Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the National Science Foundation, an institution that has served as a driving force behind the Nation's scientific and technological development. The National Science Foundation's roots can be found at the close of World War II, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested a report from the government's wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development outlining how the United States should support scientific research in the postwar era. The resulting report, Science--The Endless Frontier, authored by Vannevar Bush, made the case for the establishment of a National Research Foundation and legislation based upon his findings was introduced by Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington. After five years of deliberation in the Congress, President Harry S. Truman signed legislation creating the National Science Foundation on May 10, 1950. Since that day, NSF has played a vital role in maintaining America's leadership position in scientific discovery and the development of new technologies, securing the nation's defense and promoting the nation's health and prosperity. Over the past 50 years, NSF-funded research has led to numerous scientific breakthroughs that have impacted the lives of every one of us. This research has resulted in projects and initiatives that include the development of the Internet, Doppler Radar, the American Sign Language Dictionary, DNA fingerprinting, MRI technology, barcodes, the identification of the Hanta Virus, and the discovery of the weather pattern known as El Nino/La Nina. This research has been responsible for creating new industries relating to communications, biotechnology, agriculture, and other important sectors of our economy. In turn, these industries have resulted in greater employment opportunities, economic prosperity and an improved quality of life for Americans and citizens around the world. NSF funds support the work and research of almost 200,000 people, including teachers, students, researchers, post-doctorates, and trainees. In fact, researchers and educators from each of the 50 states and all U.S. territories have been allotted NSF funding in the form of competitively awarded, grants, contracts and cooperative agreements. Almost 40% of the funding for research grants is awarded to our nation's students and researchers, providing support for more than 61,000 post-doctorates, trainees and graduates and undergraduate students. These are the individuals who will carry on the critical mission of NSF into the 21st century. The work undertaken by NSF researchers has not gone unnoticed. NSF- supported researchers have been the recipients of numerous awards and honors. More than 100 of these researchers have been awarded Nobel Prizes in fields that include physics, chemistry, physiology and economics. NSF researchers have also been awarded the National Medal of Science, National Medal of Technology, the Waterman, the Draper, the Presidential Early Career Awards in Science and Engineering and the Career awards, to name a few. I want to commend the men and women who have worked for NSF and received support from NSF who have contributed incalculably to the efforts that have established the United States as the leader in scientific and technological innovation and I want to recognize the outstanding leadership of the current Director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Rita Colwell, in this regard. I urge my colleagues to join with me in commending NSF on this important occasion and wishing them continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this is the ninth reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Regrettably, the reauthorization, as reported by Committee, is not in my view in the best interest of our Nation's children. Established as part of President Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, the original bill offered Federal support, for the first time, to schools in low-income communities. It underscored the importance of ensuring that all American children have access to quality education. As the time has come to again reauthorize this important legislation that provides opportunity and hope to so many citizens, the negotiations have taken a drastically partisan turn. Members of the Majority have argued that, because states have paramount responsibilities for education, the role of the Federal Government should be diminished. However, that argument ignores our Nation's interest in ensuring an educated citizenry which is vital to the strength of our country, the continued health of our economy, and our ability to compete internationally. On previous occasions, we have worked together to provide the Federal Government's 7 percent share of elementary and secondary education funding to the citizens of our country. We came together, despite our differences, to provide for the less fortunate in society. We came together to make progress on strengthening and improving public schools in every community, while ensuring that the Federal Government retained its mission of targeting the neediest communities. The Congress and the President showed leadership in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and with the passage of the GOALS 2000 legislation, which established a new benchmark in setting higher standards and moving our educational system in a new direction. Now, after years of tested programs and studies, the Majority wants to go back to the days of block grant funding to states and remove the Federal Government's ability to ensure that we have a targeted and responsible use of our citizens' tax dollars. At a time when the Nation is enjoying remarkable economic prosperity, we should be working to increase the Federal investment in education to help states, communities, and schools meet the demands of higher standards of achievement, and address the challenges of diversity, poverty, and the lack of technology advancements in some communities. We need to do all we can to target resources to the neediest communities so that the most disadvantaged students get a good education. During the last two years, we have been able to come together as a Congress and support the President's proposal to provide more teachers to the classrooms to lower class sizes. Over $2.5 billion has been provided for the purpose of recruiting, hiring, and training teachers. Now the Majority would have us retreat from this critical effort to provide more qualified teachers and reduced class sizes. And it is well settled that smaller class sizes enhances student achievement. Smaller classes enable teachers to provide greater individual attention and assistance to students in need. Smaller classes enable teachers to spend more time on instruction, and less time on discipline and behavior problems. In smaller classes, teachers cover material more effectively, and are able to work with parents more effectively to enhance their children's education. Mr. President, the Majority's centerpiece for this legislation, the so-called ``Straight A's program'', whether in the 50-state or the 15- state form--abandons our commitment to help the Nation's most disadvantaged children receive a good education through proven and effective programs. The bill before us would give states a blank check for over $12 billion--and then turns its back on holding states accountable for results. In addition, the Majority undermines the cornerstone of our education reform by making Title I funds ``portable.'' Portability dilutes the impact that Title I funding has on individual public schools that serve all children. Supporters go to great lengths to avoid admitting that this funding could be used for private, religious, or for-profit services in the form of vouchers, but indeed, this is the case. Vouchers threaten to drain public schools of greatly needed public tax dollars and send the message that when public schools, which educate 90 percent of American children, do not work, they should be abandoned rather than fixed. As we confront a world that is increasingly complex both technologically and economically, it is critical that we continue to meet the educational needs of our Nation's young people. It is in my view imperative that we maintain strong Federal support to ensure the successful continuation of education programs serving our country's young people. The legislation as submitted by the Majority diminishes the Federal role and does not provide accountability for education standards. This is an unfortunate departure from years of bipartisan support and movement towards higher achievement for all of our young people. Mr. President, I have a longstanding and deep commitment to the goal of ensuring a quality education for all citizens. The bill before us would retreat from that goal by sharply reducing the Federal role in education--a role, that while narrow in scope, is critical to ensuring reform in our schools and real improvements in student performance, particularly among our neediest students and in our neediest communities.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to spotlight the significant achievements of all those who make up our Nation's public workforce. This week, from May 1st to the 7th, is Public Service Recognition Week, organized by the Public Employees Roundtable. The Public Employees Roundtable was formed in 1982 as a nonpartisan coalition of management and professional associations representing approximately one million public employees and retirees. The mission of the Roundtable is to educate the American people about the numerous ways public employees enrich the quality of life throughout our Nation and advance the country's national interests around the world. I am indeed proud to join the Public Employees Roundtable in their ongoing efforts to bring special attention to the dedicated individuals who have chosen public service as a career. While we should all appreciate the efforts of public employees throughout the year, this week-long celebration is an invaluable opportunity to honor their contributions and learn about the vast array of programs and services public employees provide every day. For four days, starting today, a wide variety of organizations will sponsor exhibits on the Mall to spotlight the work public employees perform. This year, among the numerous agencies represented, will be the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps; and the Social Security Administration. These exhibits sponsored by civilian and Department of Defense agencies will showcase the amazing variety of public employees that make ours the greatest Nation in the world--at the Federal, state, and local government levels. This year, I was also pleased to join with several of my House and Senate colleagues in circulating to every Congressional office a videotape entitled ``Salute to Excellence,'' produced by the Public Employees Roundtable. In a brief 10 minutes, the video clearly demonstrates that our Nation's public servants are hard- working individuals who perform vital work for the country each and every day. The total impact of the work of public employees is impossible to measure. Without them, senior citizens would wait in vain for Social Security checks, cities would not have the funds and assistance to improve their highways, and our entrepreneurs could not protect their new inventions. In short, all of our citizens would suffer. Initiatives to improve government services have encouraged the development of creative solutions and programs to better serve our citizens. Several of these innovative ideas were recognized at the ``Breakfast of Champions'' held this Monday honoring winners of the 2000 Public Service Excellence Awards. These honorees--and public employees everywhere--are finding ways to do their work better, more professionally, and in a way that meets the community's needs. As I have said on many occasions, I believe very much that the United States will only continue to be a first-rate country if we have first- class public servants. Our Nation is experiencing unprecedented growth and unemployment rates, and has unquestionably benefited from the many achievements of Federal employees. In setting aside this week to acknowledge our Nation's public servants, we all have an opportunity to give these employees the thanks and recognition they so greatly deserve. I am very pleased to extend my appreciation to such a worthy and committed group of men and women and encourage them to continue in their efforts on behalf of all Americans.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very important issue: the protection of every American's personal, sensitive, financial and medical information which is held by their financial institutions. I am pleased to join Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Democratic Privacy Task Force, and Senators Dodd, Kerry, Bryan, Edwards, Robb, Durbin, Harkin, and Feinstein in co-sponsoring the Financial Information Privacy Protection Act. This bill, submitted to us by the Clinton-Gore Administration, seeks to protect a fundamental right of privacy for every American who entrusts his or her highly sensitive and confidential financial and medical information to a financial institution. Every American should at least have the opportunity to say `no' if he or she does not want that nonpublic information disclosed. Every American should have the right to have especially sensitive information held by his or her financial institution kept confidential unless consent is given. Every American should be allowed to make certain that the information to be shared is accurate and, if not, to have it corrected. And these rights should be enforced. Mr. President, the Financial Information Privacy Protection Act would accomplish these objectives. Few Americans understand that, under current Federal law, a financial institution could take information it obtained about a customer through his or her transactions, and sell or transfer that information to an affiliated party without the customer being able to object. And that customer has no right to get access to or to correct that information. The amount of information that could be disclosed is enormous. It includes, for example: Savings and checking account balances; Certificate of deposit maturity dates and balances; Checks an individual writes; Checks deposited into a customer's account; Stock and mutual fund purchases and sales; Life insurance payouts; and Health insurance claims. Today's technology makes it easier, faster, and less costly than ever for institutions to have immediate access to large amounts of customer information; to analyze that data; and to send that data to others. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies are increasingly affiliating and cross-marketing and, in the process, they are selling the products of affiliates to existing customers. This can entail the warehousing of large amounts of highly sensitive customer information and selling it to or sharing it with other companies, for purposes unknown to the customer. While cross-marketing can bring new and beneficial products to receptive consumers, it can also result in unwanted invasions of personal privacy. Surveys show that the public is widely concerned about privacy. Major corporations have bumped up against privacy concerns when expanding their marketing services. Citizen groups have expressed serious concerns about the privacy implications of financial institutions' sharing or selling the information they collect without the knowledge of the party involved. Along with medical records, financial records rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most expect will be kept from prying eyes. As with medical data, though, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial data has been increasingly put at risk by mergers, electronic data-swapping and the move to an economy in which the selling of other people's personal information is highly profitable--and legal. On January 19, 1999, I introduced the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999 (S. 187) to provide consumers with important privacy protections for their financial information. Some of these protections are reflected in this bill, including a right for consumers to object, or opt out, of their financial institutions sharing with affiliates customer information, such as account transactions, balances and maturity dates as well as rights for the consumer to have access to and to correct mistakes in information that would be shared. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, enacted last November, contained some limited federal financial privacy protections for consumers. While an important beginning, these protections failed to meet the expectations of Americans and did not contain the important protections that I have just referred to. When the President signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, he observed that the privacy protections contained in the new legislation were inadequate. In his State of the Union Address this year, the President reiterated the need for stronger privacy legislation. Last Sunday, the President announced a proposal for improved financial privacy protections. He said, ``We can't let breakthroughs in technology break down walls of privacy.'' I agree and applaud the Clinton-Gore Administration's proposal as an important step forward. The Financial Privacy Protection Act reflects the Administration's proposal and contains important financial privacy protections. The Act would provide an ``opt out'' for affiliate sharing, allowing customers to object to a financial institution's sharing customer financial data with any affiliated firms. It also would provide an ``opt in'' for sharing some types of ``sensitive information.'' A financial institution would need to have a consumer's affirmative consent before releasing his or her medical information or personal spending habits, reflected on checks written and credit card charges, to either an affiliate or an unaffiliated third party. The Act also provides consumers with rights of access and correction. A consumer would be able to see the information to be released and correct material errors. The Act also requires financial institutions to make privacy notices available to consumers who request them and makes other important improvements to the law. As we proceed in an age of technological advances and cross-industry marketing of financial services, we need to be mindful of the privacy concerns of the American public. I ask myself the question, ``Whose information is this, the individual's or the institution's?'' I believe it is the individual's. Consumers who wish to keep their sensitive financial and medical information private should be given a right to do so. The passage of the Financial Information Privacy Act would be a step toward that goal.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very important issue: the protection of every American's personal, sensitive, financial and medical information which is held by their financial institutions. I am pleased to join Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Democratic Privacy Task Force, and Senators Dodd, Kerry, Bryan, Edwards, Robb, Durbin, Harkin, and Feinstein in co-sponsoring the Financial Information Privacy Protection Act. This bill, submitted to us by the Clinton-Gore Administration, seeks to protect a fundamental right of privacy for every American who entrusts his or her highly sensitive and confidential financial and medical information to a financial institution. Every American should at least have the opportunity to say `no' if he or she does not want that nonpublic information disclosed. Every American should have the right to have especially sensitive information held by his or her financial institution kept confidential unless consent is given. Every American should be allowed to make certain that the information to be shared is accurate and, if not, to have it corrected. And these rights should be enforced. Mr. President, the Financial Information Privacy Protection Act would accomplish these objectives. Few Americans understand that, under current Federal law, a financial institution could take information it obtained about a customer through his or her transactions, and sell or transfer that information to an affiliated party without the customer being able to object. And that customer has no right to get access to or to correct that information. The amount of information that could be disclosed is enormous. It includes, for example: Savings and checking account balances; Certificate of deposit maturity dates and balances; Checks an individual writes; Checks deposited into a customer's account; Stock and mutual fund purchases and sales; Life insurance payouts; and Health insurance claims. Today's technology makes it easier, faster, and less costly than ever for institutions to have immediate access to large amounts of customer information; to analyze that data; and to send that data to others. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies are increasingly affiliating and cross-marketing and, in the process, they are selling the products of affiliates to existing customers. This can entail the warehousing of large amounts of highly sensitive customer information and selling it to or sharing it with other companies, for purposes unknown to the customer. While cross-marketing can bring new and beneficial products to receptive consumers, it can also result in unwanted invasions of personal privacy. Surveys show that the public is widely concerned about privacy. Major corporations have bumped up against privacy concerns when expanding their marketing services. Citizen groups have expressed serious concerns about the privacy implications of financial institutions' sharing or selling the information they collect without the knowledge of the party involved. Along with medical records, financial records rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most expect will be kept from prying eyes. As with medical data, though, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial data has been increasingly put at risk by mergers, electronic data-swapping and the move to an economy in which the selling of other people's personal information is highly profitable--and legal. On January 19, 1999, I introduced the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999 (S. 187) to provide consumers with important privacy protections for their financial information. Some of these protections are reflected in this bill, including a right for consumers to object, or opt out, of their financial institutions sharing with affiliates customer information, such as account transactions, balances and maturity dates as well as rights for the consumer to have access to and to correct mistakes in information that would be shared. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, enacted last November, contained some limited federal financial privacy protections for consumers. While an important beginning, these protections failed to meet the expectations of Americans and did not contain the important protections that I have just referred to. When the President signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, he observed that the privacy protections contained in the new legislation were inadequate. In his State of the Union Address this year, the President reiterated the need for stronger privacy legislation. Last Sunday, the President announced a proposal for improved financial privacy protections. He said, ``We can't let breakthroughs in technology break down walls of privacy.'' I agree and applaud the Clinton-Gore Administration's proposal as an important step forward. The Financial Privacy Protection Act reflects the Administration's proposal and contains important financial privacy protections. The Act would provide an ``opt out'' for affiliate sharing, allowing customers to object to a financial institution's sharing customer financial data with any affiliated firms. It also would provide an ``opt in'' for sharing some types of ``sensitive information.'' A financial institution would need to have a consumer's affirmative consent before releasing his or her medical information or personal spending habits, reflected on checks written and credit card charges, to either an affiliate or an unaffiliated third party. The Act also provides consumers with rights of access and correction. A consumer would be able to see the information to be released and correct material errors. The Act also requires financial institutions to make privacy notices available to consumers who request them and makes other important improvements to the law. As we proceed in an age of technological advances and cross-industry marketing of financial services, we need to be mindful of the privacy concerns of the American public. I ask myself the question, ``Whose information is this, the individual's or the institution's?'' I believe it is the individual's. Consumers who wish to keep their sensitive financial and medical information private should be given a right to do so. The passage of the Financial Information Privacy Act would be a step toward that goal.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleague, Senator Mikulski, to enhance fire safety and protection in the United States Capitol and the buildings within the Capitol Complex. Last year, in response to a request made by congressional employees under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance conducted a fire safety inspection of the Capitol Complex. The resulting report, the Report on Fire Safety Inspections of Congressional Buildings, outlined an alarming number of fire code violations in the U.S. Capitol, as well as the House and Senate Office Buildings. The report identified significant fire code violations existing throughout every one of these buildings, including, but not limited to, ``lack of fire barriers to retard the spread of fire and smoke, inadequate exit signs and exit capacity, deficient emergency lighting, limited sprinkler coverage, and dangerous storage of flammable and toxic materials.'' Furthermore, in March, the Office of Compliance issued eight citations ordering the Architect of the Capitol, who is responsible for fire safety and protection within the Complex, to take action to increase fire alarm and sprinkler systems testing and improve the training of staff in the handling of hazardous materials. My legislation seeks to address these fire code violations by improving upon the expertise and accountability of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol with regard to fire safety. The measure establishes a position to be appointed by and responsible to the Architect to meet his responsibility for fire safety and protection within the Capitol Complex. The Director of Fire Safety and Protection will work to ensure that all properties under the jurisdiction of the Architect, including the U.S. Capitol, House and Senate Office Buildings, Library of Congress, U.S. Botanical Gardens, and the Capitol Power Plant, meet the applicable codes and standards established by the National Fire Protection Association. The Director will be responsible for conducting regular inspections of the properties, as well as their fire alarm and protection systems, and training employees of the Architect of the Capitol in the proper use and maintenance of these systems and the storage of hazardous chemicals and materials. This legislation would also require the Director to make semiannual reports to the Congress on the progress of his or her efforts in making the Capitol Complex fire-safe. As a longtime advocate for historic preservation, I want to stress that this legislation recognizes the historic nature of the buildings under the jurisdiction of the Architect and provides the Director with the flexibility necessary to ensure that the properties are preserved and rehabilitated in such a manner to retain their historical and architectural significance. Mr. President, the United States Capitol Fire Protection Act is an important step in addressing a critical situation. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleague, Senator Mikulski, to enhance fire safety and protection in the United States Capitol and the buildings within the Capitol Complex. Last year, in response to a request made by congressional employees under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance conducted a fire safety inspection of the Capitol Complex. The resulting report, the Report on Fire Safety Inspections of Congressional Buildings, outlined an alarming number of fire code violations in the U.S. Capitol, as well as the House and Senate Office Buildings. The report identified significant fire code violations existing throughout every one of these buildings, including, but not limited to, ``lack of fire barriers to retard the spread of fire and smoke, inadequate exit signs and exit capacity, deficient emergency lighting, limited sprinkler coverage, and dangerous storage of flammable and toxic materials.'' Furthermore, in March, the Office of Compliance issued eight citations ordering the Architect of the Capitol, who is responsible for fire safety and protection within the Complex, to take action to increase fire alarm and sprinkler systems testing and improve the training of staff in the handling of hazardous materials. My legislation seeks to address these fire code violations by improving upon the expertise and accountability of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol with regard to fire safety. The measure establishes a position to be appointed by and responsible to the Architect to meet his responsibility for fire safety and protection within the Capitol Complex. The Director of Fire Safety and Protection will work to ensure that all properties under the jurisdiction of the Architect, including the U.S. Capitol, House and Senate Office Buildings, Library of Congress, U.S. Botanical Gardens, and the Capitol Power Plant, meet the applicable codes and standards established by the National Fire Protection Association. The Director will be responsible for conducting regular inspections of the properties, as well as their fire alarm and protection systems, and training employees of the Architect of the Capitol in the proper use and maintenance of these systems and the storage of hazardous chemicals and materials. This legislation would also require the Director to make semiannual reports to the Congress on the progress of his or her efforts in making the Capitol Complex fire-safe. As a longtime advocate for historic preservation, I want to stress that this legislation recognizes the historic nature of the buildings under the jurisdiction of the Architect and provides the Director with the flexibility necessary to ensure that the properties are preserved and rehabilitated in such a manner to retain their historical and architectural significance. Mr. President, the United States Capitol Fire Protection Act is an important step in addressing a critical situation. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing appreciation to Senator Wellstone for arranging for this period this morning to give us a chance to send a message to Mike, and to talk with him, as it were, long distance for just a few minutes. I was struck as I listened to my colleagues as they spoke about Mike's attributes. His kindness, his warmth, which I think everyone who came in contact with him would subscribe to. I still remember him on the staff back row here in the Chamber with, I guess one might call it, a mischievous smile on his face, and his generosity with his counsel. Presumably Senator Wellstone was aware and gave a special dispensation to all of us to contact Mike, even though he was working for Paul, for his counsel and advice on matters that were before the Senate. I took advantage of that opportunity on many an occasion, and always benefited from it. He has been spoken about by many of my colleagues as an institution in the Senate, and I think that is very true. But I want to make this point in talking about Mike as an institution, and the impact he had on this body. I think we are also paying a tribute to all of the loyal and hard-working staff in the Senate who make it possible for this institution to function and to play its proper role in the American constitutional system. He and Senator Wellstone developed a very close relationship. As some have noted, they were like family--like brothers towards one another. But Mike's family is also all of us because he was such a caring friend. So this is a trying time. Mike, we want you to know that you are very much in our thoughts and in our prayers, and as the Chaplain said this morning when he opened the Senate and pronounced his blessing we also hope that you will derive some peace and harmony from this conversation. I want to talk for a moment about Mike Epstein as a thoroughly committed fighter for progressive principles. As others have noted, when he finished law school in 1961 at Boston University where he graduated with honors and was an editor of the Law Review, he came to Washington and went to work for the Justice Department. That was headed at the time by another Kennedy. Mike enlisted in that effort and served with great distinction in the Department of Justice for almost 10 years. He then came to Capitol Hill and held a number of very significant responsibilities in the Senate: Counsel to Senator Kennedy; then Counsel to the special committee to investigate intelligence activities, the Church committee. He was counsel to the Select Committee on Intelligence; counsel to the Democratic leader. For more than two years, he was chief counsel to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which is where I got to know him best. I had that wonderful opportunity to work closely with Mike and I still treasure the close relationship we developed. Consistently throughout all these responsibilities, Mike reflected his abiding commitment to the U.S. Constitution. He understood the significance of the Constitution in our political system, and Mike, again and again in carrying out your responsibilities, your determination that we should pay appropriate respect and deference to the Constitution constantly came through. Secondly, I was struck by Mike's commitment to American democracy. It is a complicated business to make American democracy work--We are a very diverse, pluralistic nation. We are now getting up towards 300 million people. Mike understood the importance of opportunity and fairness for the workings of the American political system and was constantly committed to those goals and to those objectives. He had an abiding commitment to working people. As Senator Kennedy noted, there are hosts of people across the country who never met Mike Epstein and don't know his name, but lead better lives today because of the work and the commitment of Mike Epstein here in the Halls of the Congress for now almost three decades. So Mike, we want to take this opportunity to just talk with you and tell you how much you have meant to all of us. I want to close with one final observation. Mike, throughout all of this commitment and tough fighting for principle and for causes, you consistently reflected a civility and a decency and a respect for others which I think, explains, why you have come so much into the hearts of so many people. I join others in expressing my gratitude to you for all you have meant to us, and in wishing you the very best now in this difficult and trying time, and in saying a very heartfelt thank you for being our friend.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act with Senators Dodd, Kerry, and Schumer. This legislation is a companion to an identical bill being introduced by Representative LaFalce in the House of Representatives, along with a number of his colleagues. Representative LaFalce has demonstrated his strong commitment to a banking system that takes into consideration the credit needs of all Americans, including those that have been traditionally locked out of the market or are less sophisticated. I thank him for his leadership. Homeownership is the American Dream. It is the opportunity for all Americans to put down roots and start creating equity for themselves and their families. Homeownership has been the path to building wealth for generations of Americans; it has been the key to ensuring stable communities, good schools, and safe streets. The predatory lending industry plays on these hopes and dreams to cheat people of their hard-earned wealth. These lenders target working and lower income families, the elderly, and, often, uneducated homeowners for their abusive practices. To my mind, nothing can be more cynical. Let me briefly describe how predatory lenders operate. They target people with a lot of equity in their homes; they underwrite the property without regard to the ability of the borrower to pay the loan back. They make their money by charging extremely high origination fees, and by ``packing'' other products into the loan, including upfront premiums for credit life insurance, or credit unemployment insurance, and others, for which they get significant commissions but are of no value to the homeowner. The premiums for these products get financed into the loan, greatly increasing the loan's total balance amount, sometimes by as much as 50 percent. As a result, the borrower is likely to find himself in extreme financial distress. Then, when the trouble hits, the predatory lender will offer to refinance the loan. Unfortunately, another characteristic of these loans is that they have prepayment penalties. So, by the time the refinancing occurs, with all the fees repeated and the prepayment penalty included, the lender/broker makes a lot of money from the transaction, and the owner has been stripped of his or her equity and, oftentimes, his or her home. The problem is, most of these practices, while unethical and clearly abusive, are legal. There is a widening sense that this is a serious problem. Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve Board has recognized this as an increasing problem, as have the other banking regulators. For example, the FDIC is considering raising capital standards for all subprime lending; the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) asking for information and views on these very practices; HUD Secretary Cuomo and Treasury Secretary Summers have convened a Task Force on this issue. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have developed a number of products that are intended to reach out to homeowners with somewhat impaired credit in order to bring them into the financial mainstream. These companies have also announced that they will not buy loans with single premium credit insurance financed into the loan, one of the problems highlighted by this legislation. Clearly, there is already some action to address the problem of predatory lending. But we need to do more. This legislation will outlaw the most abusive practices, and enable the marketplace to eliminate the others. This is a very important point. Let me give you an example. The bill prohibits the financing of more than 3% of a loan in fees for high cost loans, because it is the financing of fees and premiums on extraneous products that literally strip the equity out of a person's home. However, the bill would not prohibit additional fees from being charged, so we are not regulating profit. We want to make sure that the loan is affordable to the borrower. Tying the lender's return to the loan's successful repayment is the best way to assure this. Now, some people have raised concerns that limiting the financing of fees will push up interest rates. This may be true, but it is also better to see the return to the lender reflected in the interest rate because it is much easier for people to shop on the basis of the interest rate. As a result, the market will help to keep rates down. Moreover, higher rate mortgages can always be refinanced as borrower's credit standing improves. Mr. President, this legislation has the support of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Association of Retired People, the National Consumer Law Center, the Self-Help Credit Union of North Carolina, Consumers Union, Consumers Federation, ACORN, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, U.S. PIRG and others. I want to make clear that this bill is aimed at predatory practices. There are many people who may have had some credit problems who still need access to affordable credit. They may only be able to get subprime loans, which charge higher interest rates. Clearly, to get the credit, they will have to pay somewhat higher rates because of the greater risk they represent. We want them to be able to get these loans. But these families should not be stripped of their home equity through financing of extremely high fees, credit insurance, or prepayment penalties. They should not be forced into constant refinancing, losing more and more of the wealth they've taken a lifetime to build to a new set of fees each and every time. This legislation will keep credit available, while discouraging or prohibiting these worst practices. The bill allows lenders to recover the costs of making their loans, while always leaving the door open to borrowers to repair their credit and move to lower cost loans. Taken as a whole, predatory lending practices represent a frontal assault on homeowners all over America. Today, we are coming to their defense. We must stop the American dream of homeownership from being distorted into a nightmare by these unscrupulous practices. We want to ensure that all borrowers, whether in the prime or subprime market, are treated fairly and responsibly. That is what this legislation is intended to do, and I urge my colleagues' consideration and support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Hollings, in introducing, by request, the Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000 proposed and announced yesterday by Vice President Gore. This legislation is an important step forward in improving safety and environmental protection in oil and gas pipelines. Mr. President, last Friday night, the State of Maryland experienced a major oil spill--one its worst spills in many years. More than 110,000 gallons of No. 2 oil leaked from a pipe at Pepco's Chalk Point Generating Station into Swanson Creek in Prince Georges County. Bad weather and high winds exacerbated the problem and spread the spill into the Patuxent River. It has now affected some 8 miles of shoreline, acres of sensitive wetland habitat, and dozens of wildlife in three counties along the Patuxent. Six federal agencies--EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board--are on site coordinating clean-up activities and investigations into the causes of the leak. The Maryland Departments of the Environment and Natural Resources have taken steps to protect and rehabilitate impacted wildlife and to restrict harvesting in clam and oyster beds in the area. Pepco crews and contractors have recovered more than 70,000 gallons of the spilled oil. But recovering or cleaning up the remaining oil will be much more difficult and its cumulative impact on the environment will not be known for months, if not years. The Federal and State agencies have an important responsibility to ensure that Pepco does everything possible to clean up the spill and remediate the environmental and economic damage. But an aggressive clean-up effort must be accompanied with a comprehensive program to prevent such spills from occurring in the first place. While the precise cause of this oil leak is not yet known and is still under investigation, steps can and must be taken to help detect problems before pipelines fail and to minimize the environmental and other consequences of a failure. The Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act being introduced today would reauthorize and enhance the U.S. Department of Transportation's pipeline safety program by increasing inspection and testing of pipeline integrity. It would require pipeline operators to take extra precautions in populated or environmentally sensitive areas, such as the area where the Pepco spill occurred. It would strengthen enforcement authorities by expanding penalties for violations and compliance monitoring by Federal and State investigators. It would expand research into new technologies for monitoring pipelines and detecting leaks. Finally, it would strengthen Community-Right-to-Know and reporting requirements on releases and authorize additional funding for the Department's and State pipeline safety activities. Mr. President, this legislation is strongly supported by the State of Maryland and represents a constructive step forward in enhancing safety and environmental protection in pipeline transportation. I look forward to working with the members of the Commerce Committee as they consider this and other proposals to reauthorize the pipeline safety program.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act with Senators Dodd, Kerry, and Schumer. This legislation is a companion to an identical bill being introduced by Representative LaFalce in the House of Representatives, along with a number of his colleagues. Representative LaFalce has demonstrated his strong commitment to a banking system that takes into consideration the credit needs of all Americans, including those that have been traditionally locked out of the market or are less sophisticated. I thank him for his leadership. Homeownership is the American Dream. It is the opportunity for all Americans to put down roots and start creating equity for themselves and their families. Homeownership has been the path to building wealth for generations of Americans; it has been the key to ensuring stable communities, good schools, and safe streets. The predatory lending industry plays on these hopes and dreams to cheat people of their hard-earned wealth. These lenders target working and lower income families, the elderly, and, often, uneducated homeowners for their abusive practices. To my mind, nothing can be more cynical. Let me briefly describe how predatory lenders operate. They target people with a lot of equity in their homes; they underwrite the property without regard to the ability of the borrower to pay the loan back. They make their money by charging extremely high origination fees, and by ``packing'' other products into the loan, including upfront premiums for credit life insurance, or credit unemployment insurance, and others, for which they get significant commissions but are of no value to the homeowner. The premiums for these products get financed into the loan, greatly increasing the loan's total balance amount, sometimes by as much as 50 percent. As a result, the borrower is likely to find himself in extreme financial distress. Then, when the trouble hits, the predatory lender will offer to refinance the loan. Unfortunately, another characteristic of these loans is that they have prepayment penalties. So, by the time the refinancing occurs, with all the fees repeated and the prepayment penalty included, the lender/broker makes a lot of money from the transaction, and the owner has been stripped of his or her equity and, oftentimes, his or her home. The problem is, most of these practices, while unethical and clearly abusive, are legal. There is a widening sense that this is a serious problem. Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve Board has recognized this as an increasing problem, as have the other banking regulators. For example, the FDIC is considering raising capital standards for all subprime lending; the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) asking for information and views on these very practices; HUD Secretary Cuomo and Treasury Secretary Summers have convened a Task Force on this issue. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have developed a number of products that are intended to reach out to homeowners with somewhat impaired credit in order to bring them into the financial mainstream. These companies have also announced that they will not buy loans with single premium credit insurance financed into the loan, one of the problems highlighted by this legislation. Clearly, there is already some action to address the problem of predatory lending. But we need to do more. This legislation will outlaw the most abusive practices, and enable the marketplace to eliminate the others. This is a very important point. Let me give you an example. The bill prohibits the financing of more than 3% of a loan in fees for high cost loans, because it is the financing of fees and premiums on extraneous products that literally strip the equity out of a person's home. However, the bill would not prohibit additional fees from being charged, so we are not regulating profit. We want to make sure that the loan is affordable to the borrower. Tying the lender's return to the loan's successful repayment is the best way to assure this. Now, some people have raised concerns that limiting the financing of fees will push up interest rates. This may be true, but it is also better to see the return to the lender reflected in the interest rate because it is much easier for people to shop on the basis of the interest rate. As a result, the market will help to keep rates down. Moreover, higher rate mortgages can always be refinanced as borrower's credit standing improves. Mr. President, this legislation has the support of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Association of Retired People, the National Consumer Law Center, the Self-Help Credit Union of North Carolina, Consumers Union, Consumers Federation, ACORN, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, U.S. PIRG and others. I want to make clear that this bill is aimed at predatory practices. There are many people who may have had some credit problems who still need access to affordable credit. They may only be able to get subprime loans, which charge higher interest rates. Clearly, to get the credit, they will have to pay somewhat higher rates because of the greater risk they represent. We want them to be able to get these loans. But these families should not be stripped of their home equity through financing of extremely high fees, credit insurance, or prepayment penalties. They should not be forced into constant refinancing, losing more and more of the wealth they've taken a lifetime to build to a new set of fees each and every time. This legislation will keep credit available, while discouraging or prohibiting these worst practices. The bill allows lenders to recover the costs of making their loans, while always leaving the door open to borrowers to repair their credit and move to lower cost loans. Taken as a whole, predatory lending practices represent a frontal assault on homeowners all over America. Today, we are coming to their defense. We must stop the American dream of homeownership from being distorted into a nightmare by these unscrupulous practices. We want to ensure that all borrowers, whether in the prime or subprime market, are treated fairly and responsibly. That is what this legislation is intended to do, and I urge my colleagues' consideration and support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, this week from April 9-15 we are celebrating the 42nd anniversary of ``National Library Week.'' As a strong and vigorous supporter of Federal initiatives to strengthen and protect libraries, I am pleased to take this opportunity to draw my colleagues' attention to this important occasion and to take a few moments to reflect on the significance of libraries to our nation. When the free public library came into its own in this country in the 19th century, it was, from the beginning, a unique institution because of its commitment to the same principle of free and open exchange of ideas as the Constitution itself. Libraries have always been an integral part of all that our country embodies: freedom of information, an educated citizenry, and an open and enlightened society. They are the only public agencies in which the services rendered are intended for, and available to, every segment of our society. It has been my longstanding view that libraries play an indispensable role in our communities. From modest beginnings in the mid-19th century, today's libraries provide well-stocked reference centers and wide-ranging loan services based on a system of branches, often further supplemented by travelling libraries serving outlying districts. Libraries promote the reading of books among adults, adolescents, and children and provide the access and resources to allow citizens to obtain reliable information on a vast array of topics. Libraries gain even further significance in this age of rapid technological advancement where they are called upon to provide not only books and periodicals, but many other valuable resources as well. In today's society, libraries provide audio-visual materials, computer services, internet access terminals, facilities for community lectures and performances, tapes, records, videocassettes, and works of art for exhibit and loan to the public. In addition, special facilities libraries provide services for older Americans, people with disabilities, and hospitalized citizens. Of course, libraries are not merely passive repositories of materials. They are engines of learning--the place where a spark is often struck for disadvantaged citizens who for whatever reason have not had exposure to the vast stores of knowledge available. I have the greatest respect for those individuals who are members of the library community and work so hard to ensure that our citizens and communities continue to enjoy the tremendous rewards available through our library system. As we celebrate National Library Week, it should be noted that the Library of Congress will be 200 years old on April 24, 2000. The Library of Congress represents the oldest federal cultural institution in America. As we approach this birthday celebration, we should recognize that all libraries represent the cornerstone of knowledge in our local communities. My own State of Maryland has 24 public library systems providing a full range of library services to all Maryland citizens and a long tradition of open and unrestricted sharing of resources. This policy has been enhanced by the State Library Network which provides interlibrary loans to the State's public, academic, special libraries and school library media centers. The Network receives strong support from the State Library Resource Center at the Enoch Pratt Free Library, the Regional Library Resource Centers in Western, Southern, and Eastern Shore counties, and a Statewide database of holdings totalling 178 libraries. The State Library Resource Center alone gives Marylanders free access to approximately 2 million books and bound magazines, over 1 million U.S. Government documents, 600,000 documents in microform, 11,000 periodicals, 90,000 maps, 20,000 Maryland State documents, and over 19,000 videos and films. The result of this unique joint State-County resource sharing is an extraordinary level of library services available to the citizens of Maryland. Marylanders have responded to this outstanding service by borrowing more public library materials per person than citizens of almost any other State, with 67 percent of the State's population registered as library patrons. I have had a close working relationship with members of the Maryland Library Association and others involved in the library community throughout the State, and I am very pleased to join with them and citizens throughout the nation in this week's celebration of ``National Library Week.'' I look forward to a continued close association with those who enable libraries to provide the unique and vital services available to all Americans.

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Senators Durbin, Schumer and Kennedy to fully fund the President's firearms law enforcement initiatives. Clearly, the gun violence facing our Nation is a complex problem, and there is disagreement in the Congress about the need for additional firearms legislation. However, many of my colleagues--both Democratic and Republican alike--are heeding the call of their constituents and advocating more stringent enforcement of our existing gun laws. With our Nation experiencing unprecedented fiscal health, we now have the opportunity to provide law enforcement with the resources it so urgently needs to enforce those laws. The Administration recognized that opportunity, and included in its proposed budget approximately $284 million to fund the largest national gun enforcement initiative in our history. Mr. President, the Republican budget resolution does not include this $284 million for gun enforcement measures and, as a result, jeopardizes programs that have begun to make a real impact and helped to reduce firearms violence. For example, in my own State of Maryland, our United States Attorney, Lynne Battaglia has utilized Project DISARM--a cooperative effort between Federal, State, county, and local law enforcement officials that targets violent and repeat offenders for prosecution under Federal firearms laws. Similar to Richmond, Virginia's well-known ``Project Exile,'' Project DISARM was initiated in 1994 and has real potential for reducing firearm violence across the State. Despite the initial success of Project DISARM--and tough Maryland laws that also prohibit felons from possessing firearms --the program simply does not have the resources to prosecute every person who violates these Federal laws. Project DISARM works with a limited staff, which is also responsible for prosecuting complex drug and money laundering cases. Simply put, for Project DISARM to effectively reduce further gun violence, additional prosecutors are needed. The President's $284 million gun control and enforcement initiative would add 500 new Federal ATF agents and over 1,000 new Federal, State and local prosecutors; $14.5 million of these funds would be used to create 163 positions--including 113 attorneys--to bolster firearms prosecution efforts like Project DISARM. The resources provided in the President's budget are critical to Maryland's efforts to prevent gun violence, and could save lives in my State. Whatever our views on new gun control measures, we must work to ensure that our existing laws are enforced to their fullest extent-- which will not occur unless law enforcement agencies have the resources to investigate and prosecute crimes. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to fully fund the President's gun control and enforcement initiative. This is a simple proposition that we should all agree on--the enforcement of our existing gun laws is a necessary step in reducing crime and making the Nation a safer place for us all.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Majority's budget resolution pending before the Senate--a budget that, in my view, will take the country in the wrong direction. We meet at a time when the Nation is enjoying remarkable economic prosperity. Thanks to the strong economy and the fiscal discipline begun in 1993, the country is in a fiscal position no one thought possible even a few years ago. In 1997, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and nearly everyone else were predicting substantial budget deficits far into the next decade-- as high as $159 billion in FY2000, $153 billion in FY2002 and continuing into the foreseeable future. Instead, the Nation is enjoying the longest economic expansion in its history. Since 1993, 20.8 million new jobs have been created, real wages have increased by 6.6 percent, the median family's income has grown by 12 percent, and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years. I am proud to have been a part of the effort in 1993 that helped to create this positive economic climate. Working together, the President and Congressional Democrats crafted a package that finally brought the Federal deficit under control. By making difficult but critical decisions to cut Federal programs and raise revenues, we tamed the deficits that plagued the Nation throughout the 1980's, placed enormous pressure on important Federal initiatives, and hampered our economic growth. Most Republicans argued at the time that this responsible package would ruin the economy and send markets tumbling. They were dead wrong. When you look at the choice we face for our economic future, we are at a sort of fork in the road. We can continue down the path of fiscal discipline begun in 1993, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, paying down the debt, investing more in our people--or we can take the other fork in the road embodied by irresponsible and unrealistic tax cuts that have been passed by the Majority in the Budget Committee, a path that will eventually eliminate any projected surplus, cause deep cuts in funding for critical education, health care, environmental or other programs, and put us back on a path toward deficits. In my view, we have a tremendous opportunity right now with the strongest economy in history to move our country in the right direction--to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, to shore up education and address the issue of the digital divide, to expand access to health care and provide a meaningful prescription health benefit, to clean up the environment, to bring down the crime rate, and on and on. We can build on this effort and use this opportunity to secure a bright and prosperous future for our Nation and its citizens, or we can squander it with irresponsible decisions. It is my strongly held view that any surplus realized in the near future should be seen as an opportunity to pay down the Nation's debt, invest in our Nation's future, and shore up vital programs. I am deeply concerned that much like the budget proposal put forward by the Majority last year, this year's budget resolution fails to take advantage of an unprecedented opportunity to ensure that the Federal government will meet its obligations after the baby boomers retire and beyond. I am also concerned because the budget resolution before us would endanger our hard-won progress and shortchange national priorities that the American people want to see addressed. This is an opportunity for us to think seriously about our Nation's needs and priorities as we look into the 21st century, and chart an appropriate course for the future. The Republican budget resolution is less a forward-looking policy blueprint than a political document aimed at short-term gain. Let us take a balanced approach, and continue the fiscal discipline that has allowed our Nation to prosper. The Democrats proposed a responsible budget resolution to the Committee. That alternative covered ten years and would have reduced $330 billion in debt over ten years, while providing almost $300 billion in targeted tax cuts. Unlike the Republican budget resolution, it proposed realistic levels of discretionary spending, including the President's full requests for education and defense spending. It also reserved funding for very important programs, such as health coverage for uninsured Americans. Unfortunately, the Democratic alternative was defeated on a party-line vote. We have come far economically and must be very careful as we move forward about how we use any budget surplus. In my view, we must emphasize paying down the national debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, increasing spending for programs important to our Nation's future, and providing targeted tax cuts for working Americans. The Republican budget before us, in contrast, contains a $150 billion tax cut--enough to consume almost 98% of the non-Social Security surplus over the next 5 years. This leaves nothing for prescription drug coverage, education increases, and other initiatives critical to the future well-being of our Nation. Mr. President, the Republican priorities evident in this resolution simply are not shared by most of the American people. The Majority's budget proposal falls far short of the mark in almost every respect and would take our country in the wrong direction. I strongly oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Digital Empowerment Amendment to be offered by my colleague, Senator Mikulski. Let me begin by expressing my deep thanks to Senator Mikulski for her leadership in the Senate in crafting this initiative. And I should mention that she has not only worked with her Senate colleagues on this, but has reached across to the House of Representatives, joining with the members of the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses, to ensure that it addresses the digital divide in a comprehensive and extensive way. She has also sought out the opinions of parents, teachers, children, business people and working people all across our State and the Nation to ensure that every community can reap the benefits of technology. Moreover, I am pleased that members of the technology sector of our economy are participating so fully and have played such a key role in helping to develop this initiative. With the technological giants joining us in this effort, we are off to a great start in helping to ensure that every man, woman and child in our country will have the opportunity to access the Internet. I believe we have a tremendous opportunity right now, with our economic prosperity, to begin closing this digital divide. We have the lowest unemployment rate and the lowest inflation rate in our country in more than 30 years. In our African-American and Hispanic communities, unemployment has fallen to some of the lowest levels in history. And to help sustain this economic recovery, we must provide the tools to enable our people to obtain the skills necessary to compete in a global economy--an economy that is growing by leaps and bounds in part due to the technology sector and the opportunities it presents. We are the world's leader of this technological revolution and our children are on the cusp of enjoying the full benefits of what it has to offer. In order to assist them in this endeavor, we must move forward to empowering each and every community with the technological skills and resources it requires. We can take a major step in this regard by passing this legislation--America's future deserves no less. So I lend my strong support to this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending Robb amendment to prevent the Majority from spending almost all of the non- Social Security surplus on tax breaks instead of prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. Ensuring that older Americans have access to prescription drugs should be one of our top priorities, but the Majority is clearly more interested in enacting deep and unwarranted tax cuts. The Majority's FY 2001 Budget Resolution includes a deadline for consideration of their tax cut plan, but no date is set for establishing a prescription drug benefit. With this amendment, we would clarify that funding a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries will be given a higher priority than tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy. Prescription medication is now essential to quality medical care, but many senior citizens cannot afford the medicine they need because Medicare does not cover the cost of prescription drugs. When Medicare was created, it was modeled after a health care delivery system focused on inpatient hospital care. Today, drugs are as important as a hospital bed was in 1965, but over 13 million seniors have absolutely no assistance covering the cost of prescription medication. Medicare must be updated to include a prescription drug benefit. Seniors need prescription drug coverage more than the average citizen because they generally live on fixed incomes and suffer from chronic diseases requiring drug therapy. To make matters worse, the cost of prescription drugs has been rising dramatically over the past few years. In addition, older Americans without any prescription drug coverage pay significantly more than HMOs, insurance companies, Federal health programs, and other favored customers for the same pharmaceuticals. Currently, seniors can obtain some coverage for drugs by joining Medicare HMOs. But, these HMOs are not available in many parts of the country, particularly in the rural areas. Moreover, Medicare HMOs are sharply cutting back on the drug benefits they offer. Medicare beneficiaries may also purchase drug coverage through Medigap insurance policies. However, these plans are extremely expensive and generally provide inadequate coverage. In addition, for most Medigap plans, the premiums substantially increase with age. Thus, just as beneficiaries need drug coverage the most and are least able to afford it, this drug coverage is priced out of reach. This cost burden particularly affects women who make up 73 percent of people over age 85. Employer-sponsored retiree health plans generally offer adequate drug coverage. However, only about one quarter of Medicare beneficiaries have access to such plans. In addition, health care coverage for retirees is declining dramatically. According to a recent study, only 23 percent of Maryland firms now offer retiree health insurance. During the Budget Committee's mark-up of the Majority's budget resolution, I supported an amendment to make $40 billion available for a prescription drug benefit. This amendment, which was adopted, will hopefully inspire action on this issue during the remaining months of this Congress. But, in the meantime, we must ensure that there will be funds available for this benefit by preventing the Majority's unreasonable tax cut plan from consuming the entire on-budget surplus first. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to address one of the most widespread problems facing older Americans today by guaranteeing our seniors access to prescription medications instead of squandering the on-budget surplus on excessive tax cuts.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending Bingaman amendment to increase funding for education programs in the FY2001 budget resolution--programs that have been proven to increase student performance. Few of the problems facing us today are as important as the challenge of educating our children to meet the demands of the future. Yet, the budget resolution put forward by the Majority does nothing for key priorities like funding for high-quality teachers, smaller class sizes, modern and accountable schools, and expanded and improved technology in the classroom. In fact, total discretionary spending for education, training and social services programs in the Republican budget plan before us is $4.7 billion below the President's budget request, reducing discretionary education funding to below FY2000 levels. I strongly supported an amendment offered during the Budget Committee markup to provide increased funding for smaller class sizes, school construction and renovation, and teacher quality--initiatives that are critical to ensuring an educated citizenry. I regret that Republican members of the Committee opposed this amendment, resulting in its defeat, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to support the pending amendment. Mr. President, the quality of teachers and principals is essential to student achievement. Research indicates that high-quality teachers are the single most important determinant in how well students learn. Likewise, research has shown that students attending small classes with qualified teachers in early grades make more rapid educational progress than students in larger classes. This amendment would increase funding in these critical areas, as well as in other areas such as after-school programs and school modernization, offset by reducing the irresponsible tax cuts included in the Majority's proposal. It would also make higher education more affordable and accessible by increasing the maximum Pell Grant, and increasing funding for the TRIO and GEAR-UP programs. Throughout my service in the United States Senate, I have been committed to the goal of ensuring a quality education for all our Nation's citizens. This amendment would move us in the direction of that important goal and I again urge my colleagues to support it. Amendment No. 2928

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will be very brief because Senator Johnson is going to handle the time on this side. He has been very intimately involved in shaping this legislation and has done an outstanding job and I think made a major contribution. The bill that is now before us is a consequence of a unanimous consent agreement that was reached last year. Much discussion took place within the committee. As a consequence, we were able to move considerably closer on many of the issues that divided Members when we first addressed S. 2097. In fact, I think it is fair to say, with the exception of the issue Senator Johnson will raise on the floor, we have a consensus product before us that we can move through in short order. We seek a loan guarantee program that will provide comprehensive television service for the American people at the best possible price. We are particularly concerned about rural Americans who have either no access or inadequate access to local television service. We seek to obtain that for them at an affordable price and yet, at the same time, protect the American taxpayer as we move forward with the loan guarantee program. Obviously, you have to strike the right balance among these objectives. I think the bill, with the Johnson amendment, with the proposal of the very able Senator from South Dakota, would accomplish that. The chairman has gone over some of the specific provisions of the bill. I think it is important to note that the board we are providing, which will grant the loan guarantees, is made up from the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Department of Agriculture. The day-to- day administration of the program would be done by the Rural Utilities Service, which would also write the regulations, subject to the approval of the board. The Rural Utilities Service is the most experienced agency in the Federal Government in dealing with this type of investment in rural areas. Therefore, we think they have a clear understanding of what is involved. The guarantee level provided in the legislation is 80 percent. That differs, of course, from the House bill. It is designed to provide some additional safeguards. We also worked to ensure that the legislation would give priority to the projects seeking to provide services to areas in this country that are unserved and underserved, as we move toward trying to provide a universal service. Senator Johnson led the effort on our side. We were markedly assisted by Senator Baucus, Senator Harkin, and many others. I know there are a number of Senators on the Republican side of the aisle, too, who come from rural areas who are very deeply concerned about this issue. Let me touch on the one important improvement that I hope will be made to this legislation, and that is the Johnson initiative. The bill, as it is now before us, requires that the lenders involved in this program be FDIC insured. That is the requirement in the bill as it now stands. Many believe this is unnecessarily restrictive, that there are a number of other lenders and, in particular, the National Rural Utilities' Cooperative Finance Corporation, the CFC, which would be barred from participating in the program as the bill now stands. Senator Johnson is intending to address that issue. Actually, the lender we are talking about--the Cooperative Finance Corporation--is extremely well capitalized. It has over 11 percent shareholders' equity capital, which is better than 9 of the 10 largest banks in the country. The credit rating agencies rate CFC's debt as high as any of the largest federally insured banks and higher than most. So by these market standards, they are an extremely strong and well-managed financial institution. I see no reason to exclude it from the program. I think we can adjust to accommodate this issue. I think we can achieve a broad, if not total, consensus on this legislation. I think, in fact, including lenders of this nature in the program will help to encourage the participation of organizations, such as rural cooperatives that have the most experience in doing business in rural areas and therefore make it more likely that the program will reach its ultimate goal of universal service in rural areas. So I am supportive of the legislation with this change that we will seek to make. I think it meets all the questions and concerns that have been raised in a balanced and straightforward manner. Again, I thank Senator Johnson for his leadership on this issue, and I commend all the members of the committee, the chairman and all the members on his side, and on our side, who worked closely together to try to work out agreeable solutions to most of the concerns that have been expressed. I think if we can address this one remaining concern on the floor in a positive and constructive way, we will have done a good piece of legislative work and will be able to move this issue forward. Mr. President, I will yield the floor. Senator Johnson will manage the remainder of the time of the debate on this side of the aisle.

Mr. SARBANES. One of those amendments might be involved.

Mr. SARBANES. I have no objection.

Mr. SARBANES. Thirdly, I just make this observation. We are allowing FDIC institutions to do this. But, of course, in a sense, that creates an extra exposure that one of these institutions would not have because the Government, the taxpayer, would be exposed on the loan guarantee. But, in addition, if the institution itself were to run into serious trouble, there would be taxpayer exposure on the Federal deposit insurance for the depositors of that institution. Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object, I suggest to the Senator that 2 o'clock might be a better time.

Mr. SARBANES. Of course, we do not have the latter in the case of these institutions. I think we have to exercise caution and prudence, but as you have pointed out, certainly for the CFC, they rank very well indeed. It seems to me they ought to qualify. I think the limitations have a great deal of difficulty connected with them, which the Senator has outlined in his statement. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. In other words, the institutions, they are only being included in the sense that they are eligible to submit their proposal to the board. It does not mean they can then go ahead and do these loan guarantees simply on their own. They have to obtain board approval in order to do that; that is, this board of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Department of Agriculture. Is that correct?