Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. The current authority for the Commission expires in January of 2001, and this bill would extend that authority for another 10 years. Joining me in introducing this legislation are Senators Mikulski, Warner and Robb. Mr. President, the C&O Canal National Historical Park is one of the most unique in this Nation and one of the most heavily visited. It begins in this great city, the Nation's Capital and extends 184 miles to its original terminus in Cumberland, Maryland. As you can imagine, the development of plans for the preservation and use of this park is a major undertaking. It is no easy task to protect and preserve a park which averages 100 yards in width but is 184 miles long. The work of the Commission is not finished. The Commission is composed of representatives of the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of West Virginia, the District of Columbia, the counties in Maryland through which the park runs, and members at large. The passage of this bill will permit the Commission to complete the rational process begun so many years ago to ensure that this unique part of America's natural and historical heritage is properly preserved. I encourage those who are interested in the C&O Canal to join in sponsoring this legislation, and it is my hope that it can be enacted in this Congress.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate and welcome to our Nation's Capitol the two middle schools and two high schools from Maryland that have been named Blue Ribbon School Award winners by the United States Department of Education. These schools are among only 198 middle and high schools nationwide to be honored with this award, the most prestigious national school recognition for public and private schools. The designation as a Blue Ribbon School is a ringing endorsement of the successful techniques which enable the students of these schools to succeed and achieve. Over the past few years, I have made a commitment to visit the Blue Ribbon Schools and have always been delighted to see first hand the interaction between parents, teachers, and the community, which strongly contributed to the success of the school. I look forward to visiting each of these four schools and congratulating the students, teachers and staff personally for this exceptional accomplishment. According to the Department of Education, Blue Ribbon Schools have been judged to be particularly effective in meeting local, state and national goals. These schools also display the qualities of excellence that are necessary to prepare our young people for the challenges of the next century. Blue Ribbon status is awarded to schools which have strong leadership; a clear vision and sense of mission that is shared by all connected with the school; high quality teaching; challenging, up-to-date curriculum; policies and practices that ensure a safe environment conducive to learning; a solid commitment to family involvement; evidence that the school helps all students achieve high standards; and a commitment to share the best practices with other schools. After a screening process by each State Department of Education, the Department of Defense Dependent Schools, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Council for American Private Education, the Blue Ribbon School nominations were forwarded to the U.S. Department of Education. A panel of outstanding educators from around the country then reviewed the nominations, selected schools for site visits, and made recommendations to Secretary of Education Richard Riley. The four winning Maryland secondary schools are as follows: Baltimore City College High School: founded in 1839 is the third oldest public high school in the country. A college preparatory magnet high school emphasizing the liberal arts and serving students and parents in Baltimore, City College sends 95 percent of its graduates to post-secondary institutions and, in doing so, has played a part in the American dream--preparing students to succeed in college as well as giving them day-to-day experience in working with people of all backgrounds to lead in the community. Bel Air Middle School: located in Harford County, is a high- performing model of teaching and learning because of its outstanding academic programs and the high level of commitment from teachers, students, local businesses, and parents. Bel Air Middle School has developed an integrated assessment program entitled, ``Student Achievement and Improvement through Lifelong Learning'', SAIL, which has been recognized nationally by the National Council of Teachers of English. Additionally, Bel Air Middle School has a literacy Team, which provides the faculty with ongoing professional development, particularly in the areas of reading and writing. Paint Branch High School: in Burtonsville, Montgomery County, offers a dynamic and innovative whole-school signature program in science and the media. In addition to delivering a rigorous, comprehensive high school program with a full complement of honors and advanced placement classes and additional support related, community service, and extra- curricular experiences emphasizing research and experimentation. Several business partnerships support the largest internship program in the county, with nearly 170 students this year earning credit at such sites as the National Institutes of Health, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Discovery Communication, Inc., and Black Entertainment Television. Plum Point Middle School: in Huntingtown, Calvert County, exhibits enthusiasm and strength which grows from school-wide philosophy that considers each member valuable and every minute important. Students are encouraged to participate in a variety of educational and extracurricular activities. Over 75 percent of its students are involved in after-school activities. The school has been county athletic champion 13 times in various sports. Over 20 percent of the teaching staff have been award winners--including Maryland's 1999 Teacher of the Year, Rachael Younkers.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 2787, the Violence Against Women Protection Act of 2000. It is critically important that the Congress soon pass this legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and to continue the progress made since the Act was first passed in 1994. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of both the original Violence Against Women Act, VAWA as well as S. 2787 and other legislation introduced in the 106th Congress to reauthorize VAWA. Through a $1.6 billion grants program, VAWA has provided hundreds of thousands of women with shelter to protect their families, established a national toll-free hotline which has responded to innumerable calls for help, and funded domestic violence prevention programs across the Nation. Most importantly, VAWA has provided a new emphasis on domestic violence as a critical problem that cannot be tolerated or ignored. In my own State of Maryland, the funding provided by VAWA is essential to the continued operation of facilities like Heartly House in Frederick, Maryland, which provides shelter to battered women, accompanies rape victims on hospital visits, and assists women in crisis in numerous other ways. In Baltimore City, VAWA funds have helped create a dedicated docket in the District Court which has effectively increased the number of domestic violence cases prosecuted. In Montgomery County, Maryland, VAWA funds provide victims with legal representation in civil protective order hearings. Importantly, the staff for this program is located inside the Courthouse, making it easy and safe for victims to get the help that they need. VAWA funds are being used creatively in Garrett County, where the Sheriff's Department purchased a four wheel drive vehicle so that their domestic violence team can travel to remote areas of the county--overcoming the feelings of isolation many victims feel, particularly in the winter months. Programs like these are working in Maryland and all across the country to reduce the incidence of domestic violence. And, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, VAWA is working. Intimate partners committed fewer murders in 1996, 1997, and 1998 than in any other year since 1976. Likewise, the number of female victims of intimate partner violence declined from 1993 to 1998; in 1998, women experienced an estimated 876,340 violent offenses at the hands of a partner, down from 1.1 million in 1993. But despite these successes, clearly the incidence of violence against women and families remains too high. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), over 50 percent of all women will experience physical violence in an intimate relationship, and for 24-30 percent of those women the battering will be regular and on-going. Additionally, the NCADV reports that between 50 and 70 percent of men who abuse their female partners also abuse their children. Even though strides have been made, we still have a long way to go before domestic violence is evicted from our homes and communities. It is critically important that we not allow VAWA to expire, and that we take this opportunity to reauthorize VAWA and build upon its success. The Violence Against Women Protection Act of 2000 will authorize more than $3 billion over five years for VAWA grant program and make important improvements to the original statute. For example, S. 2787 will authorize a new temporary housing program to help move women out of shelters and into more stable living accommodations. S. 2787 will also make it easier for battered immigrant women to leave their abusers without fear of deportation, and target additional funds to combatting domestic violence on college campuses. Finally, the legislation will improve procedures to allow states to enforce protection orders across jurisdictional boundaries. VAWA has made real strides against domestic violence, and the Violence Against Women Protection Act will continue the important work begun in 1994. I am proud to report of the valuable programs all across Maryland combatting domestic violence thanks to VAWA, and I urge Senate leaders to bring S. 2787 to the floor for consideration as soon as possible. We have an invaluable opportunity to make a statement that domestic violence will not be tolerated, and that all women and children should be able to live without fear in their own homes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina earlier indicated that he wished to speak at about 2:30. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from North Carolina finishes, I be recognized to make a statement.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4444, which would provide for the extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, to the People's Republic of China. The proponents of this measure would have us believe that the decision to support PNTR is completely one-sided, with all the benefits going to the United States and none to the Chinese. If that analysis were correct, one would have to believe that the Chinese are either naive or simply being charitable to the United States. I don't think either of those propositions is true. In my view, it would not only be counter to the trade interests of the United States to grant PNTR to China, but it would undermine other important bilateral U.S. interests with that country, including national security, foreign policy, human rights, religious freedom, labor rights, and environmental protection. We should be seeking permanent normal relations with China which would link all of our diverse interests with China into an integrated policy, but I do not support Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China in the absence of achieving permanent normal relations. In other words, we should not separate out the trade relationship alone without addressing these other important matters that are at issue between us. Let me address then why I do not think it is in the U.S. national interest to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China at this time. The decision to grant PNTR to China is linked to China becoming a member of the WTO, the World Trade Organization. Under the rules of the WTO, member countries are obliged to grant unqualified most-favored- nation treatment to each other. In the view of the supporters of PNTR, the United States must grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China so the United States will be able to utilize the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO to enforce compliance by China with trade agreements. In fact, the WTO agreement has been characterized as being completely one-sided in favor of the United States. A summary of the arguments in favor of the agreement prepared by the Administration stated: This is not a trade agreement in the traditional sense. This is a one-way deal. We would simply maintain the market access policies that we already apply to China. I believe this assertion overlooks some very important considerations. Until now, the United States has been free to link trade to any of our other concerns with China--national security, foreign policy, human rights, religious freedom, labor rights, environmental protection. With the exception of national security, granting PNTR to China would effectively end the ability of the United States to link trade with any of our other concerns with China because it would violate WTO rules. Even national security, for which the WTO has an exemption, would be subject to challenge and review within the WTO. Further, within the trade area itself, the United States would not be able to use U.S. trade laws to enforce compliance by China with its trade commitments. If one stops and thinks about this for a moment, it seems clear that China is achieving a fundamental strategic objective which, from its point of view, is enormously in its self-interest. The proponents of granting PNTR to China want the decision to be viewed through the narrow prism of trade relations because on that basis they believe the agreement is defensible. Even on those terms, I believe extending PNTR to China is an unwise decision, but it completely ignores the broader and more fundamental interests the United States is abandoning by granting PNTR to China. I will review the U.S. trade relationship with China and why, even from the narrow perspective of trade, granting PNTR to China is not in the U.S. national interest. I will then review the broader interests the United States has at stake in this decision, some of which are underscored by the amendment that is now pending. Let me turn first to the bilateral trade relationship. Our bilateral trade relationship with China is our most one-sided significant bilateral trade relationship. We have been running a steadily increasing trade deficit with China for nearly two decades. In 1985, we had a trade deficit of $9 million. Since then, it has set a new record every year, rising from $1.6 billion in 1986 to $10.4 billion in 1990, to $29.4 billion in 1994, and $56.8 billion in 1998. In 1999, the Commerce Department reported that the U.S. trade deficit with China reached a record $69 billion. This chart shows very clearly this incredible deterioration in the trade relationship as it takes a downward plunge in terms of our trade balance. The trade balance has continued to deteriorate in 2000. The Commerce Department reports that the U.S. trade deficit with China for the first 6 months of this year is over 23 percent higher than over the first 6 months of last year. In fact, it is very close to becoming the largest single bilateral trade deficit of the United States. At the moment, it is surpassed only by Japan. This chart traces back to 1975. These are U.S. exports to China which have risen a bit, but not very much, and these are U.S. imports from China which, of course, are ascending at a very steep pace, and the difference gives us, of course, the trade balance which was shown in the previous chart. On this very small amount of trade, $95 billion-- there is $13 billion in exports from the United States to China and $82 billion in imports from China--we now are on our way, I think, to where we will shortly have our largest trade deficit with China. It is important to appreciate this point because it underscores how important our trade relationship is with China and, in my judgment, therefore, underscores the necessity of not putting this trade relationship to one side, which would prevent us from trying to solve the other problems in our relationship. What is not fully appreciated, however, is that relative to the size of the overall volume of trade with China, the U.S. trade relationship with China is far more one-sided than with any other country in the world. For example, in 1999 we had a trade deficit with Japan of $74 billion. That was based on a total volume of trade with Japan of $189 billion. In contrast, the $69 billion U.S. trade deficit with China was based on a total volume of trade of $95 billion. With Japan, we have twice as much trade and almost the same deficit, a little more than we have with China. With China, the trade relationship is virtually a one-way street, and we need to understand and appreciate that. This pattern is repeated to an even greater extreme with other large U.S. trading partners--Canada, the European Union, and Mexico. This chart shows U.S. exports as a percent of bilateral trade with China, with Japan, with Canada, with the E.U., and with Mexico. As one can see, even with Japan, exports make 30 percent of the total volume of trade--a little above 30 percent. With Canada and Europe and Mexico, it is in the mid-40 percent. With China, it is at 14 percent. The trade relationship with China is virtually a one-way street. It is Chinese exports coming to this country; it is not American exports going to China. Even if one compares it with the Asian countries, we find the same situation. U.S. exports to China as a percent of bilateral trade is, again, at about 14 percent. As you can see with Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore, it ranges anywhere from under 40 percent to almost 50 percent. One may say: Well, maybe China has this kind of trade relationship with everybody. So let's briefly examine its trade relationship with Japan and the European Union as compared with the United States. China's total trade volume in 1999 with the United States, $95 billion; with the European Union, $73 billion; with Japan, $69 billion. Yet the surpluses that China ran with us were by far the largest relative to the overall amount of trade with these countries. So you can see that once again the trade relationship with the United States is extremely one sided. (Mr. THOMPSON assumed the chair.) Some argue that most exports from China to the United States are not made in the United States and, therefore, do not compete with U.S. products. Some advance that argument. As a result, it is argued that some increase in Chinese exports to the United States comes at the expense of exporters in third countries, such as Mexico, South Korea, and Taiwan, and not at the expense of U.S. manufacturers. It is worth noting that although these other countries run trade surpluses with the U.S., the U.S. balance of trade with these countries is not nearly as one sided as with China. In fact, I think it is reasonable to suppose that if we were taking goods from these other countries instead of China, those countries would be more willing to take our goods because that is the nature of the relationship that we have with Mexico, or South Korea, or Taiwan. It is much closer towards balance, although not in full balance. But with China, it is a terribly one-sided relationship. Furthermore, the Congressional Research Service, in its analysis, has said the nature of Chinese exports into the United States is shifting and moving towards high-technology sectors--office and data processing machines, electrical machinery and appliances, and telecommunications and sound equipment. So the character of imports from China is shifting to increasingly sophisticated categories of products which compete very directly with goods made in the United States. Proponents of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China assert that the WTO agreement with China will open China's market to U.S. exports and, thereby, reduce the one-sided nature of the U.S. trade relationship. Well now, this is a plausible-sounding argument. They say this will create an opening in the relationship and, therefore, these balances that you are pointing to will begin to change and there will be an improvement. The U.S. International Trade Commission was asked to conduct a study on the economic effects on the United States with China's accession to the WTO; in other words, to project out what the consequences would be. The ITC study assessed the impact the tariff cuts provided in the China WTO agreement would have on the U.S. balance of trade with China. They concluded that there would be an increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China. Let me repeat that. The ITC study, which was conducted at the request of the U.S. Trade Representative, found that the China WTO agreement would actually increase the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China. So it is obviously important to understand that while these extraordinary claims have been made for the supposed benefits of the China WTO agreement for the United States, the reality is that it would not address the extraordinarily unbalanced trade relationship of the U.S. with China. A closer examination of the specifics of the China WTO accession agreement with the United States may help explain these results of the ITC study. Under the China WTO agreement, average tariff rates will fall from 16.9 percent to 10.2 percent--a drop of 6.7 percentage points. However, average applied tariff rates already fell from 42.8 percent in 1992 to the 16.9 percent in 1998 under the previous trade agreements that we have negotiated. During that period when these tariffs came down, the U.S. trade deficit with China increased from $20 billion to $61 billion. Of course, that simply underscores a very common sense point, if you stop and think about it. One must recognize that, while tariffs may be cut, the remaining tariffs may still be sufficiently high to block out imports. In other words, we are constantly being told these tariffs are coming down. Even assuming that is the case, as long as they remain at a sufficient level to block out imports, they, in effect, are accomplishing their results. For example, under this agreement, tariffs on automobiles are scheduled to fall from 100 percent to 25 percent. This is obviously a substantial reduction, but it still leaves in place a 25-percent tariff--a very significant tariff that may be highly effective as a deterrent to auto imports. Under the agreement, nontariff barriers, such as quotas, licensing, and tendering procedures, will be liberalized for some 360 product categories; however, the product categories for which this is taking place account for only 8.5 percent of our exports to China. Their total value in 1998 was only $1.2 billion. Furthermore, China is still in the process of negotiating its multilateral accession protocol with the 44-member WTO working party. According to a GAO report on the status of the negotiations, differences remain between China and the working party in three areas: China's trade-distorting industrial policies, including subsidies and price controls; foreign currency reserve-related restraints on trade, including foreign exchange controls; and a miscellaneous category of other issues, including Government procurement, civil aircraft, and taxes. In fact, currency manipulation, subsidies, and licensing by China have been significant factors in its trade relationship with the United States and have, of course, an impact on this trade deficit. There is a final point I want to make with regard to the U.S. trade relationship with China before I turn to the broader considerations and the impact of PNTR. Observers have pointed out that China is much more open to foreign investment than other Asian countries were--Japan and Korea, for example--and that this may set the basis for an improvement in the trade relationship. In fact, China has actively sought foreign direct investment as sources of Western capital and technology. It is a key item in their development strategy. But China's receptiveness to foreign investment does not necessarily mean an openness to imports. In fact, trade barriers in sectors such as automobiles have been part of China's strategy to encourage foreign investment. Since the Chinese market could not be accessed easily through exports because of the various restrictions, Western automakers who want a portion of the Chinese market were being forced to invest in China. Once inside the market, many Western companies took a different view of Chinese trade barriers because they now also are protected from competition from outside China. The unstated premise of those supporting PNTR on this issue is that openness to foreign investment will eventually lead to openness to foreign trade. However, it is not at all clear that changes undertaken to encourage foreign investment will inevitably lead to lower trade barriers and more imports. In fact, the Chinese insistence upon domestic production and transfer of technology suggests that the opposite may be the case. An article in the Wall Street Journal of May 25, the day after the House voted on PNTR, focused on the investment aspects of the China WTO agreement and stated: Even before the first vote was cast yesterday in Congress's decision to permanently normalize U.S. trade with China, Corporate America was making plans to revolutionize the way it does business on the mainland. And while the debate in Washington focused mainly on the probable lift for U.S. exports to China, many U.S. multinationals have something different in mind. ``This deal is about investment, not exports,'' says Joseph Quinlan, an economist with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. U.S. foreign investment is about to overtake U.S. exports as the primary means by which U.S. companies deliver goods to China.'' If we look at the increase in investment over the recent decade, it is highly instructive. It has risen at an incredibly steep rate. U.S. investment in China has gone from just over $300 million in 1991 to $4.5 billion in 1999. Whereas the United States ranked behind Japan, behind Europe, behind Taiwan as a source of exports to China, it ranked ahead of all of them as a source of foreign direct investment. Rather than expanding exports and reducing the U.S. trade deficit with China, the extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations and WTO membership for China may simply be a way for China to secure expanded foreign direct investment from the United States. This may serve China's development strategy and please U.S. companies seeking to invest in China. However, it is not clear that it will be the great benefit to U.S. exports and jobs that those who support PNTR claim. Indeed, in my view, a principal motivation for China's support for PNTR and WTO membership is to separate its trade and investment relationship with the United States from its other relationships with the United States and to separate it from the enforcement of U.S. trade laws, thereby securing an unimpeded flow of investment from the United States. Once they can lock this into place, they can put trade and investment off the radar screen, as we look at other outstanding issues between our two countries. A major argument made by proponents of PNTR for China is that if the United States does not grant it, the United States will not be able to utilize the WTO dispute resolution mechanism to enforce compliance by China with trade agreements. What they fail to mention is that if the United States grants PNTR to China, we will no longer be able to utilize directly U.S. trade laws, such as 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and other provisions in our law to enforce compliance by China with trade agreements. The question is, then, what may better serve U.S. national interests, enforcement through the WTO dispute resolution mechanism or enforcement through U.S. trade laws? In my view, on balance, at this time the United States will be better off relying on U.S. trade laws. Let me give a few reasons. It is often noted that China has a weak rule of law, even assuming the central government wants to comply with the trade agreement, which in itself may be a very large assumption. This means there is no reliable domestic mechanism to keep various ministries, state-owned businesses, and provincial governments from ignoring the legal requirements of trade agreements. The WTO is a rules-based institution, and it is poorly equipped to enforce its rules in China. Given the lack of a clear paper trail, in many cases it could be impossible even to establish the existence of the trade barriers at issue, much less win a dispute settlement panel ruling. The reality is that enforcement of compliance by China with trade agreements would be a problem whether or not PNTR applies. Although the U.S. experience with bilateral trade agreements with China has been frustrating, at least the utilization of U.S. trade laws to enforce them remains under the control of the United States. Aggressive and persistent use of bilateral trade pressure has resulted at least in some compliance by the Chinese with these agreements. It is not at all clear that the highly legalistic WTO dispute resolution mechanism, under which adjudication of trade disputes would be given over to an international body, will produce better results. The difficulties in U.S. experience when it attempted to bring a WTO case against Japan over photographic film suggests the limitations of the WTO in addressing problems when the nature of the underlying government practice is uncertain. It is not difficult to imagine similar disputes with China in which the existence of the questionable policy is in dispute. In the remaining portion of my remarks, I will return to the point I raised at the beginning; that is, that in my view it is critical for the United States to pursue a policy toward China which integrates its trade and economic policy concerns with the range of other concerns, including national security, foreign policy, human rights, religious freedom, labor rights, and environmental protection. In other words, our objective should be to try to get permanent normal relations across the board in an integrated fashion and not to hand off, right in the beginning, the trade relation dimension which is obviously of such importance to the PRC given the one-sided character of our trade relationship. This is an enormously important economic benefit to China and, surely, in the course of considering the trade relationship, we should be seeking to use it as leverage to obtain an improvement in the relationships in the other areas that I want to discuss. Of all of its relationships with the United States, China derives by far the most benefit from its trade relationship, which is heavily skewed in its favor. Approval by the Congress of PNTR would make it difficult, if not impossible, to use the leverage of this heavily skewed trade relationship to influence our relationships in other critical areas. It is my view, as I have asserted, that we need to use it to improve the trade relationship itself. But over and above that, we need to look at influencing other critical areas. This, of course, is a critical strategic objective of China, which is why it is so eager for approval of PNTR. The China WTO agreement makes no provision for addressing labor rights, human rights, and environmental protection. We know--I think with reasonable assurance-- that if China joins the WTO, it will be a vigorous opponent of U.S. efforts to have labor rights, human rights, and environmental protection become a part of the WTO agreements. People say: Let's move ahead on WTO, and then we will include these things in the WTO agreements. I can, with almost complete assurance, say to you that if this moves forward, China will be one of those within the WTO opposing such inclusion. Let me review some of these other important policy concerns for China to underscore the importance of pursuing an integrated policy approach. First of all, human rights, labor rights and religious freedom. The State Department's 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices summarizes in a single page the depth of the problems posed by China, and I would like to read that into the Record. This is our own State Department's human rights report about China. It is the last published report: The government's poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent. A crackdown against a fledgling opposition party, which began in the fall of 1998, broadened and intensified during the year. By year's end, almost all of the key leaders of the China Democracy Party (CDP) were serving long prison terms or were in custody without formal charges, and only a handful of dissidents nationwide dared to remain active publically. Tens of thousands of members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement were detained after the movement was banned in July; several leaders of the movement were sentenced to long prison terms in late December and hundreds of others were sentenced administratively to reeducation through labor in the fall. Late in the year, according to some reports, the government started confining some Falun Gong adherents to psychiatric hospitals. The government continued to commit widespread and well- documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms. These abuses stemmed from the authorities' extremely limited tolerance of public dissent aimed at the government, fear of unrest, and the limited scope of inadequate implementation of laws protecting basic freedoms. The Constitution and laws provide for fundamental human rights; however, these protections often are ignored in practice. Abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, lengthy incommunicado detention, and denial of due process. Prison conditions at most facilities remained harsh. In many cases, particularly in sensitive political cases, the judicial system denies criminal defendants basic legal safeguards and due process because authorities attach higher priority to maintaining public order and suppressing political opposition than to enforcing legal norms. The government infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The government tightened restriction on freedom of speech and of the press, and increased controls on the Internet; self- censorship by journalists also increased. The government severely restricted freedom of assembly, and continued to restrict freedom of association. The government continued to restrict freedom of religion, and intensified controls of some unregistered churches. The government continued to restrict freedom of movement. The government does not permit independent domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to monitor publicly human rights conditions. Violence against women, including coercive family planning practices--which sometimes include forced abortion and forced sterilization; prostitution; discrimination against women; trafficking in women and children; abuse of children; and discrimination against the disabled and minorities are all problems. The government continued to restrict tightly worker rights, and forced labor in prison facilities remains a serious problem. Child labor persists. Particularly serious human rights abuses persisted in some minority areas, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang, where restrictions on religion and other fundamental freedoms intensified. That is the U.S. State Department talking in its 1999 human rights report. Listen to what the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, a commission established by this Congress just a couple of years ago, said with respect to the People's Republic of China. It said the following: The government of China and the Communist Party of China (CPC) discriminate, harass, incarcerate, and torture people on the basis of their religion and beliefs. Chinese law criminalizes collective religious activity by members of religious groups that are not registered with the state. It registers only those groups that submit to membership in one of the government-controlled associations affiliated with the five officially recognized religions. Members of registered religious groups can only engage in a limited range of what the state deems ``normal'' religious activities. The religious and belief communities that resist registration or that have been denied permission to register, including Catholics loyal to the Pope and Protestants who worship in ``house churches,'' have no legal standing in China. Adherents are often harassed, detained and fined. Meetings are broken up, unauthorized buildings are destroyed, and leaders are arrested and frequently imprisoned. Over the past several years, Chinese officials have been employing increasingly strict laws and regulations as instruments to harass religious groups and maintain control over religious activities. Officials responsible for enforcing the strict laws continue to be guided by CPC policy directives on religion. Furthermore, the Chinese legal system does not protect human rights from state interference, nor does it provide effective remedies for those who claim that their rights have been violated. The Commission then went on to say this. Listen carefully to this recommendation. This is the recommendation the Commission which the Congress established on international religious freedom made with respect to extending PNTR to China, which is the issue before this body: Given the sharp deterioration in freedom of religion in China during the last year, the Commission believes that an unconditional grant of PNTR at this moment may be taken as a signal of American indifference to religious freedom. The government of China attaches great symbolic importance to steps such as the grant of PNTR, and presents them to the Chinese people as proof of international acceptance and approval. A grant of PNTR at this juncture could be seen by Chinese people struggling for religious freedom as an abandonment of their cause at a moment of great difficulty. The Commission therefore believes that Congress should not approve PNTR for China until China makes substantial improvements in respect for religious freedom. Turning briefly to the environment, I simply want to observe that a coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, have argued strongly that the U.S.-China WTO agreement ignores critical environmental concerns regarding China and that PNTR should not be granted to China. They outline the incredibly severe pollution situation which now exists in China. Five of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China. An estimated 2 million people die each year in China from air and water pollution. Let me turn for a moment to the national security and foreign policy field. The United States has, of course, fundamental national security and foreign policy concerns with regard to China which remain unresolved. It is, of course, well known that China has undertaken a very substantial buildup of its military over the past decade designed to undergird China's ability to confront Taiwan. In fact, we have seen instances of such confrontation. This includes, among other things, a missile buildup across the Taiwan Strait that has greatly increased tensions between China and Taiwan. This military buildup also raises significant foreign policy and national security concerns for the United States in regard to Japan, South Korea, India, and indeed the rest of Asia. China has been the subject of longstanding concern about transfers of technology that contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or of missiles that could deliver them. Of course, this is the subject area that is the direct focus of the amendment pending before this body. The Director of Central Intelligence, the DCI, submitted a report to Congress in June of 1997 stating that during July-December 1996 ``China was the most significant supplier of weapons of mass destruction technology to foreign countries.'' The DCI's latest report, which was delivered in August 2000, named China, Russia, and North Korea as key suppliers of such technology. In July of 1998, the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States concluded: China poses a threat as a significant proliferator of ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction, and enabling technology. It has carried out extensive transfers to Iran's solid fuel ballistic missile program and has supplied Pakistan with a design for nuclear weapons and additional nuclear weapons assistance. It has even transferred complete ballistic missile systems to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. China's behavior thus far makes it appear unlikely it will soon effectively reduce its country's sizable transfers of critical technologies, experts, or expertise, to the emerging missile powers. As recently as this July, U.S. intelligence agencies disclosed that China has continued to aid Pakistan's efforts to build long-range missiles that could carry nuclear weapons. In addition, China has been a strong opponent of a number of major U.S. foreign policy and military undertakings. In June, Li Peng, chairman of the Chinese National People's Congress, visited Yugoslavia to express China's support for President Slobodan Milosevic and to condemn NATO and U.S. intervention in Kosovo. In conclusion, I oppose this proposed extension of PNTR to China. From the narrow perspective of trade policy, the United States would have to give up its ability to utilize U.S. trade laws to enforce compliance by China with its trade commitments. Aggressive and persistent use of U.S. trade laws to enforce compliance are more likely to produce results with China than the legalistic dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO. More broadly and more fundamentally, extending PNTR would separate U.S. trade policy interests with China from the range of our other critical interests, including national security, foreign policy, human rights, religious freedom, labor rights, and environmental protection. The United States would be severing its relationship of greatest leverage with China, the trade relationship which is so heavily skewed in China's favor, far exceeding China's relationship with any of its other major trading partners. But we, in effect, would be taking that relationship and severing it from all of these other important issues. This may be in China's interest. But I do not perceive it to be in the interest of the United States. And, in fact, it is my view that it will become more difficult to achieve permanent normal relations with China--that is, across the breadth of these important issues at stake between us--more difficult if, in fact, we have put to one side and severed any connection with the trade relationship. My view is that we should be seeking to achieve a permanent normal relationship with China in all of these areas, including the trade relationship. But given the significance of the trade relationship, to sever that, as the measure before us would do, it seems to me will undercut or make more difficult our ability to achieve normal relationships in these other critical areas which I have enumerated. I can understand China's strategic interest here. I think those who have come out on the floor and said this agreement is all in our favor, there is nothing in it for China, as I said at the outset, to think that the Chinese would agree to such an arrangement is to think they are either naive or being very charitable. I certainly don't think they are naive, and I certainly don't think they are going to be very charitable. I think that is a very important strategic objective they are out to accomplish. I think it is a very significant matter for them. As I say, it is clear to me that it serves China's interests, but I do not see it at this time as serving the interests of the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my support for the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act introduced by Senator Kerry. Establishing a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund is a necessary and timely legislative initiative. The number of families in our country who live in substandard housing, or pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs--the factors considered in determining worst case housing need-- is staggering. Recent studies show that 5.4 million American families have worst case housing needs. This is 100,000 more families than were classified as worst case housing needs just last year. In addition, no family making minimum wage can afford the fair market rent for a two bedroom apartment in any metro area in the country. On average, a person needs to earn over $11 to afford an apartment in any American metro area, but this number is even higher in many parts of the country. For instance, in Baltimore a person must earn over $12 an hour, or $24,000 a year to afford the rent on a two bedroom apartment. Traditionally, the government has helped families who do not earn enough to afford a place to live with section 8 vouchers. However, in today's booming real estate market, a section 8 voucher is no guarantee of finding a place to live. Currently, families in Maryland wait upwards of 31 months to get a section 8 housing voucher. Once they receive the voucher, they face a new challenge: finding an apartment that is affordable for them. Recent articles in the Washington Post have highlighted the trials of poor working families attempting to find affordable housing both with and without federal assistance. One Fairfax, Virginia woman working full time and living in a shelter called over 30 landlords, none of which had vacancies that she could afford. Another social worker commented that the voucher holders she counseled had to call close to 100 different developments to find a unit. The reality is that there are simply not enough affordable housing units in our country to meet the needs of low income Americans. This situation is simply unacceptable. The working poor of our country deserve decent places to live. Adequate housing is an essential need for all Americans. It is the anchor that allows families to thrive. Children can't learn if they are forced to attend 3 or 4 schools in a single year as their parents move from friend to friend because they cannot afford the rent. Workers can't find jobs or get training if they spend their days fighting to put a roof over their kids' heads. A sick person will not get well if she spends her days huddled on a grate, waiting for a bed in an emergency shelter. Senator Kerry's bill would address our country's severe affordable housing crisis by establishing an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that will support the construction of additional affordable housing. The Trust Fund is designed to create long-term affordable, mixed income housing developments in areas where low-income families will have access to transportation, social services, and job opportunities. It is also designed to help in areas where local governments are committed to revitalization. These priorities are explicitly laid out in the legislation. The bottom line is that we need to provide more resources to states, local governments and non-profits who are working to build more affordable housing. Unless we build more affordable units we will not be able to solve the housing crisis we have today. This bill is an opportunity for us to take advantage of our booming economy to do this. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kerry, Grassley, Levin, and Rockefeller in introducing the Clinton/Gore administration's International Counter-Money Laundering and Foreign Anti-Corruption Act of 2000 (``ICMLA''). Money laundering poses an ongoing threat to the financial stability of the United States. It is estimated by the Department of the Treasury that the global volume of laundered money accounts for between 2-5 percent of the global GDP. The ICMLA is designed to bolster the United States ability to counter the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking, organized crime, terrorism, and official corruption from abroad. The bill broadens the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, ensures that banking transactions and financial relationships do not contravene the purposes of current antimoney laundering statutes, provides a clear mandate for subjecting foreign jurisdictions that facilitate money laundering to special scrutiny, and enhances reporting of suspicious activities. The bill similarly strengthens current measures to prevent the use of the U.S. financial system for personal gain by corrupt foreign officials and to facilitate the repatriation of any stolen assets to the citizens of countries to whom such assets belong. First, section 101 of the ICMLA gives the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with other key government officials, discretionary authority to impose five new ``special measures'' against foreign jurisdictions and entities that are of ``primary money laundering concern'' to the United States. Under current law, the only counter- money laundering tools available to the federal government are advisories, an important but relatively limited measure instructing banks to pay close attention to transactions that involve a given country, and full-blown economic sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (``IEEPA''). The five new intermediate measures will increase the government's ability to apply well- calibrated pressure against targeted jurisdictions or institutions. These new measures include: (1) requiring additional record keeping/ reporting on particular transactions, (2) requiring the identification of the beneficial foreign owner of a U.S. bank account, (3) requiring the identification of those individuals using a U.S. bank account opened by a foreign bank to engage in banking transactions (a ``payable-through account''), (4) requiring the identification of those using a U.S. bank account established to receive deposits and make payments on behalf of a foreign financial institution (a ``correspondent account''), and (5) restricting or prohibiting the opening or maintaining of certain correspondent accounts. Second, the bill seeks to enhance oversight into illegal activities by clarifying that the ``safe harbor'' from civil liability for filing a Suspicious Activity Report (``SAR'') applies in any litigation, including suit for breach of contract or in an arbitration proceeding. Under the Bank Secrecy Act (``BSA''), any financial institution or officer, director, employee, or agent of a financial institution is protected against private civil liability for filing a SAR. Section 201 of the bill amends the BSA to clarify the prohibition on disclosing that a SAR has been filed. These reports are the cornerstone of our nation's money-laundering efforts because they provide the information necessary to alter law enforcement to illegal activity. Third, the bill enhances enforcement of Geographic Targeting Orders (``GTOs''). These orders lower the dollar thresholds for reporting transactions within a defined geographic area. Section 202 of the bill clarifies that civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and its regulations also apply to reports required by GTO's. In addition, the section clarifies that structuring a transaction to avoid a reporting requirement by a GTO is a criminal offense and extends the presumptive GTO period from 60 to 180 days. Fourth, section 203 of the bill permits a bank, upon request of another bank, to include suspicious illegal activity in written employment references. Under this provision, banks would be permitted to share information concerning the possible involvement of a current or former officer or employee in potentially unlawful activity without fear of civil liability for sharing the information. Finally, title III of the bill addresses corruption by foreign officials and ruling elites. Pursuant to a sense of Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the financial services regulators, is mandated to issue guidelines to financial institutions operating in the United States on appropriate practices and procedures to reduce the likelihood that such institutions could facilitate proceeds expropriated by or on behalf of foreign senior government officials. The ICMLA addresses many of the shortcomings of current law. The Secretary of Treasury is granted additional authority to require greater transparency of transactions and accounts as well as to narrowly target penalties and sanctions. The reporting and collection of additional information on suspected illegal activity will greatly enhance the ability of bank regulators and law enforcement to combat the laundering of drug money, proceeds from corrupt regimes, and other illegal activities. Mr. President, the House Banking Committee passed the identical antimoney laundering bill by a vote of 31 to 1 on June 8, 2000. I hope that we can move this legislation expeditiously in the Senate.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kerry, Grassley, Levin, and Rockefeller in introducing the Clinton/Gore administration's International Counter-Money Laundering and Foreign Anti-Corruption Act of 2000 (``ICMLA''). Money laundering poses an ongoing threat to the financial stability of the United States. It is estimated by the Department of the Treasury that the global volume of laundered money accounts for between 2-5 percent of the global GDP. The ICMLA is designed to bolster the United States ability to counter the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking, organized crime, terrorism, and official corruption from abroad. The bill broadens the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, ensures that banking transactions and financial relationships do not contravene the purposes of current antimoney laundering statutes, provides a clear mandate for subjecting foreign jurisdictions that facilitate money laundering to special scrutiny, and enhances reporting of suspicious activities. The bill similarly strengthens current measures to prevent the use of the U.S. financial system for personal gain by corrupt foreign officials and to facilitate the repatriation of any stolen assets to the citizens of countries to whom such assets belong. First, section 101 of the ICMLA gives the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with other key government officials, discretionary authority to impose five new ``special measures'' against foreign jurisdictions and entities that are of ``primary money laundering concern'' to the United States. Under current law, the only counter- money laundering tools available to the federal government are advisories, an important but relatively limited measure instructing banks to pay close attention to transactions that involve a given country, and full-blown economic sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (``IEEPA''). The five new intermediate measures will increase the government's ability to apply well- calibrated pressure against targeted jurisdictions or institutions. These new measures include: (1) requiring additional record keeping/ reporting on particular transactions, (2) requiring the identification of the beneficial foreign owner of a U.S. bank account, (3) requiring the identification of those individuals using a U.S. bank account opened by a foreign bank to engage in banking transactions (a ``payable-through account''), (4) requiring the identification of those using a U.S. bank account established to receive deposits and make payments on behalf of a foreign financial institution (a ``correspondent account''), and (5) restricting or prohibiting the opening or maintaining of certain correspondent accounts. Second, the bill seeks to enhance oversight into illegal activities by clarifying that the ``safe harbor'' from civil liability for filing a Suspicious Activity Report (``SAR'') applies in any litigation, including suit for breach of contract or in an arbitration proceeding. Under the Bank Secrecy Act (``BSA''), any financial institution or officer, director, employee, or agent of a financial institution is protected against private civil liability for filing a SAR. Section 201 of the bill amends the BSA to clarify the prohibition on disclosing that a SAR has been filed. These reports are the cornerstone of our nation's money-laundering efforts because they provide the information necessary to alter law enforcement to illegal activity. Third, the bill enhances enforcement of Geographic Targeting Orders (``GTOs''). These orders lower the dollar thresholds for reporting transactions within a defined geographic area. Section 202 of the bill clarifies that civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and its regulations also apply to reports required by GTO's. In addition, the section clarifies that structuring a transaction to avoid a reporting requirement by a GTO is a criminal offense and extends the presumptive GTO period from 60 to 180 days. Fourth, section 203 of the bill permits a bank, upon request of another bank, to include suspicious illegal activity in written employment references. Under this provision, banks would be permitted to share information concerning the possible involvement of a current or former officer or employee in potentially unlawful activity without fear of civil liability for sharing the information. Finally, title III of the bill addresses corruption by foreign officials and ruling elites. Pursuant to a sense of Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the financial services regulators, is mandated to issue guidelines to financial institutions operating in the United States on appropriate practices and procedures to reduce the likelihood that such institutions could facilitate proceeds expropriated by or on behalf of foreign senior government officials. The ICMLA addresses many of the shortcomings of current law. The Secretary of Treasury is granted additional authority to require greater transparency of transactions and accounts as well as to narrowly target penalties and sanctions. The reporting and collection of additional information on suspected illegal activity will greatly enhance the ability of bank regulators and law enforcement to combat the laundering of drug money, proceeds from corrupt regimes, and other illegal activities. Mr. President, the House Banking Committee passed the identical antimoney laundering bill by a vote of 31 to 1 on June 8, 2000. I hope that we can move this legislation expeditiously in the Senate.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Colonel Bruce Berwick, Commander of the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Col. Berwick is moving on to a new assignment at the Pentagon and I want to express my personal appreciation for the outstanding work that he has done. The Baltimore District is one of the Corps' largest districts encompassing five States and the District of Columbia. It is responsible for twenty-three military installations, three major watersheds including the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers, 14 dams and reservoirs, numerous navigation projects--large and small, and the public water supply for the Washington metropolitan area, as well as certain overseas activities. Managing the District's considerable and diverse workload presents a special challenge--a challenge that Col. Berwick met with great success. During his three- year tenure as Commander of the Baltimore District, Col. Berwick has distinguished himself as an exceptional District Engineer and a dedicated and tireless advocate for the mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under his leadership, numerous military construction and civil works projects were initiated or completed including the $1.1 billion Pentagon renovation project, the $147 million Walter Reed Army Institute for Research, phase one of the Poplar Island beneficial use of dredged material project and the storm damage restoration work at Ocean City and the north end of Assateague Island National Seashore, to name only a few. The Colonel worked to ensure that these projects remained on cost, on schedule and were built to the highest standards. Similarly, he directed and oversaw the successful completion of numerous environmental restoration projects including the fish passageway at the Little Falls Dam on the Potomac River, wetland restoration along the Anacostia River, the planning and design for the rewatering of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and the protection of Smith Island, as well as the Chesapeake Bay oyster recovery effort. I have had the pleasure of working closely with Col. Berwick over the last three years on these and other initiatives throughout Maryland and the mid-Atlantic area. I know first hand the exceptional talent, ingenuity, and energy which he brought to the Baltimore District and to the Corps of Engineers. One of our most significant cooperative efforts and one which, in my view, underscores the exceptional leadership and commitment of Bruce Berwick was the repair of the Korean War Memorial. Just three years after the memorial was dedicated it was clear that it was not functioning as originally designed and was plagued by problems: the water in the fountain no longer flowed, the grove of Linden trees died and had to be removed, there were walkway and safety hazards and the lighting for the statues was failing. Col. Berwick made it a personal mission to fix these problems and ensure that the monument was repaired in time for the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War. As a result of his determined efforts, our Korean War Veterans now have a memorial for which they can be proud, one that is a fitting and lasting tribute to their service to our nation. In recognition of his outstanding work in the Baltimore District and his other assignments throughout the world, Col. Berwick has been the recipient of numerous awards and decorations including the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Parachutist Badge. Perhaps more significantly however, his efforts and accomplishments have earned him the respect and admiration of his colleagues and others 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 Bruce Berwick has exemplified a steadfast commitment to meeting this demand. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his hard work and dedication and to wish him and his family the best of luck in his new assignment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring a distinguished public servant and a valued Member of the United States Senate, Senator Paul Coverdell, who died Tuesday evening at the Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Senator Coverdell was elected to the United States Senate in 1992 and served as the Republican Conference Secretary since December, 1996. He was a member of the Senate Finance, Foreign Relations, and Small Business Committees and chaired the Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Marketing, Inspection and Product Promotion. Before entering public life, Senator Coverdell served in the U.S. Army in Okinawa, Taiwan and Korea. He earned a Bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Missouri before returning to Georgia to work in his family's business. Paul Coverdell's political career began in 1970 when he was elected to the Georgia State Senate serving as Minority Leader for 14 years. In 1989, he accepted President Bush's appointment as Director of the Peace Corps, where he refined the agency's mission to serve the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe. While Senator Coverdell and I rarely agreed on the many issues that came before the Senate for consideration, I greatly respected his hard work and his unfailing courtesy and civility. He was a modest man who valued results more than he valued headlines. Indeed, Paul Coverdell was well-respected by every member of this body, engendering the affection of all those with whom he served. Senator Coverdell served the citizens of Georgia and the Nation well and we are all deeply saddened by his untimely death. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him and to extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to his family.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing, ``Credit Watch,'' a bill that will authorize the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to identify lenders who have excessively high early default and claim rates and terminate their origination approval. This legislation is necessary to protect the FHA fund and take action against lenders who are contributing to the deterioration of our neighborhoods. A recent rash of FHA loan defaults have led to foreclosures and vacant properties in a number of cities around the country. In Baltimore, the effects of high foreclosure rates are acute. In some neighborhoods, there are numerous foreclosed homes, now abandoned, within just a few blocks of each other. This can often be the beginning of a neighborhood's decline. It creates a perception that the property and the neighborhood is not highly valued. In turn, these neighborhoods become physically deteriorated and often attract criminal activity. It's like a rotten apple in a barrel. The rundown appearance of one home spreads to the surrounding neighborhood. Neighborhoods that are struggling to stabilize and revitalize find their efforts undermined by the presence of abandoned homes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), community activists, and local law makers have come together to examine the loans being made in neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates. In Baltimore and other cities, these groups found that careless lenders are offering FHA insured loans to families who cannot afford to pay them back. Early default or claim of these loans frequently leads to foreclosure of the home. A foreclosed property can easily turn into an uninhabited home, which can either begin or continue a cycle of decline. In an effort to reduce the number of loans that end in foreclosure, the FHA developed several new oversight methods. One of which is ``Credit Watch.'' ``Credit Watch'' is an automated system that compares the number of early foreclosures and claims of lenders in the same area. This legislation authorizes FHA to revoke the origination approval of lenders who have significantly higher rates of early defaults and claims than the other lenders in the same area. FHA is currently targeting lenders with default rates over 300% of the area average. They estimate that in Baltimore this threshold would allow them to terminate the origination privileges of three major lenders that account for 40% of early defaults and claims. The legislation accounts for differing regional economies by ensuring that lenders are only compared to others making loans in the same community. It also provides a manner by which terminated lenders may appeal the decision of the FHA, if they believe there are mitigating factors that may justify higher rates. When lenders make loans with no regard for the consumer or the health of the community, the FHA must be able to take action in a timely manner. This practice is a costly abuse of the FHA insurance fund. Quick action not only protects the health of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance (MMI) fund, but it protects neighborhoods from the detrimental effects of high vacancy rates and consumers from the pain of foreclosure and serious damage to their credit. Lenders that offer loans to individuals who cannot afford them should not be able to continue making those loans. It is a bad deal for taxpayers. It is a bad deal for neighborhoods. It is a bad deal for the families who take out the loan. Credit Watch is an effective and efficient way that the FHA can prevent these unfortunate foreclosures from happening. While we need to address the larger issue of predatory lending in our communities, ``Credit Watch'' is an obvious and immediate solution to one part of the problem.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing, ``Credit Watch,'' a bill that will authorize the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to identify lenders who have excessively high early default and claim rates and terminate their origination approval. This legislation is necessary to protect the FHA fund and take action against lenders who are contributing to the deterioration of our neighborhoods. A recent rash of FHA loan defaults have led to foreclosures and vacant properties in a number of cities around the country. In Baltimore, the effects of high foreclosure rates are acute. In some neighborhoods, there are numerous foreclosed homes, now abandoned, within just a few blocks of each other. This can often be the beginning of a neighborhood's decline. It creates a perception that the property and the neighborhood is not highly valued. In turn, these neighborhoods become physically deteriorated and often attract criminal activity. It's like a rotten apple in a barrel. The rundown appearance of one home spreads to the surrounding neighborhood. Neighborhoods that are struggling to stabilize and revitalize find their efforts undermined by the presence of abandoned homes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), community activists, and local law makers have come together to examine the loans being made in neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates. In Baltimore and other cities, these groups found that careless lenders are offering FHA insured loans to families who cannot afford to pay them back. Early default or claim of these loans frequently leads to foreclosure of the home. A foreclosed property can easily turn into an uninhabited home, which can either begin or continue a cycle of decline. In an effort to reduce the number of loans that end in foreclosure, the FHA developed several new oversight methods. One of which is ``Credit Watch.'' ``Credit Watch'' is an automated system that compares the number of early foreclosures and claims of lenders in the same area. This legislation authorizes FHA to revoke the origination approval of lenders who have significantly higher rates of early defaults and claims than the other lenders in the same area. FHA is currently targeting lenders with default rates over 300% of the area average. They estimate that in Baltimore this threshold would allow them to terminate the origination privileges of three major lenders that account for 40% of early defaults and claims. The legislation accounts for differing regional economies by ensuring that lenders are only compared to others making loans in the same community. It also provides a manner by which terminated lenders may appeal the decision of the FHA, if they believe there are mitigating factors that may justify higher rates. When lenders make loans with no regard for the consumer or the health of the community, the FHA must be able to take action in a timely manner. This practice is a costly abuse of the FHA insurance fund. Quick action not only protects the health of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance (MMI) fund, but it protects neighborhoods from the detrimental effects of high vacancy rates and consumers from the pain of foreclosure and serious damage to their credit. Lenders that offer loans to individuals who cannot afford them should not be able to continue making those loans. It is a bad deal for taxpayers. It is a bad deal for neighborhoods. It is a bad deal for the families who take out the loan. Credit Watch is an effective and efficient way that the FHA can prevent these unfortunate foreclosures from happening. While we need to address the larger issue of predatory lending in our communities, ``Credit Watch'' is an obvious and immediate solution to one part of the problem.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Robb and Mikulski, to reauthorize and enhance the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Program office. This office, which was first established in 1992 pursuant to Public Law 102- 567, 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. As the lead Federal agency responsible for marine science, NOAA has played a critical role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its living marine resources. Since 1984, when the Agency first signed a Memorandum of Understanding with EPA to participate in the Chesapeake Bay Program as a full Federal partner, NOAA has supported scientific investigations and conducted other important activities ranging from fisheries stock assessments to monitoring of algal blooms and tracking changes in tidal wetlands. This research has been essential to improving our understanding of the impacts of climate, harvest and pollution on the decline of anadromous fish, oysters and other marines species in the Bay and helping to develop management strategies for restoring living resources. In order to better integrate NOAA's diverse efforts in the Bay region and provide a clear focal point within NOAA for Chesapeake Bay initiatives, in 1991 I introduced legislation to create a NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office or NCBO. The legislation authorized $2.5 million a year for the program and prescribed the office's principal functions as coordination, strategy development, technical and financial assistance and research dissemination. That legislation was incorporated in an overall NOAA authorization bill and became Public Law 102-567. To implement the initiative, NOAA established an office in Annapolis under the administration of the National Marine Fisheries Service and has been funding peer-reviewed research directed at the Bay's living resource problems, providing scientific expertise and technical assistance to Bay Program partners, working to involve other relevant NOAA elements in the Bay restoration and participating in a wide variety of Bay Program projects and activities. During the past eight 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 soon-to-be-signed new Bay Agreement, has identified several living resource goals which will require strong NOAA involvement to achieve. The legislation which I am 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, this measure would move administration and oversight of the NOAA Bay Office from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the Office of the Undersecretary to help facilitate the pooling of all of NOAA's talents and take better advantage of NOAA's multiple capabilities. In addition to NMFS there are four other line offices within NOAA with programs and responsibilities critical to the Bay restoration effort--the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Ocean Service, National Weather Service, and National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service. Getting these different line offices to pool their resources and coordinate their activities is a serious challenge when they do not have a direct stake or clear line of responsibility to the Chesapeake Bay Program. Placing the NOAA Bay office within the Under Secretary's Office will help assure the coordination of activities across all line organizations of NOAA. Second, 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. Third, 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 sea-grass beds, and producing oysters for restoration projects. Fourth, 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 increase the authorization for the NOAA Bay Program from the current level of $2.5 million to $6 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. Mr. President, this legislation will provide an important boost to our efforts to restore the Bay's living resources. It is strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and members of the scientific community. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the measure and supporting letters be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Robb and Mikulski, to reauthorize and enhance the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Program office. This office, which was first established in 1992 pursuant to Public Law 102- 567, 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. As the lead Federal agency responsible for marine science, NOAA has played a critical role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its living marine resources. Since 1984, when the Agency first signed a Memorandum of Understanding with EPA to participate in the Chesapeake Bay Program as a full Federal partner, NOAA has supported scientific investigations and conducted other important activities ranging from fisheries stock assessments to monitoring of algal blooms and tracking changes in tidal wetlands. This research has been essential to improving our understanding of the impacts of climate, harvest and pollution on the decline of anadromous fish, oysters and other marines species in the Bay and helping to develop management strategies for restoring living resources. In order to better integrate NOAA's diverse efforts in the Bay region and provide a clear focal point within NOAA for Chesapeake Bay initiatives, in 1991 I introduced legislation to create a NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office or NCBO. The legislation authorized $2.5 million a year for the program and prescribed the office's principal functions as coordination, strategy development, technical and financial assistance and research dissemination. That legislation was incorporated in an overall NOAA authorization bill and became Public Law 102-567. To implement the initiative, NOAA established an office in Annapolis under the administration of the National Marine Fisheries Service and has been funding peer-reviewed research directed at the Bay's living resource problems, providing scientific expertise and technical assistance to Bay Program partners, working to involve other relevant NOAA elements in the Bay restoration and participating in a wide variety of Bay Program projects and activities. During the past eight 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 soon-to-be-signed new Bay Agreement, has identified several living resource goals which will require strong NOAA involvement to achieve. The legislation which I am 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, this measure would move administration and oversight of the NOAA Bay Office from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the Office of the Undersecretary to help facilitate the pooling of all of NOAA's talents and take better advantage of NOAA's multiple capabilities. In addition to NMFS there are four other line offices within NOAA with programs and responsibilities critical to the Bay restoration effort--the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Ocean Service, National Weather Service, and National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service. Getting these different line offices to pool their resources and coordinate their activities is a serious challenge when they do not have a direct stake or clear line of responsibility to the Chesapeake Bay Program. Placing the NOAA Bay office within the Under Secretary's Office will help assure the coordination of activities across all line organizations of NOAA. Second, 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. Third, 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 sea-grass beds, and producing oysters for restoration projects. Fourth, 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 increase the authorization for the NOAA Bay Program from the current level of $2.5 million to $6 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. Mr. President, this legislation will provide an important boost to our efforts to restore the Bay's living resources. It is strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and members of the scientific community. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the measure and supporting letters be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with several of my colleagues, including Senator Chafee, Senator Mack, Senator Biden, and Senator Leahy in sponsoring this Sense of the Senate amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. I am also very pleased that agreement has been reached for the amendment to be accepted. The amendment calls on the Senate to support full authorization and funding for international debt relief. I worked with Senator Mack last year in introducing the ``Debt Relief for Poor Countries Act of 1999,'' and am glad to work with him again on this important issue. The purpose of this amendment is to highlight one of the major shortcomings in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, as reported out of Committee, which only included $75 million for the purposes of debt relief. That allocation falls far short of what the Administration has requested and what is needed to meet our obligations to the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) trust fund and bilateral debt relief commitments. The Administration has requested $210 million for FY 2000 for HIPC and $225 million for FY 2001 ($150 million to HIPC and $75 million for bilateral debt relief). This money is necessary for us to meet our commitments to the HIPC trust fund, estimated at $600 million over the next three years, and our commitments to bilateral debt reductions, estimated at $375 million over the same period. The Administration has also requested an authorization from Congress to support use for HIPC debt relief of the full earnings on profits from IMF off-market gold sales. Why is debt relief so important? Many poor countries are saddled with large debt payments. All too often, payments on the foreign debt--which account for as much as 70 percent of government expenditures in some countries--mean there is little left to meet basic human needs of the population, such as health, education, nutrition, sanitation, and basic social services. As a group, HIPCs post some of the world's lowest human development indicators: one in ten children dies before their first birthday; one in three children is malnourished; the average person attends only three years of school; half of all citizens live on less than $1 dollar a day; HIV infection rates are as a high as 20 percent. In effect, debt service payments are making it even harder for the recipient governments to enact the kinds of economic and political reforms that the loans were designed to encourage, and that are necessary to ensure broad-based growth and future prosperity. Last year, President Clinton pledged to cancel all $5.7 billion of debt owed to the U.S. government by 36 of the poorest countries. Canceling the debt will not cost the full $5.7 billion because many of the loans would never have been repaid and are no longer worth their full face-value. It does not make economic sense to keep these loans on the books. Additionally, I believe U.S. leadership is at stake. As the richest country in the world and as one that has long been interested in the development of poor countries, we risk losing our moral authority in the international arena if we cannot, especially during our country's time of prosperity, alleviate the crushing debt burden of many poor countries.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated and respected leader in public transportation, Ronald L. Freeland, Administrator for the Mass Transit Administration of the Maryland Department of Transportation. Ron has recently been chosen to be President of the Board of the National Conference of Minority Transportation Officials, COMTO, and I would like to express my appreciation for the work he has done for Maryland, and my congratulations and best wishes as he assumes his new leadership responsibilities. Throughout his career, Ron Freeland has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to ensuring quality transportation in Maryland. Since 1997, Ron has overseen the Mass Transit Administration, MTA, which operates the bus, light rail, Metro, and MARC systems throughout the Baltimore- Washington area--systems that provide transportation services to 355,000 people every day. Prior to his service at MTA, Ron was Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Administration, where he made key reforms in that agency's operations, including improvements in the operation of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program. His public service also includes tenure as Director of Operations at MTA, membership on the Board of Directors for the Maryland Transportation Authority, and membership on the Board of the Canton Railroad. Well- maintained highways and reliable transit systems provide safe travel daily for millions of Americans, and I want to commend Ron for his dedication to improving transportation services in Maryland. I have known Ron for many years and have had the opportunity to work closely with him on many issues affecting transportation in Maryland. I have found him to be a dedicated public servant and a steadfast ally to the friends of public transportation. In addition to his work for the people of Maryland, Ron has fought tirelessly for equality within the transportation community. He is about to assume leadership of the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials, a national organization founded in 1971, which now boasts over 2,000 members and over 25 local chapters throughout the United States. Ron has been working with COMTO for almost twenty years, and has demonstrated unyielding devotion to COMTO's dual mission of achieving inclusion and upward mobility for minorities and women within the industry, and advocating for citizens and groups who are underserved by existing transportation services. His leadership and integrity in this pursuit inspired the members of COMTO to choose Ron as National President--and they could not have made a better choice. I am confident that, as President, Ron will inspire his colleagues across the country to dedicate themselves to ensuring minorities and women equal access to transportation jobs and services. It is the courage and hard work of people like Ron Freeland that will make certain no one is left behind as the transportation industry evolves to meet America's growing needs in the 21st century.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000, Senator Kennedy's amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. As a cosponsor of Senator Kennedy's Hate Crimes Prevention Act, I believe that it is past time for Congress to act to prevent future tragedies. While as a Nation we have made significant progress in reducing discrimination and increasing opportunities for all Americans, regrettably the impact of past discrimination continues to be felt. Far too often, we hear reports of violent hate-related incidents in this country. It seems inconceivable that, in the year 2000, such crimes can still be so pervasive. Statistics from my own State of Maryland unfortunately indicate that the incidence of bias-motivated violence may be on the rise. The number of reported incidents of hate or bias- motivated violence in Maryland rose by 11.6 percent in 1999. Of the 457 verified incidents of bias-motivated violence that year, 335 were committed against individuals on the basis of their race (approximately 73%), 63 on the basis of religion (14%), 38 on the basis of sexual orientation (8%), 17 on the basis of ethnicity (4%), and 4 on the basis of the victim's disability (1%). Data gathered under the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act is also sobering. Beginning in 1991, the Act requires the Justice Department to collect information from law enforcement agencies across the country on crimes motivated by a victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Congress expanded the Act in 1994 to also require the collection of data for crimes based upon the victim's disability. The Department of Justice has reported that, for 1998, 7,755 bias-motivated crimes were committed against 9,722 victims by 7,489 known offenders. Beyond these stark statistics, stories of heinous crimes continue to make headlines across the country. In 1998, James Byrd, Jr., an African-American man, was walking home along a rural Texas road when he was beaten and then dragged behind a pickup truck to his death. Later than same year, Matthew Shephard, a gay University of Wyoming Student, was beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die in a rural part of the state. And just last year, a gunman entered a Jewish community center in California, opened fire on workers and children attending a day care center, and later killed a Filipino-American postal worker. It is nearly impossible to imagine such crimes occurring in a country that is said to lead the world in equal opportunity for its citizens. Franklin Delano Roosevelt once described America as a ``nation of many nationalities, many religions--bound together by a single unity, the unity of freedom and equality.'' But, as the stories of James Byrd, Matthew Shephard, and the California Jewish community center all too clearly show, we are not living up to President Roosevelt's vision of America. The Federal government cannot ignore the thousands of hate crimes that are committed in the United States each and every year as long as people are afraid to walk down our streets because of their religion, or the color of their skin, or their sexual orientation. I had the great honor of serving, during my time in the House of Representatives, with Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman elected to Congress, who said: ``Laws will not eliminate prejudice from the hearts of human beings. But that is no reason to allow prejudice to continue to be enshrined in our laws to perpetuate injustice through inaction.'' Senator Kennedy's amendment includes crucial provisions designed to help the Federal government stop bias-motivated crimes. This amendment would extend Federal law to prohibit crimes committed against victims because of their gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Moreover, the amendment would also remove requirements of existing law that prohibit Federal government action unless the crime victim is engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.'' It is true that this legislation will not drastically increase the number of crimes subject to Federal prosecution. Criminal law is a matter largely enforced by the states, and the sponsors of this amendment have been careful to ensure that the Federal government will only step in and prosecute a crime if a state cannot adequately do so itself. And certainly, as Congresswoman Chisholm eloquently stated, we cannot erase the hatred and bigotry in people's hearts by passing this amendment today. But the balanced approach of Senator Kennedy's amendment will allow the Federal government to intervene in the small number of hate crimes cases where a Federal prosecution is necessary to insure that justice is served. Mr. President, I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting the Kennedy hate crimes amendment. We have an invaluable opportunity to make a statement that the United States government will not tolerate crimes motivated by bigotry and prejudice, and that the ``the unity of freedom and equality'' binds together all Americans--regardless of their race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr President, I come to the floor today in support of the Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act introduced by Senators Kerry and Santorum. This bill expands upon critical housing programs for both elderly and disabled Americans. The Nation's population of elderly is growing rapidly. Between 1980 and 1997, the number of people over the age of 65 grew by 33 percent. AARP estimates that by 2030, 20 percent of the population will be over 65 years of age, compared to only 13 percent of the population today. We need to have programs in place to assist growing numbers of seniors. AARP also estimates that there will be 2.8 million elderly people who, by 2020, will have difficulty performing a number of basic functions such as eating, bathing, and dressing. As American's age, traditional housing will have to change to accommodate the unique needs of those in their golden years. This bill will ensure that additional housing opportunities exist where these Americans can receive the services they need. This legislation allows traditional elderly and disabled housing to be converted to assisted living facilities, to meet these growing needs. We must not only work to ensure that adequate services are available, we must work to increase the affordable housing stock. A recent study conducted by HUD indicates that 1.7 million low-income elderly are in urgent need of affordable housing. Nearly 7.4 million elderly households pay more than they can afford on housing, and there are more than eight elderly people waiting for every unit of assisted elderly housing. In addition, HUD estimates that 1.4 million disabled Americans have worst case housing needs, meaning they pay over half of their income for housing or live in substandard housing. The Consortium for Persons with Disabilities conducted a study in 1998 which showed that there was not one housing market in the U.S. where a disabled person receiving SSI benefits could afford rent based on federal guidelines. The federal government is not doing enough to meet the needs of these low-income people. This legislation assists us in meeting these needs. It expands access to capital from both federal and non-federal sources for elderly and disabled housing programs, helping to create new housing opportunities for these communities. Providers of elderly and disabled housing will be able to link with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, a crucial source of affordable housing funding, and other private funds. This bill also ensures that the affordable housing which exists in this country is maintained. This crucial stock of housing will be preserved through a matching grant preservation program authored by our colleagues, Senators Kerry and Jeffords, which will reward States and localities spending resources to preserve affordable housing by giving them federal dollars to assist in their efforts. This provision will help to ensure that as we increase the stock of affordable housing on the front end, we are not losing units on the back end--our goal is to increase available housing, not maintain the status quo. This bill is a step in the right direction towards providing necessary housing opportunities for those Americans that are too often forgotten. And many people in this nation enjoy the benefits of a prospering economy, so too are many Americans being left behind. This legislation will ensure that more Americans have the opportunity to live in safe and decent housing.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr President, I come to the floor today in support of the Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act introduced by Senators Kerry and Santorum. This bill expands upon critical housing programs for both elderly and disabled Americans. The Nation's population of elderly is growing rapidly. Between 1980 and 1997, the number of people over the age of 65 grew by 33 percent. AARP estimates that by 2030, 20 percent of the population will be over 65 years of age, compared to only 13 percent of the population today. We need to have programs in place to assist growing numbers of seniors. AARP also estimates that there will be 2.8 million elderly people who, by 2020, will have difficulty performing a number of basic functions such as eating, bathing, and dressing. As American's age, traditional housing will have to change to accommodate the unique needs of those in their golden years. This bill will ensure that additional housing opportunities exist where these Americans can receive the services they need. This legislation allows traditional elderly and disabled housing to be converted to assisted living facilities, to meet these growing needs. We must not only work to ensure that adequate services are available, we must work to increase the affordable housing stock. A recent study conducted by HUD indicates that 1.7 million low-income elderly are in urgent need of affordable housing. Nearly 7.4 million elderly households pay more than they can afford on housing, and there are more than eight elderly people waiting for every unit of assisted elderly housing. In addition, HUD estimates that 1.4 million disabled Americans have worst case housing needs, meaning they pay over half of their income for housing or live in substandard housing. The Consortium for Persons with Disabilities conducted a study in 1998 which showed that there was not one housing market in the U.S. where a disabled person receiving SSI benefits could afford rent based on federal guidelines. The federal government is not doing enough to meet the needs of these low-income people. This legislation assists us in meeting these needs. It expands access to capital from both federal and non-federal sources for elderly and disabled housing programs, helping to create new housing opportunities for these communities. Providers of elderly and disabled housing will be able to link with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, a crucial source of affordable housing funding, and other private funds. This bill also ensures that the affordable housing which exists in this country is maintained. This crucial stock of housing will be preserved through a matching grant preservation program authored by our colleagues, Senators Kerry and Jeffords, which will reward States and localities spending resources to preserve affordable housing by giving them federal dollars to assist in their efforts. This provision will help to ensure that as we increase the stock of affordable housing on the front end, we are not losing units on the back end--our goal is to increase available housing, not maintain the status quo. This bill is a step in the right direction towards providing necessary housing opportunities for those Americans that are too often forgotten. And many people in this nation enjoy the benefits of a prospering economy, so too are many Americans being left behind. This legislation will ensure that more Americans have the opportunity to live in safe and decent housing.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to bring to the floor of the Senate this conference report of S. 761, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, along with my colleagues from the Commerce and Judiciary Committees. First and foremost, the success of this effort is the result of the leadership of Chairman Bliley and Chairman McCain. Their commitment to working in a bipartisan manner ultimately carried the day. I also want to thank Senator Hollings, Senator Leahy, Senator Wyden, and Representative Dingell. Without the leadership exhibited by these 4 members, and the long hours, hard work, and dedication of their key staff (Moses Boyd, Kevin Kayes, Julie Katzman, Carol Grunberg, Consuela Washington, and Bruce Gwinn) we would never have reached this agreement. Finally, the Administration, through its representatives from the Commerce and Treasury Departments (Andy Pincus and Gary Gensler), as well as the White House (Sarah Rosen-Wartell), played a crucial and constructive role in putting together the package we have before us. Mr. President, I support this bipartisan conference report. This new law creates a solid legal foundation upon which electronic commerce can grow and prosper, with benefits for many consumers and businesses. It is apparent to all of us that more and more business will be done on-line in the future, and that this will be true both for business-to- business commerce and for consumer transactions. We need to be mindful, however, that while this trend will likely continue, many Americans do not today participate in the electronic world. Indeed, they cannot participate in this world in any meaningful way. To make this point, I want to share with my colleagues the findings of a July, 1999 Commerce Department report entitled ``Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide.'' First, about 70 percent of Americans do not yet have access to the internet; Urban households with incomes of $75,000 and higher are more than twenty times more likely to have access to the internet than rural households at the lowest income levels and they are more than nine times more likely to have a computer at home; Whites are more likely to have access to the internet from home than Blacks or Hispanics have from any location; Regardless of income level, Americans living in rural areas lag on internet access. At the lowest income levels, those in urban areas are more than twice as likely to have access than rural families with the same income. These facts are alarming. More distressing, is the fact that, as bad as these numbers are, the trends are moving in the wrong direction. The Commerce Department reports that the digital divide is actually growing. For example, the gap between white and minority households has grown 5 percentage points in just one year, from 1997 to 1998. The gap, based both on education and income increased by 25 and 29 percent in the past year, respectively. These dramatic and disturbing findings underline the importance of ensuring that, as we move to an electronic world, we make sure that longstanding consumer protections survive the transition. Many of us made clear from the beginning that our goal was to ensure equivalent consumer protections for transactions conducted in the paper and electronic worlds. We have largely achieved that goal. First among these protections is the common sense provision incorporated in the report that consumer consent to engage in electronic commerce be given electronically. This is a protection against unscrupulous and abusive practices as well as inadvertent mistakes by well meaning vendors. Electronic consent will greatly enhance the consumer confidence to do business on-line, without resulting in additional burden on businesses--they are, after all, already committed to communicating with the consumer electronically. The best demonstration of the importance of electronic consent is the fact that the initial conference draft that was provided to Conferees was circulated via e-mail. Yet, despite the fact that our staff is more technologically sophisticated than the average American consumer, many of them were unable to download the document and had to have paper copies hand delivered. Now, imagine if that was a notice of change in mortgage servicing, or a notice that health insurance benefits are being cut back, or that auto insurance is being cancelled. That family could very well find itself with a sick child on no health insurance. Electronic consent would have avoided that problem by ensuring that the consumer is able to read the records provided. Electronic consent is not, as some people have sought to portray it, relevant only for a transitional period. Compatibility among systems is always important to check, given the significance of the records being transmitted. In addition, the U.S. mail is free to receive and comes to your door. You do not need a computer to receive the mail. You do not need to pay for an internet service provider, and you do not need to go to a public library to fain access to a computer if you don't have one at home. For all these reasons, electronic consent will be as important in the future as it is today. Other concerns I had have also been addressed in this report. We have provided both federal and state agencies with the authority to interpret and issue guidance on the proposed law. Providing this interpretive authority will provide businesses with a cost-effective way of getting guidance in how to implement the new law. Without this authority, these questions would have to have been answered by the courts, after extensive and expensive litigation. We have avoided that problem. the conference report gives law enforcement agencies of federal and state governments the authority they need to detect and combat fraud, including the ability to require the retention of written records in paper form if there is a compelling governmental interest in law enforcement. Let me raise one specific example, among many, of where this provision ought to be exercised. The Securities and Exchange Commission should use this provision to require brokers to keep written records of agreements required to be obtained by the SEC's penny stock rules. Investors in the securities markets have been the victims of penny stock abuse for more than a decade. The SEC must exercise every tool at its disposal to fight this kind of fraud. Finally, we narrowed the scope of the legislation to ensure that certain notices that simply cannot effectively be made electronically, such as documents carried by vehicles hauling hazardous materials, will continue to be in paper form. As many of you know, it was not at all clear that we were going to be able to deliver this bipartisan, largely consensus product to the floor. There were many times when negotiations threatened to unravel. But we stuck to it; we continued to show a willingness to consider and reconsider many issues that came up, even after agreement on many of those issues was achieved. Eventually, we were able to close the few remaining gaps and come to a final compromise. Mr. President, these changes make this a good piece of legislation worthy of our support. I urge all my colleagues to do so, and, once again, commend the leaders who brought this effort to a successful conclusion. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to insert for the Record some more specific observations on a number of provisions of the legislation on behalf of Senator Hollings, Senator, Wyden, and myself. I think this will be helpful given the fact that no statement of managers was included with the final legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an accomplished and respected steward of our National Park System, Marc Koenings, Superintendent of Assateague Island National Seashore. Marc has recently been selected to head Gateway National Recreation Area in New York and New Jersey and I want to wish him well with this important new assignment and thank him for the terrific job he did in managing Assateague over the past seven years. Throughout his 29-year career in public service, Marc Koenings has distinguished himself as a leader in natural and cultural resource management and conservation at the local, national and international levels. Beginning with the Peace Corps in 1971, Marc also served for nine years in a variety of positions with the Heritage Recreation and Conservation Service before joining the National Park Service. He quickly advanced to top management jobs in four Parks including Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Point Reyes National Seashore and Virgin Islands National Park where he made substantial contributions to improving park facilities, protecting park resources and developing highly professional work forces. I came to know Marc in 1993 shortly after he came to Maryland from Virgin Islands National Park. I had invited Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to join me on a tour of Assateague Island and to officially dedicate the Beach-to-Bay Indian Trail as a National Recreational Trail. Marc served as host and Master of Ceremonies for the visit and I was immediately impressed not only by his professionalism, but by the knowledge and vision which he had for Assateague after such a short period on the job. Over the past seven years, I have had the opportunity and privilege to work closely with Superintendent Koenings and members of his staff at Assateague in efforts to restore the north end of the island, construct a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge, protect the seashore from encroaching development, and develop the new Coastal Ecology Teaching and Research Laboratory. I know from personal experience that these initiatives would not be taking place, but for his persistent efforts, energy and innovation. In addition to these projects, under Marc's leadership, Assateague's barrier island visitors center was expanded and improved, a new Administrative facility was constructed, and new partnerships were formed to develop water trails and promote other eco-tourism opportunities in the area. The efforts of Marc Koenings throughout his career in the National Park Service have had a lasting effect not only on the parks he has worked to protect, but on the people with whom he has come in contact. He has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues in the Park Service as well as the visitors and citizens in the local communities surrounding the parks. 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 Marc Koenings 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 to the principal conservation mission of the National Park Service and join with his friends and coworkers in wishing him and his family well with his new endeavors.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to offer my congratulations and very best wishes to all those gathered at the 50th Anniversary celebration of the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) serving the United States military in Europe. I am pleased to take part in recognizing the longstanding tradition that this institution continues to uphold in ensuring quality higher education for our servicemembers overseas. It has always been my firm belief that a democracy cannot prosper and grow without an educated populace, and therefore the education of the individual is one of the most important tasks in our society. The success and growth of UMUC is a critical testament to the importance of educational opportunities for our military personnel in Europe. From its inception, this institution has viewed higher education from a global perspective, an approach which has put UMUC at the forefront of the larger higher education community. Following World War II, when the United States military invited American universities to provide higher educational programs to servicemembers at military installations throughout Europe, UMUC was the only institution to respond. This began a historic 50 year partnership with the military in Europe and starting in 1956, in Asia as well. The noted British scholar Arnold Toynbee wrote that the UMUC program in Europe is ``an American achievement from which the rest of the world has much to learn.'' Since the first year, UMUC has offered educational opportunities to hundreds of thousands of our men and women overseas. Even now, it is wonderful to hear that this tradition continues in many locations at long established military installations in Germany, Britain, Italy, and Spain including temporary facilities in Kosovo and Bosnia. I commend the University of Maryland University College for its 50 year history of unparalleled service and success in the field of education and I look forward to a continued close association with this exemplary institution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very serious problem facing our nation: millions of low- and moderate-income Americans lack adequate access to basic financial services. I am pleased to introduce the First Accounts Act of 2000 (``FAA''). This bill, which has been proposed by the Administration, establishes a pilot program within the Department of the Treasury designed to promote access to financial services for the millions of low- and moderate income persons currently facing barriers to affordable and convenient banking services. Joining as original co-sponsors in the introduction of this legislation are the Senate Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and my fellow Democratic members of the Banking Committee--Senators Dodd, Kerry, Bryan, Johnson, Reed, Schumer, Edwards, and Bayh. Access to basic banking services is essential for Americans seeking to participate fully in our increasingly complex financial and economic system. Unfortunately, recent studies show that millions of families lack access to affordable banking accounts and safe and secure ATMs, and do not have adequate knowledge of beneficial financial services and products. The lack of information and access to such financial services limits economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons, steers them toward high cost services offered by fringe operators in the financial services industry, reduces their ability to manage their finances and plan for the future, and may even place these individuals at a risk to their personal safety. Under the bill, the Treasury Department is authorized to partner with financial institutions, community organizations, and financial services electronic networks to improve access to mainstream financial services in four ways: affordable banking accounts, safe and secure ATMs, extensive financial literacy, and research and development efforts. Affordable Banking Accounts First, the bill would promote access to financial services by helping write-down the cost to depository institutions of establishing low-cost accounts for low- and moderate-income consumers. According to the Federal Reserve, approximately 8.4 million low- and moderate-income families did not have a bank account in 1998. This represents 22% of such households. The high cost of banking services--particularly high minimum opening balances and monthly fee--remains a major obstacle to many families establishing a relationship with a federally-insured depository institution. According to the Federal Reserve Board, the average minimum opening balance requirement was $115 in 1997. Moreover, a 1999 U.S. Public Interest Research Group study revealed that consumers who could not meet account minimum balances at banks paid an average of $217 annually. Althoguh seven states currently require banks to offer some form of low-cost banking accounts, there is a growing recognition that banks would voluntarily expand access to affordable accounts with appropriate encouragement. For instance, Treasury currently provides incentives under the Electronic Funds Transfer (``EFT'') program to banks that provide low-cost accounts for recipients of government checks. More than 538 federally-insured institutions signed up to offer the low-cost account during the first nine months of the EFT program. I am pleased to have worked closely with Treasury in developing the EFT program to extend its benefits to the ``unbanked'' who receive government checks. This legislation would build on that experience to extend the benefits of direct deposit accounts to those who receive private sector checks. The lack of access to basic banking services creates numerous difficulties for the ``unbanked.'' First, it increases the cost of financial transactions for law- and moderate-income persons. These individuals pay high service fees to check cashing outlets and other nonbanks when cashing checks and purchasing money orders. A 1998 study by the Organization for a New Equality showed that over a lifetime, a low-income family could pay over $15,000 in fees for cashing checks and paying bills outside the financial services mainstream. Moreover, the lack of a banking account often makes it difficult for low- and moderate-income individuals to establish traditional credit and limits their ability to access other financial products. First-time homeowner programs, rental property managers, utility companies, and credit card companies are increasingly requiring applicants to have bank accounts. In the absence of a relationship with banks, low- and moderate-income individuals often end up as customers of fringe bankers who charge them exorbitant fees to access credit. safe and secure atms Second, Treasury would provide assistance to banks and financial services automated networks that expand the availability of ATMs in safe, secure, and convenient locations in low-income neighborhoods. The availability of convenient and safe ATMs and point-of-sale terminals is taken for granted by most Americans. However, a substantial number of Americans live in communities where there are either no ATMs or the ATMs are located in unsafe and insecure environments. A recent Treasury analysis of census tracts in Los Angeles and New York showed that there were nearly twice as many ATMs in middle-income census tracts than there were in low-income areas. The absence of safe and secure ATMs in many neighborhoods places residents in situations that risk their personal safety. Every day many low- and moderate-income Americans decide between the risk of carrying large sums of money on their persons and going to an ATM at night. The FAA would increase the number of safe and secure access points into the financial mainstream by working with financial institutions and financial services networks to install ATMs in secure locations such as U.S. post offices. A pilot program between Treasury and a major financial institution has already placed ATMs in post offices in underserved communities in Baltimore and Tallahassee, and there are plans to expand the program to post offices across the country. financial literacy Third, FAA would support financial education for low- and moderate- income Americans. Proponents of affordable banking services and products have come to recognize that the creation and design of these services only represents an initial step to improving access for this segment of the population. States such as New York have discovered that despite the existence of affordable banking accounts targeted towards underserved communities, many people do not take advantage of such services because they either do not know that such services are available or do not believe that they would benefit. This lack of information remains one of the greatest obstacles to bringing ``unbanked'' Americans into the economic mainstream. Through partnerships with community organizations and a public awareness campaign, Treasury will educate low- and moderate-income Americans about the availability of affordable financial services and the usefulness of having a bank account, managing household finances and building assets. research and development Finally, the FAA authorizes the Treasury to conduct research and development in order to expand access to financial services for low- and moderate-income communities. The Administration has strongly supported expanding access to financial services for all Americans. The FAA would build upon and expand current initiatives by the Administration. The Administration's FY 2001 budget seeks an appropriation of $30 million in fiscal year 2001 for this program. The First Accounts Act will help millions of low- and moderate-income Americans who lack access to affordable and convenient financial services to become part of the economic mainstream. This will be to their benefit, the benefit of the financial institutions with which they do business, and the benefit of our society as a whole. This modest legislation can make an enormous contribution to giving all Americans the opportunity to participate fully in our current economic prosperity. I urge its support by all of my colleagues.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very serious problem facing our nation: millions of low- and moderate-income Americans lack adequate access to basic financial services. I am pleased to introduce the First Accounts Act of 2000 (``FAA''). This bill, which has been proposed by the Administration, establishes a pilot program within the Department of the Treasury designed to promote access to financial services for the millions of low- and moderate income persons currently facing barriers to affordable and convenient banking services. Joining as original co-sponsors in the introduction of this legislation are the Senate Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and my fellow Democratic members of the Banking Committee--Senators Dodd, Kerry, Bryan, Johnson, Reed, Schumer, Edwards, and Bayh. Access to basic banking services is essential for Americans seeking to participate fully in our increasingly complex financial and economic system. Unfortunately, recent studies show that millions of families lack access to affordable banking accounts and safe and secure ATMs, and do not have adequate knowledge of beneficial financial services and products. The lack of information and access to such financial services limits economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons, steers them toward high cost services offered by fringe operators in the financial services industry, reduces their ability to manage their finances and plan for the future, and may even place these individuals at a risk to their personal safety. Under the bill, the Treasury Department is authorized to partner with financial institutions, community organizations, and financial services electronic networks to improve access to mainstream financial services in four ways: affordable banking accounts, safe and secure ATMs, extensive financial literacy, and research and development efforts. Affordable Banking Accounts First, the bill would promote access to financial services by helping write-down the cost to depository institutions of establishing low-cost accounts for low- and moderate-income consumers. According to the Federal Reserve, approximately 8.4 million low- and moderate-income families did not have a bank account in 1998. This represents 22% of such households. The high cost of banking services--particularly high minimum opening balances and monthly fee--remains a major obstacle to many families establishing a relationship with a federally-insured depository institution. According to the Federal Reserve Board, the average minimum opening balance requirement was $115 in 1997. Moreover, a 1999 U.S. Public Interest Research Group study revealed that consumers who could not meet account minimum balances at banks paid an average of $217 annually. Althoguh seven states currently require banks to offer some form of low-cost banking accounts, there is a growing recognition that banks would voluntarily expand access to affordable accounts with appropriate encouragement. For instance, Treasury currently provides incentives under the Electronic Funds Transfer (``EFT'') program to banks that provide low-cost accounts for recipients of government checks. More than 538 federally-insured institutions signed up to offer the low-cost account during the first nine months of the EFT program. I am pleased to have worked closely with Treasury in developing the EFT program to extend its benefits to the ``unbanked'' who receive government checks. This legislation would build on that experience to extend the benefits of direct deposit accounts to those who receive private sector checks. The lack of access to basic banking services creates numerous difficulties for the ``unbanked.'' First, it increases the cost of financial transactions for law- and moderate-income persons. These individuals pay high service fees to check cashing outlets and other nonbanks when cashing checks and purchasing money orders. A 1998 study by the Organization for a New Equality showed that over a lifetime, a low-income family could pay over $15,000 in fees for cashing checks and paying bills outside the financial services mainstream. Moreover, the lack of a banking account often makes it difficult for low- and moderate-income individuals to establish traditional credit and limits their ability to access other financial products. First-time homeowner programs, rental property managers, utility companies, and credit card companies are increasingly requiring applicants to have bank accounts. In the absence of a relationship with banks, low- and moderate-income individuals often end up as customers of fringe bankers who charge them exorbitant fees to access credit. safe and secure atms Second, Treasury would provide assistance to banks and financial services automated networks that expand the availability of ATMs in safe, secure, and convenient locations in low-income neighborhoods. The availability of convenient and safe ATMs and point-of-sale terminals is taken for granted by most Americans. However, a substantial number of Americans live in communities where there are either no ATMs or the ATMs are located in unsafe and insecure environments. A recent Treasury analysis of census tracts in Los Angeles and New York showed that there were nearly twice as many ATMs in middle-income census tracts than there were in low-income areas. The absence of safe and secure ATMs in many neighborhoods places residents in situations that risk their personal safety. Every day many low- and moderate-income Americans decide between the risk of carrying large sums of money on their persons and going to an ATM at night. The FAA would increase the number of safe and secure access points into the financial mainstream by working with financial institutions and financial services networks to install ATMs in secure locations such as U.S. post offices. A pilot program between Treasury and a major financial institution has already placed ATMs in post offices in underserved communities in Baltimore and Tallahassee, and there are plans to expand the program to post offices across the country. financial literacy Third, FAA would support financial education for low- and moderate- income Americans. Proponents of affordable banking services and products have come to recognize that the creation and design of these services only represents an initial step to improving access for this segment of the population. States such as New York have discovered that despite the existence of affordable banking accounts targeted towards underserved communities, many people do not take advantage of such services because they either do not know that such services are available or do not believe that they would benefit. This lack of information remains one of the greatest obstacles to bringing ``unbanked'' Americans into the economic mainstream. Through partnerships with community organizations and a public awareness campaign, Treasury will educate low- and moderate-income Americans about the availability of affordable financial services and the usefulness of having a bank account, managing household finances and building assets. research and development Finally, the FAA authorizes the Treasury to conduct research and development in order to expand access to financial services for low- and moderate-income communities. The Administration has strongly supported expanding access to financial services for all Americans. The FAA would build upon and expand current initiatives by the Administration. The Administration's FY 2001 budget seeks an appropriation of $30 million in fiscal year 2001 for this program. The First Accounts Act will help millions of low- and moderate-income Americans who lack access to affordable and convenient financial services to become part of the economic mainstream. This will be to their benefit, the benefit of the financial institutions with which they do business, and the benefit of our society as a whole. This modest legislation can make an enormous contribution to giving all Americans the opportunity to participate fully in our current economic prosperity. I urge its support by all of my colleagues.