Richard was directly responsible for the Division's entire technical program--its planning, execution, and staffing of current programs, as well as strategic planning and new starts. Prior to that, Mr. Metrey also served in the Navy Secretariat in a range of important responsibilities from Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Surface Warfare to principal advisor to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Surface Warfare Research and Development and Acquisition. Mr. Metrey's colleagues attest to the ingenuity and integrity he has brought to the positions in which he has served. His contributions and accomplishments have been recognized through many prestigious awards, including the Presidential Rank Meritorious Executive Award, the Navy Superior Civilian Service Award and numerous Outstanding Performance Awards--to name only a few. He has also been selected to serve as the United States representative on several international forums, and on high level committees, including the Congressionally established Advanced Submarine Advisory Panel. I came to know Richard Metrey in the early 1990s during the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) process. Having had the opportunity to work with him during the BRAC and on other matters, I can also attest firsthand to his professionalism and deep commitment to our Navy and its mission. It is my firm conviction that public service is one of the most honorable callings, one that demands the very best, most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens and country. Throughout his career, Richard Metrey's commitment and remarkable talent have enabled him to go beyond meeting this demand. So I want to extend my personal gratitude to Richard for these many years of hard work and dedication and I wish him well in whatever endeavors he seeks to undertake in the years ahead.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very important issue: the protection of every American's personal, sensitive, financial information that is held by their financial institutions. Few Americans understand that, under Federal law, a financial institution could take information it obtains about a customer through his or her transactions, and sell or transfer that information to an affiliated company without the customer being able to object. And the customer has no right to get access to or correct that information. The amount of information that could be disclosed is enormous. It includes: savings and checking account balances; certificate of deposit maturity dates and balances; any check an individual writes; any check that is deposited into a customer's account; stock and mutual fund purchases and sales; and life insurance payouts. In considering this issue, I start with the threshold question: whose information is it? Is it the individual's or the institution's? I believe this information belongs to the individual. To help alleviate the concerns of American consumers, I am introducing legislation that would give customers the right to choose whether their financial institutions should be allowed to transfer this date for unintended uses. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Dodd, Reed, Kerry, Harkin and Edwards are joining me in co-sponsoring the Financial Information Privacy Protection Act of 2001. I want to particularly recognize Senator Leahy, chairman of the Democratic Privacy Caucus, for his strong leadership on the privacy issue over the years. This bill seeks to protect a fundamental right of privacy for every American who entrusts his or her highly sensitive and confidential financial information to a financial institution. Every American should at least have the opportunity to say ``no'' if he or she does not want that nonpublic information disclosed. Every American should have the right to have especially sensitive information held by his or her financial institution kept confidential unless consent is given. Every American should be allowed to make certain that the information is accurate and, if it is not, have it corrected. And, put quite simply, these rights should be enforced. The Financial Information Privacy Protection Act of 2001 would accomplish these objectives. Today's technology makes it easier, faster, and less costly than ever for institutions to have immediate access to large amounts of customer information; to analyze that data; and to send that data to others. With the passage of financial services modernization legislation in 1999, banks, securities firms and insurance firms are now allowed to affiliate and offer their multiple products to each other's customers. As a result, many financial institutions are warehousing large amounts of sensitive information and sharing it throughout the affiliate structure without the customer being fully informed of what financial information is being disclosed or the purposes for which it will be used. While cross-marketing can bring new and beneficial products to receptive consumers, it can also result in unwanted invasions of personal privacy. Surveys have consistently shown that the public is widely concerned about its privacy. For example, a recent AARP survey found that 96% of respondents were unwilling to let a company freely share their financial information with other financial companies. The survey also asked, ``[w]ho owns financial information provided in a business transaction?'' and 93% of respondents answered that the information belongs to the ``customer'' while only 4% answered that it belongs to the `'business'' (and 3% said they did not know). Congress has already protected citizens' privacy on prior occasions. In response to public concerns, Congress passed privacy laws restricting companies' disclosure of customer information without customer consent, such as in the Cable Communications Policy Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act. Yet while video rentals and cable television selections are prohibited by law from being disclosed, millions of Americans cannot object to disclosure of their financial transactions to their financial institutions' affiliates and certain other financial companies for purposes inconsistent with those for which they gave their data. Other important privacy concerns, such as the privacy of bankruptcy court records, fall outside of this bill. Last week, the Clinton administration published a study ``Financial Privacy in Bankruptcy'' with important recommendations that should be carefully considered. I commend the Administration for its many efforts to protect individuals' right to privacy. Along with medical records, financial records rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most expect will be kept confidential. However, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial information has been increasingly put at risk with the move to an economy in which the selling or sharing of consumers' personal information is highly profitable--and legal. The Financial Information Privacy Protection Act of 2001 contains key financial privacy protections that are consistent with the expectations of Americans and good business practices. The Act would provide consumers with: An ``opt out'' for affiliate sharing, allowing customers to object to financial institutions sharing their financial data with all affiliated firms. An ``opt in'' for sharing some types of sensitive financial or medical information. A financial institution would need to have a consumer's affirmative consent before releasing his or her medical information or personal spending habits (e.g., credit card charges, check payees) to either an affiliate or an unaffiliated third party. Rights of access and correction. A consumer would be able to see the information to be released and correct material errors. To preclude abuse of this protection, the bill allows the institution to charge for access to this information. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, enacted in November 1999, contains some limited Federal financial privacy protections for consumers. While an important beginning, these protections fail to meet the expectations of Americans. It does not contain the important protections that I have just referred to. Many groups have criticized the current law as inadequate. I agree. This bill would not affect Section 507 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which I authored, which provides that these Federal privacy protections do not pre-empt stronger State privacy laws. States with citizens who want stronger privacy protections than contained in Federal law would still be able to enact such laws. A number of consumer groups, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, Privacy Times, United Auto Workers and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, have stated their support of this bill. Mr. President, I would ask that their letter of endorsement be included at the end of my remarks. Professor Peter Swire, Professor of Law at Ohio State University and formerly the Clinton Administration's Chief Counselor for Privacy, has said: ``The bill is carefully crafted to provide the greatest protections for the most sensitive financial information. At the same time, the bill helps create an efficient financial system by allowing the use of information in situations where the risk to privacy is minimal.'' The issue of financial privacy cuts across philosophical lines. For example, Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum have spoken out for financial privacy protections even stronger than those contained in this bill. She has written, ``Some banks shamelessly admit they profile their customers so the bank can advise telemarketers which products a customer might like. But why should banks be able to make secret profits off of customers' personal information such as deposits, checks, phone numbers or credit card numbers? Many of us don't want to be solicited by any telemarketers.'' Columnist William Safire has written frequently about the need for stronger privacy protections. For instance, in an editorial in the New York times of October 30, 2000, Mr. Safire pointed out that many people are concerned about financial records, and other records, ``being passed around by conglomerated banks, insurance companies and H.M.O.'s. Personal freedom is diminished when the most intimate secrets can be monitored by employers and merchants.'' As we proceed in an age of technological advances and cross-industry marketing of financial services, we need to be mindful of the privacy concerns of the American public. Consumers who wish to keep their sensitive financial information private should be given a right to do so. The passage of the financial information Privacy Protection Act of 2001 would be a major step toward that goal. Congress can and should provide that privacy protection by giving consumers, at a minimum, the rights of consent and access. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 17, 2001, to conduct a hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Mel Martinez, of Florida, to serve as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Peter ``Jack'' Basso, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Jack is retiring after more than 35 years in government service and moving on to a second career with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Throughout his 36-year career with the federal government, Jack Basso has distinguished himself for his leadership, commitment and dedication to public service and to making government work better. Beginning as a financial program analyst at the Federal Highway Administration, he quickly advanced through the ranks to positions in senior management at an FHWA regional office and at the agency's headquarters. He served as Deputy Chair for Management at the National Endowment for the Arts, Assistant Director for General Management at OMB, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs before being nominated by President Clinton to his present position as Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer at the U.S. DOT. As a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee which has jurisdiction over the nation's transit programs, I came to know Jack, as many other Members of Congress did, during the crafting of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and its successor, the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century or TEA 21. Jack put in countless hours running the tables, advising the Committees and individual Members, and helping to work out the compromises that ultimately resulted in the enactment of these landmark pieces of legislation and record budgets for financing the Nation's transportation infrastructure. I have enormous respect for the professionalism, ingenuity, and integrity which he brought to the positions in which he has served and greatly value the assistance he has provided to me and my staff over the years. The replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and many other transportation projects in Maryland and throughout the Nation would not be taking place, but for his persistent efforts. Jack Basso's contributions and accomplishments in these positions have been recognized through many prestigious awards including the Public Employee's Roundtable Chairman's Award for Distinguished Public Service, the Presidential Rank Award, the Government Technology E- Commerce Leadership Award, and the General Services Administration's Travel Manager of the Year Award for two years running. His abiding sense of responsibility and commitment have earned him the respect and admiration of everyone with whom he has worked. It is my firm conviction that public service is one of the most honorable callings, one that demands the very best, most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens and country. Throughout his career Jack Basso has exemplified a steadfast commitment to meeting this demand. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of hard work and dedication and wish him well in the years ahead.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask to print in the Record a letter from the President's Working Group on Financial Markets strongly supporting the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The act provides certainty for over-the-counter swaps and authorizes a new financial product, the ``security future,'' to be traded under a regulatory scheme that protects investors against fraud, market manipulation and insider trading. The act contains three principal components. It would provide legal certainty that specified types of swaps which are traded over-the- counter are not regulated as futures. The Report of the President's Working Group on Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets and the Commodity Exchange Act, issued in November 1999, strongly recommended that Congress enact legislation to provide OTC swaps with legal certainty in order to ``reduce systemic risk in the U.S. financial markets and enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. financial sector.'' In addition the act would authorize trading in futures on single stocks and narrow-based stock indices. These are new investment products which, until now, have been prohibited from trading by the Shad-Johnson Accord, which this act would repeal. By authorizing securities futures, the act would allow financial markets to increase the number of products they trade and give investors additional investment options. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission negotiated the proposed regulatory regimen over securities futures, which is designed to protect investors against fraud, insider trading and market manipulation. The regulatory regimen will call for joint regulation by both the SEC and CFTC of these markets and the intermediaries that trade in them. Imposing strong investor protections is absolutely necessary if we are to allow trading in these new investment products. The act also contains regulatory relief provisions for the futures markets that would codify recent CFTC regulations. I would like to highlight certain important aspects of titles III and IV of the act. Title III addresses the SEC's authority over security-based swap agreements. It carefully carves out products traditionally viewed as securities in exclusions from the definition of swap agreements. It is important to note that title III does not eliminate the SEC's existing authority to regulate products that are securities. Title III applies anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the Federal securities laws to securities-based swap agreements, including those entered into by banks. Title III amends section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its anti-fraud protections to apply to ``any securities-based swap agreement.'' In extending these protections, the act makes explicit that rules promulgated under section 10(b) to address fraud, manipulation, or insider trading apply to securities-based swap agreements. Thus, current and future anti- fraud rules will apply to swap agreements to the same extent as they do to securities. This will enhance protection for investors and for the financial markets, and will permit the SEC to respond as necessary to developments in these markets. Title III states that existing judicial precedent relating to various securities statutes and rules is applicable to securities-based swaps to the same extent as it is to securities. Thus, for example, cases interpreting these statutory provisions which establish theories of liability and private rights of actions would apply directly to securities-based swaps. Title IV, Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000, clarifies the current law, under which the CFTC does not regulate traditional banking products. Such products include deposit accounts, CDs, banker's acceptances, letters of credit, loans, credit card accounts, and loan participations. When a question arises, title IV provides a mechanism for determining whether a product is an ``identified,'' or traditional, banking product. To qualify as an identified banking product, section 403 requires two conditions to be met: (1) that the product cannot have been either prohibited by the Commodity Exchange Act or regulated by the CFTC on or before December 5, 2000, and (2) that the bank has obtained a certification from its regulator that the bank product was commonly offered by any bank prior to December 5, 2000. The latter test requires that the product was actively bought, sold, purchased, or offered by or to multiple customers and is not just a transaction customized for a single client or handful of clients. Section 405 excludes a hybrid product from the Commodity Exchange Act if under a ``predominance test'' it is primarily an identified banking product and not a contract, agreement or transaction appropriately regulated by the CFTC. The act dictates how to resolve disputes about the application of this test. The bill's definition of ``security future'' does not include products excluded under title IV and other sections of the Commodity Exchange Act, e.g., certain swaps, identified banking products, etc. Thus, the new grants of authority of this act to the SEC would not extend to these products. However, these exclusions do not limit the definition of ``security'' or the SEC's jurisdiction under existing statutes. For example, the SEC has, and will continue to have, jurisdiction over all over-the counter options. The act will have a significant impact on the futures markets as well as on the securities markets and investors. The United States investment markets are the envy of the world. This act is intended to strengthen those markets as it provides legal certainly for over-the- counter swaps, authorizes the trading of futures on single stocks and narrow-based stock indices, and gives regulatory relief for the futures markets. The letter from the President's Working Group on Financial Markets follows: December 15, 2000. Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes, Ranking Member, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sarbanes: The Members of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets strongly support the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This important legislation will allow the United States to maintain its competitive position in the over-the-counter derivative markets by providing legal certainty and promoting innovation, transparency and efficiency in our financial markets while maintaining appropriate protections for transactions in non-financial commodities and for small investors. Sincerely, Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury. Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Arthur Levitt, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission. William J. Rainer, Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President. I am pleased to see that we are passing this bipartisan piece of housing legislation today. While there are provisions that were not included in the bill, which I thought were worthy of passage, on the whole, the ``American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000'' is a bill that should become law. I would like to highlight just a few parts of this legislation that we worked particularly hard on over the last two years. First is the manufactured housing bill, that has been incorporated into this legislation. This bill establishes a national minimum installation standard for manufactured homes, ensuring that the home as installed performs as advertised. We have created a dispute resolution program, so that owners, many of whom are lower-income, are not mistreated when they are trying to have a defect in their home corrected. This bill also updates the safety standard setting process for the manufactured housing industry, which will allow new innovations in technology to be incorporated into homes more quickly, making them safer, more efficient, and cheaper for homeowners. Passage of this portion of the bill would not have been possible without the help of Senators Kerry, Edwards, Bayh, and Shelby, and their respective staff, namely Lendell Porterfield and Josh Stein. I would like to thank all of these individuals for their contributions throughout the process of writing, negotiating, and passing this legislation. I also want to associate myself with the remarks made by Chairman Leach and Congressman Frank in the House of Representatives on October 24, 2000 regarding the contracting language in this bill. Their colloquy clarified the intention of this section. The legislation includes language taken from S. 2733 designed to increase the supply of low-income elderly and disabled housing by expanding available capital for such projects. We allow service providers in federally assisted elderly and disabled facilities to include eligible residents in the surrounding neighborhood in their programs, expanding their service to the community as a whole. In addition, there are provisions which will allow Rural Housing Service to refinance guaranteed loans, reducing costs for low income rural homeowners, and a new program to expand housing opportunities to Native Hawaiians and Native Americans. Both of these changes will make a big difference in the lives of low income families. Finally, the legislation reauthorizes a number of agency reports under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee which would otherwise have expired this year. These reports include the Federal Reserve's Semiannual Report on Monetary Policy, the Economic Report of the President, the annual reports of the federal financial regulatory agencies, and a number of other significant reports in the area of consumer protection. These reports are vital to the exercise of the Banking Committee's oversight function, and I am very pleased that the House and the Senate were able to reach agreement on their reauthorization. I reiterate my approval for the substance of this bill. I am glad to see us pass these portions of different pieces of legislation this session, though I regret that a low-income housing production program was not included.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to pass legislation that has been sent to us by the House of Representatives that would change the name of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. This is one, small step we can take to honor a colleague who devoted his life to public service, particularly service on behalf of the most disadvantaged Americans. Bruce F. Vento has been one of the most effective advocates on behalf of homeless people throughout his career. Mr. Vento was one of the first Members of Congress to bring the plight of the nation's homeless to the public's attention. In 1982, Bruce introduced legislation in the House of Representatives to create the Emergency Shelter Grant Program. He attached an amendment to a housing bill to provide matching grants to repair vacant buildings to be used as temporary shelters. This became the first national legislation to provide federal assistance for emergency homeless shelters. Throughout the 1980s, Mr. Vento worked repeatedly, with his colleagues on the House Banking Committee, to raise the profile of this issue and to build the coalitions necessary to enact comprehensive legislation to help the homeless across this nation. In early 1987, Representative Vento worked to pass an aid package that included $100 million for a program of emergency shelter grants to help charitable organizations and state and local governments renovate buildings for the homeless and succeeded in enacting the legislation into law. In that same year, Congressman Vento was an original author of a larger, more comprehensive measure that became known as the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, the first and only coordinated federal initiative directed toward the problem of homelessness and the only social program that was passed during the Reagan era. The McKinney Act seeks to meet some of the immediate needs of the homeless: shelter, food, health care, education, job training services, and transitional housing through programs at HUD, FEMA, HHS, and the Education and Labor Departments. This legislation continues to be at the heart of the federal government's response to the ongoing problem of homelessness in America. It is indeed fitting to honor Bruce Vento by joining his name with that of his friend and colleague, Stewart B. McKinney, on this legislation. In 1987, after Representative McKinney's passing, Bruce took a leading role in seeking to name the programs that would serve persons who are homeless as the McKinney Act because of Stewart McKinney's ``close association and concern and compassion that he espoused and reflected throughout his service'' in Congress. We all recognize how well these very same words, which Mr. Vento used to describe Stewart McKinney, embody the work and career of Bruce F. Vento himself. Shortly after taking office, President Clinton asked then-speaker of the House Tom Foley to organize a Task Force to look into the problem of homelessness. In February of that year, Mr. Vento was appointed as the Chairman of that Task Force, which issued a comprehensive, nationally recognized report to the Speaker one year later. During the past few years, Mr. Vento continued to work hard on the McKinney Act. He added language that improved prevention planning and activities so that people do not become homeless due to lack of foresight or planning. The Vento prevention language added discharge planning requirements for persons who are discharged from publicly funded institutions, that is, mental health facilities, youth facilities and correctional facilities, so that people are not merely discharged to the streets. Mr. Vento also introduced the ``Stand Down Authorization Act.'' Created by several Vietnam veterans, Stand Downs are designed to give homeless veterans a brief respite from life on the streets. The Stand Down bill would, in conjunction with the grassroots community, expand the VA's role in providing outreach assistance to homeless veterans. In this Congress, H.R. 566 gained the strong support of over 100 bipartisan cosponsors, the VA, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the Disabled American Vets (DAV). Bruce Vento worked throughout his entire career to improve and save the lives of homeless men, women and children around this nation. In the tradition of Minnesota's great leader, Hubert H. Humphrey, Bruce has always believed that we are elected to formulate and enact policies which improve the quality of life of our citizens. I have had the pleasure of working with him these many years to do just that. That is why I urge you to join me in enacting into law this legislation to rename our nation's fundamental homeless statute the McKinney-Vento Act. This act will duly honor a colleague who has worked long and hard for the most vulnerable Americans, people who are without a home to call their own. Mr. President, while this legislation deals with homelessness, I want to make it clear that Mr. Vento's interests and accomplishments go far beyond this important area. He was one of the strongest proponents of FHA in the Congress. He understood how FHA has been a crucial tool in helping millions of families attain the dream of homeownership in America. Mr. Vento played an active role in helping craft the bipartisan public housing reform legislation that passed in 1998. He was a leader in the effort to preserve affordable housing that has been threatened by expiring use restrictions or rental assistance contracts. Important progress as made on this front last year. He was a strong supporter of the effort to increase and strengthen community-based non-profits in their efforts to develop affordable housing and revitalize our communities. Mr. Vento has been a longstanding supporter of the Community Reinvestment Act, CRA, because he understood how access to capital for homeownership and small businesses is the key to ensuring equal opportunity for all Americans, regardless of the neighborhoods they live in or their economic status. I was privileged to work closely with him to preserve CRA during the debate on financial services modernization legislation. Finally, Mr. Vento was a strong supporter of consumer protection laws, from the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, to the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act. Renaming the McKinney Act is one small way that all of us can honor Mr. Vento's memory. Mr. President, Bruce Vento will be sorely missed in the Congress of the United States. I want to join President Clinton, my colleagues, and many others in expressing my deepest sympathies to Mr. Vento's family and friends.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their good work on this year's VA-HUD appropriations bill. Also, I would like to congratulate Secretary Cuomo on the hard work he has done to raise awareness of the critical housing needs many Americans are experiencing around the country. As the ranking member on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I have a very keen interest in the portion of this bill that funds the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This year's budget is a strong step in the right direction. The bill contains increases in spending for many of the critical housing programs that serve middle- and low-income families. It includes funding for nearly 80,000 new section 8 housing vouchers. These vouchers will provide additional housing resources for families experiencing critical housing needs. Funding for the HOME and CDBG programs has been increased by $200 million and $300 million over last year's levels respectively. These are programs that local governments and non-profits rely on to build and rehabilitate affordable housing, as well as revitalize communities. The Committee has also provided for an increase in the homeless budget, which includes emergency shelter, permanent housing, counseling, and job training services. For the approximately 500,000 people that are homeless in this country on any given night, this additional money will mean a better chance to find a bed in a shelter, a soup kitchen at which to eat, or a permanent home. They also took the important step of providing a stream of funding to renew Shelter Plus Care vouchers. This will enable local providers to continue to build up the infrastructure they need to serve this vulnerable population. This year's budget builds on the public housing reform legislation we passed two years ago by increasing the public housing operating and capital funds, enabling local public housing authorities to maintain and invest in their properties. Also included is a two year extension of The Federal Housing Administration's Down Payment Simplification Program. This will allow the FHA to continue using the simplified formula to extend homeownership to more American families. Additionally, there is an increase in spending for the Lead Paint Hazard program, a very important program for cities trying to abate the poisonous lead paint found in their housing stock. Lastly, I want to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their efforts in pushing one provision that did not make it into the bill, that is, a new housing production program. While I am disappointed that we were unable to achieve this in the end, I appreciate their acknowledgment of the housing crisis our nation is experiencing. The long-term answer to this problem will have to be the dedication of new resources to building additional housing. While the nearly 80,000 new section 8 vouchers will help to alleviate the severe housing crunch that many working American families experience, I hope we will be able to revisit the topic of production again next year. All in all, this is a very good bill. I am very pleased and again congratulate my colleagues on a well thought out, well funded, piece of legislation.