Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

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

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?

Mr. SARBANES. I have no objection.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 835, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999. This legislation is absolutely vital to the future health of our nation's estuaries, including our largest and most productive estuary--the Chesapeake Bay, and Maryland's Coastal Bays, and I am proud to be an original co- sponsor of this measure. H.L. Mencken once called the Chesapeake Bay a ``great outdoor protein factory,'' a description which, perhaps more than any other, underscores the critical importance of protecting and restoring estuarine ecosystems. Estuaries provide habitat to more than three- quarters of the fish and shellfish harvested in the United States. They are home to thousands of species of plants and animals, including many endangered and threatened species. They support millions of American jobs and play a vital role in the quality of life that our citizens enjoy. But the health and productivity of our estuaries are being degraded or destroyed by the tremendous increase in shoreline population and development, increasing point and non-point source pollution and other activities. It is estimated that, over the past century, some estuaries have lost up to 90 percent of their original habitat. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act seeks to reverse these trends by setting the goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuarine habitat by the year 2010. It authorizes federal funding totaling $315 million over the next 5 years for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with NOAA, EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to carry out estuary habitat restoration projects and provides incentives for local communities to participate in creative partnerships. It also reauthorizes the National Estuary Program and, for the first time, enables EPA to provide grants to implement conservation and management plans as well as design the plans. Also incorporated in this measure is S. 492, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act (CBRA), which I introduced together with Senators Warner, Robb, Mikulski and Santorum to reauthorize and enhance EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. Mr. President, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) was established in 1983 with the signing of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement which formally bound the Federal Government and the States to work together to restore and protect the Bay. It is the oldest EPA geographic program and the first estuary in the nation to be targeted for restoration as a single ecosystem. EPA's participation in the CBP was formally authorized in the Water Quality Act of 1987. The Act authorized $3 million annually to support the activities of the Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Annapolis, Maryland which coordinates Federal and State efforts to restore and protect the Bay and $10 million annually for matching Interstate Development grants. The Chesapeake Bay Program has evolved considerably in the years since it was first established and has become a model for other estuaries around the country and around the world. The Bay Program has pioneered a wide range of pollution control initiatives, including biological nutrient removal technology implemented at 42 wastewater treatment facilities; various agricultural nonpoint source controls, such as nutrient management and integrated pesticide management being implemented on nearly two million acres of agricultural land; and implementation of a basinwide ban on phosphate detergents and a national ban on tributylin. The Bay Program has also been a leader in establishing a large volunteer monitoring program; creating a sophisticated computer modeling program; identifying atmospheric deposition of nitrogen as a significant pollution source for east coast estuaries; conducting an extensive habitat restoration program including the opening of hundreds of miles of prime spawning habitat to migratory fish through the construction of fish passages; and the restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation to support the filtering of nutrients as well as habitat for the Bay's living resources. The CBP has also spawned landmark state legislation such as nutrient management of farms, growth management and forest conservation and critical area protection. The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement expanded initial restoration efforts by targeting nutrient overenrichment as the Bay's major problem, and establishing the goal to reduce by 40%, nutrients flowing into the Bay by 2000. The pact included 28 other specific commitments to address key issues in living resources, water quality, population growth and development, public information and public access. The 1992 Amendments to the Agreement moved the Program upriver, committing the 40% nutrient reduction goal to the ten major tributaries to the Bay, as well as committing to retain the 40% nutrient reductions as a permanent cap to be extended beyond 2000. There are signs that the general degradation of Chesapeake Bay has ebbed, and actual restoration has begun. However, numerous problems remain. Rapid population growth and development are expected in the areas of the Bay watershed closest to its waters. Loadings of nitrogen and sediments to the Bay remain high. Toxic sediment and water column contaminants are a problem in specific regions of concern and some other Chesapeake Bay locations. Of great concern are recent outbreaks of Pfiesteria-like organisms and the occurrence of lesions from other sources on striped bass and other commercial and recreationally important finfish in the Bay. Important food chain species and populations of forage fish are also declining. In order to address these problems and continue restoration efforts, the CBRA reauthorizes and increases funding for EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program from the current level of approximately $20 million to $30 million a year. It encourages and assists Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories in meeting nutrient reduction, water quality, toxics reduction and prevention and habitat restoration goals, and requires that federal facilities within the watershed comply with nutrient reduction and other Agreement goals. The legislation also creates a new small watersheds program designed to help local groups preserve and restore stream corridors. The initiative would make ``seed grants'' and technical assistance available to local governments, nonprofit organizations and citizens' groups involved in river and stream- restoration projects. It is my hope that the legislation will enable the Chesapeake Bay Program to continue its leadership and technology transfer to other groups participating in the National Estuary Program, particularly in the areas of nutrient reduction through new technologies, such as biological nutrient removal; air deposition of nitrogen to estuarine and coastal waters; computer modeling; and environmental indicators with an emphasis on measuring improvements to living resources. Mr. President, in my judgement, the provisions contained in S. 835, will pay significant dividends in the years ahead by helping to preserve and enhance our nation's estuaries, while at the same time improving the quality of life for our citizens. I want to commend the Chairman and ranking member of the Committee, Senators Smith and Baucus, for moving this legislation to the Senate floor. In my judgement, the legislation is a real tribute and fitting legacy to the former Chairman of the Committee and author of the legislation, John Chafee. I also want to express my appreciation to the co-sponsors of the Chesapeake Bay bill, Senators Warner, Mikulski, Robb and Santorum for their assistance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, along with several of my colleagues, I am introducing the Industry Training Consortia Act to provide our nation's workforce with the information technology and computer skills it needs to meet the emerging and rapidly changing requirements of our various technology sectors. The purpose of this legislation is to assist our business sector in establishing a national technology training infrastructure to provide our workforce with the skills it requires to remain competitive in the global, high technology marketplace. The United States is currently the world's science and technology leader. We have achieved this status largely because we have had the most skilled, innovative, and competitive workforce in the world. Indeed, technical innovation, according to a report by the President's Council of Economic Advisers, has been responsible for more than half of America's productivity growth over the past fifty years. But technology is evolving so rapidly that some of our workers are being left behind. If we fail to keep them honed and highly skilled we risk losing our competitive edge. Having the appropriate information technology skills is becoming more and more important in all sectors of our economy, not only in the high and biotech industries and the manufacturing sector, but also in the so-called low-tech industries. More than half of the new jobs created between 1984 and 2005 require or will require some education beyond high school. The percentage of workers who use computers at work has risen from 25% to 46% between 1984 and 1993. Moreover, firms today are not only using more technology, but are also reorganizing production processes in new ways, such as cellular production, use of teams, and other high performance structures and methods requiring higher levels and new kinds of skills. A growing number of industries throughout the country are reporting serious difficulties in hiring workers with appropriate computer and information technology skills. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that between 1998 and 2008 we will need 2 million more newly trained and skilled Information Technology workers. That's an average of 200,000 additional workers a year. In my own State of Maryland, we currently face an estimated shortfall of 10-12,000 workers with appropriate technology skills. A Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development survey indicates that 80% of firms which hire manufacturing or skilled trade workers, reported significant difficulty in finding applicants with the required skills for technology intensive jobs. The same survey indicates that more than two-thirds of businesses hiring computer technicians, engineers, analysts, or other technical or laboratory personnel experienced difficulty finding qualified workers. It also mentions that fifty-five percent of firms that hire college-level scientists or technical program graduates reported the same difficulty and that 62% of these firms reported that their need for hiring these types of graduates is expected to increase over the next five years. While well intentioned, many existing training programs across the country are not structured to address this problem head on, from the perspective of industry. And while some post-secondary training institutions have reached out to industry and become more customer- focused, more still must identify ways to respond directly to the changing skills needs of our employers. Our community colleges, and even four-year colleges and universities, cannot shoulder the entire burden of continually reassessing skill needs and providing up-to-date training and equipment with which to train workers in relevant knowledge and skills. Some colleges and universities have been able to establish partnerships with larger firms that have human resource departments, but building partnerships with small and medium-sized firms has proven more difficult. Many firms, but particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, have limited capacity to engage in significant and sustained workforce development efforts. Managers and owners of most firms are simply too busy running their business to develop training systems, especially for new or dislocated workers. Firms also often lack information on what kind of training they need and where they can get it. As a result, most forego training initiatives and instead try to hire workers away from other companies in related fields. And because workers are so mobile, individual employers are reluctant to bear the burden of training employees, whether they are new or incumbent workers, simply due to the likelihood that they will leave to work for a competitor. Without an adequate return on the investment for paying to train their employees, coupled with an increasingly competitive global marketplace, many larger companies have begun to cut back on their in-house training programs. A unique approach, one flexible enough to address the fluctuations, transitions and emerging needs of our high technology economy is required. In order to train and educate new entrants to the workforce, workers dislocated by economic change, and workers already in the workplace facing increased demands for higher levels of technology related skills, we need an industry driven training infrastructure. The legislation I am introducing would establish working groups across the country in which employers, public agencies, schools, and workers can pool resources and expertise to train workers for emerging job opportunities and jobs threatened by economic and technological transition. It will help develop targeted consortia of industry, workers and training entities across the country to assess where and what gaps exist and provide the skills that industry and workers require to remain competitive and on the cutting edge. Specifically, it would authorize a grants program--to be overseen by the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of Labor,--and provide up to a $1 million federal match, for every dollar invested by state and local governments and the private sector for these working groups. The Department of Commerce would be authorized to budget $50 million annually for this purpose and funds would be allocated through a competitive grants process, with each consortia of firms as applicants. This legislation will allow industries to identify their own skills needs and build these consortia around their common requirements. Alliances would serve to harness the expertise of state and local officials, educational leaders, regional chapters of trade associations and union officials and pool the resources available among these entities. But each group would be predominantly made up of industry, and would be industry driven. Indeed, if we are going to address what is becoming a skills crisis in this country, our businesses must have a leadership role in establishing the means by which we continue to build and upgrade the skills of workers in technology related fields. Smaller scale versions of the types of skills alliances which my legislation proposes to develop have already shown promise. In Wisconsin, metal-working firms have banded together with the AFL-CIO in a publicly sponsored effort that used an abandoned mill building as a teaching facility, teaching workers essential skills on state-of-the- art manufacturing equipment. Rhode Island helped develop a skills alliance among plastics firms, who then worked with a local community college to create a polymer training laboratory linked to an apprenticeship program that guarantees jobs for graduates. In Washington, DC telecommunications firms donated computers, and helped to set up a program to train public high school students to be computer network administrators and are now hiring graduates of the program at an entry-level salary of $25,000-30,000. With these grants, this approach can grow and flourish. Each of these initiatives is an investment in our workforce for the 21st Century. If we are to truly transition the U.S. worker to a technology based economy, we must ensure that these best practice examples become standard practice. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring the swift enactment of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to clarify an important issue contained in the conference agreement on S. 376, the satellite reform bill, with respect to ``Level III direct access.'' The conference agreement provides authority for so-called ``Level III direct access''--which is the ability of customers other than INTELSAT signatories to enter into agreements with INTELSAT for ordering, receiving and paying for space segment capacity--but it says nothing about the signatory fee that COMSAT is entitled to receive from direct access users as determined by the FCC's direct access order made effective December 6, 1999. I understand it is the intent of the conferees to preserve this signatory fee to compensate COMSAT for the costs it incurs as the U.S. signatory to INTELSAT during its brief transition to a procompetitive privatization. Nothing in the conference agreement is intended to vacate the FCC's ``Level III direct access'' order made effective December 6, 1999, including its assessment of a signatory fee to be charged to direct access users to offset COMSAT's signatory costs. I would also add that Congress is addressing direct access to INTELSAT before it privatizes. After privatization, when INTELSAT become a commercial company like any other, it can make whatever business decisions it wants with respect to marketing or distribution arrangements--again, just as other companies do. Once privatized, the government should not be interfering, let alone dictating, these arrangements one way or another.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, along with several of my colleagues, I am introducing the Industry Training Consortia Act to provide our nation's workforce with the information technology and computer skills it needs to meet the emerging and rapidly changing requirements of our various technology sectors. The purpose of this legislation is to assist our business sector in establishing a national technology training infrastructure to provide our workforce with the skills it requires to remain competitive in the global, high technology marketplace. The United States is currently the world's science and technology leader. We have achieved this status largely because we have had the most skilled, innovative, and competitive workforce in the world. Indeed, technical innovation, according to a report by the President's Council of Economic Advisers, has been responsible for more than half of America's productivity growth over the past fifty years. But technology is evolving so rapidly that some of our workers are being left behind. If we fail to keep them honed and highly skilled we risk losing our competitive edge. Having the appropriate information technology skills is becoming more and more important in all sectors of our economy, not only in the high and biotech industries and the manufacturing sector, but also in the so-called low-tech industries. More than half of the new jobs created between 1984 and 2005 require or will require some education beyond high school. The percentage of workers who use computers at work has risen from 25% to 46% between 1984 and 1993. Moreover, firms today are not only using more technology, but are also reorganizing production processes in new ways, such as cellular production, use of teams, and other high performance structures and methods requiring higher levels and new kinds of skills. A growing number of industries throughout the country are reporting serious difficulties in hiring workers with appropriate computer and information technology skills. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that between 1998 and 2008 we will need 2 million more newly trained and skilled Information Technology workers. That's an average of 200,000 additional workers a year. In my own State of Maryland, we currently face an estimated shortfall of 10-12,000 workers with appropriate technology skills. A Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development survey indicates that 80% of firms which hire manufacturing or skilled trade workers, reported significant difficulty in finding applicants with the required skills for technology intensive jobs. The same survey indicates that more than two-thirds of businesses hiring computer technicians, engineers, analysts, or other technical or laboratory personnel experienced difficulty finding qualified workers. It also mentions that fifty-five percent of firms that hire college-level scientists or technical program graduates reported the same difficulty and that 62% of these firms reported that their need for hiring these types of graduates is expected to increase over the next five years. While well intentioned, many existing training programs across the country are not structured to address this problem head on, from the perspective of industry. And while some post-secondary training institutions have reached out to industry and become more customer- focused, more still must identify ways to respond directly to the changing skills needs of our employers. Our community colleges, and even four-year colleges and universities, cannot shoulder the entire burden of continually reassessing skill needs and providing up-to-date training and equipment with which to train workers in relevant knowledge and skills. Some colleges and universities have been able to establish partnerships with larger firms that have human resource departments, but building partnerships with small and medium-sized firms has proven more difficult. Many firms, but particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, have limited capacity to engage in significant and sustained workforce development efforts. Managers and owners of most firms are simply too busy running their business to develop training systems, especially for new or dislocated workers. Firms also often lack information on what kind of training they need and where they can get it. As a result, most forego training initiatives and instead try to hire workers away from other companies in related fields. And because workers are so mobile, individual employers are reluctant to bear the burden of training employees, whether they are new or incumbent workers, simply due to the likelihood that they will leave to work for a competitor. Without an adequate return on the investment for paying to train their employees, coupled with an increasingly competitive global marketplace, many larger companies have begun to cut back on their in-house training programs. A unique approach, one flexible enough to address the fluctuations, transitions and emerging needs of our high technology economy is required. In order to train and educate new entrants to the workforce, workers dislocated by economic change, and workers already in the workplace facing increased demands for higher levels of technology related skills, we need an industry driven training infrastructure. The legislation I am introducing would establish working groups across the country in which employers, public agencies, schools, and workers can pool resources and expertise to train workers for emerging job opportunities and jobs threatened by economic and technological transition. It will help develop targeted consortia of industry, workers and training entities across the country to assess where and what gaps exist and provide the skills that industry and workers require to remain competitive and on the cutting edge. Specifically, it would authorize a grants program--to be overseen by the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of Labor,--and provide up to a $1 million federal match, for every dollar invested by state and local governments and the private sector for these working groups. The Department of Commerce would be authorized to budget $50 million annually for this purpose and funds would be allocated through a competitive grants process, with each consortia of firms as applicants. This legislation will allow industries to identify their own skills needs and build these consortia around their common requirements. Alliances would serve to harness the expertise of state and local officials, educational leaders, regional chapters of trade associations and union officials and pool the resources available among these entities. But each group would be predominantly made up of industry, and would be industry driven. Indeed, if we are going to address what is becoming a skills crisis in this country, our businesses must have a leadership role in establishing the means by which we continue to build and upgrade the skills of workers in technology related fields. Smaller scale versions of the types of skills alliances which my legislation proposes to develop have already shown promise. In Wisconsin, metal-working firms have banded together with the AFL-CIO in a publicly sponsored effort that used an abandoned mill building as a teaching facility, teaching workers essential skills on state-of-the- art manufacturing equipment. Rhode Island helped develop a skills alliance among plastics firms, who then worked with a local community college to create a polymer training laboratory linked to an apprenticeship program that guarantees jobs for graduates. In Washington, DC telecommunications firms donated computers, and helped to set up a program to train public high school students to be computer network administrators and are now hiring graduates of the program at an entry-level salary of $25,000-30,000. With these grants, this approach can grow and flourish. Each of these initiatives is an investment in our workforce for the 21st Century. If we are to truly transition the U.S. worker to a technology based economy, we must ensure that these best practice examples become standard practice. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring the swift enactment of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I rise in recognition of Women's History Month--a time to honor the many great women leaders from our past and present who have served our Nation so well. These women have worked diligently to achieve social change and personal triumph often against incredible odds. As scientists, writers, doctors, teachers, and mothers, they have shaped our world and guided us down the road to prosperity and peace. For far too long, however, their contributions to the strength and character of our society went unrecognized and undervalued. It is also important to recognize the countless American women whose names and great works are known only to their families. They too have played critical roles in the development of our State and National heritage. Women have led efforts to secure not only their own rights, but have also been the guiding force behind many of the other major social movements of our time--the abolitionist movement, the industrial labor movement, and the civil rights movement, to name a few. We also have women to thank for the establishment of many of our early charitable, philanthropic, and cultural institutions. I am proud of the many women from Maryland whose bravery, hard work, and dedication have earned them a place in our Nation's history. They include Margaret Brent, America's first woman lawyer and landholder. In 1648, she went before the Maryland General Assembly demanding the right to vote. Another brave Maryland woman was Harriet Tubman, hero of the Underground Railroad, who was personally responsible for freeing over 300 slaves. Dr. Helen Taussig, another great Marylander, in 1945, developed the first successful medical procedure to save ``blue babies'' by repairing heart birth defects in children whose blood was starved of oxygen, turning their skin a bluish hue. This breakthrough laid the foundation for modern heart surgery. I would also like to recognize my colleague, another great Maryland woman, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski. One of only nine female Members of the Senate, she has forged a path for women legislators into the Federal political arena and has tirelessly fought for recognition of the right of women to equal treatment and opportunities in our society. Through her leadership, the effort to designate March as Women's History Month has been a resounding success. Other Maryland women leaders include Dr. Lillie Jackson and Enolia McMillan, two great champions of the Civil Rights Movement, and Henrietta Szold, the founder of Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America. Hattie Alexander, a native of Baltimore, was a microbiologist and pediatrician who won international recognition for deriving a serum to combat influenzal meningitis. Rachel Carson, founder of the environmental movement, Billie Holiday, the renowned jazz singer, and Elizabeth Seton, the first American canonized as a saint were also all from Maryland. The achievements and dedication of these women are a source of inspiration to us all. Now more than ever, women are a guiding force in Maryland and a major presence in our business sector. As of 1996, there were over 167,000 women-owned businesses in our State--that amounts to 39 percent of all firms in Maryland. Maryland's women-owned businesses employ over 301,000 people and generate over $39 billion in sales. Between 1987 and 1996, the number of women-owned firms in Maryland is estimated to have increased by 88 percent. During Women's History month we have the opportunity to remember and praise great women leaders who have opened doors for today's young women in ways that are often overlooked. Their legacy has enriched our lives and deserves prominence in the annals of American history. With this in mind, I have co-sponsored legislation again this Congress to establish a National Museum of Women's History Advisory Committee. This Committee would be charged with identifying a site for the National Museum of Women's History and developing strategies for raising private funding for the development and maintenance of the museum. Ultimately, the museum will enlighten the young and old about the key roles women have played in our Nation's history and the many contributions they have made to our culture. However, we must do more than merely recognize the outstanding accomplishments women have made. Women's History Month also is a time to recognize that women still face substantial obstacles and inequities. At every age, women are more likely than their male contemporaries to be poor. A working woman still earns on average only 74 cents for every dollar earned by a man. A female physician only earns about 58 cents to her male counterpart's dollar, and female business executives earn about 65 cents for every dollar paid to a male executive. The average personal income of men over 65 is nearly double that of their female peers. Access to capital for female entrepreneurs is still a significant stumbling block, and women business owners of color are even less likely than white women entrepreneurs to have financial backing from a bank. To address some of these discrepancies, I have co-sponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act which would provide more effective remedies to victims of wage discrimination on the basis of sex. It would enhance enforcement of the existing Equal Pay Act and protect employees who discuss wages with co-workers from employer retaliation. On the other hand, we have made great strides toward ensuring a fairer place for women in our society. The college-educated proportion of women, although still smaller than the comparable proportion of men, has been increasing rapidly. In 1995, women represented 55 percent of the people awarded bachelor's degrees, 55 percent of people awarded masters', 39 percent of the doctorates, 39 percent of the M.D.'s, and 43 percent of the law degrees. As recently as the early 1970s, the respective percentages were 43 percent, 40 percent, 14 percent, 8 percent, and 5 percent. Women are now the majority in some professional and managerial occupations that were largely male until relatively recently. The future does not look so bright for women in many other countries where women not only lack access to equal opportunities, but even worse are subject to dehumanizing social practices and abominable human rights violations. For this reason, I have added my name to a resolution calling on the Senate to act on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Mr. President, in the dawn of this new millennium, we must renew our efforts to ensure that gender no longer predetermines a person's opportunities or station in life. It is my hope that we can accelerate our progress in securing women's rights. As we celebrate Women's History Month, let us reaffirm our commitment to the women of this Nation and to insuring full equality for all of our citizens.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would alleviate the $500,000 cost associated with the transfer of the former Bainbridge Naval Training Center in Cecil County, Maryland. It is my hope that this bill will help expedite the development of this property by the Bainbridge Development Corporation and the State of Maryland, and allow this site to realize its tremendous potential as soon as possible. Moreover, the money that the BDC will save through this waiver will be put towards salvaging several of the historic buildings on the site, namely, the historic Tome School. Next week, I will participate in the transfer ceremony for this base, which now represents 1200 acres of pristine and strategically located land. The transfer follows decades of negotiations and cleanup, and I, along with the Navy, my constituents in Cecil County, and the other members of the Maryland State congressional delegation hope to see development of this site begin promptly. In my view, the transfer of the Bainbridge site is a shining example of what can be accomplished through partnerships between Federal, State, and local governments. I introduce this bill to sustain our momentum and move this property into productive use as expeditiously as possible. Mr. President, I have spoken with the appropriate Navy officials regarding this matter and they have raised no concerns about this waiver. Indeed, this is truly a non-controversial measure with a very modest cost and I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to rise today to join with nearly 1 million Lithuanian-Americans in commemorating the 81st anniversary of an independent Lithuania. On February 16, it is customary for those of Lithuanian heritage, and their friends and supporters to celebrate the proclamation of a progressive and independent Republic of Lithuania, which was reestablished after more than seven centuries of struggle. Lithuania's democratic hopes were realized once before this century, yet freedom was abruptly revoked in 1940, after 22 years of democratic governance. While February 16th reminds us of Lithuania's long and difficult period, it also affords us the opportunity to commend the determination and courage of the citizens of Lithuania and other Baltic nations. Their strong commitment to democratic values serves as an incentive for us all to rededicate ourselves to the principles for which this important day stands, liberty and freedom. The history of this nation has been marked by constant struggle against aggressors. Through countless invasions, Lithuanian defenders have stood resolutely against their foes and have demonstrated their commitment to independence. After well over a century of domination, the people of Lithuania proclaimed their independence and reestablished their sovereignty as a nation on February 16, 1918. For more than two decades, this young nation prospered economically and lived at peace with its neighbors. The events of World War II brought this period to an end when, in 1940, Lithuania was occupied by Soviet Armed forces. Our thoughts must turn to those Lithuanians who suffered under the brutality of the Nazi and Soviet occupations. Many risked and lost their lives for the rights and freedoms that Lithuanians today are privileged to enjoy. Their steadfast determination and courage eventually prevailed, providing hope for all peoples who dreamt someday of being free. In 1990, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lithuania rejoined the international community of democratic nations and embraced political and economic reforms. Lithuania experienced a peaceful transfer of civilian rule, despite a difficult period of transition, and has committed to pursuing economic reforms which offer the possibility of greater prosperity, a bright future and sustainable growth for years to come. To this end, Lithuania has chosen to engage with its neighbors and other democracies by joining The Baltic Economic Cooperation Agreement and the Council of Europe and through their desire to join the European Union. The Lithuanian people have drawn their strength from a sense of nationhood. This has been most evident here in the United States, where we have witnessed the dedication of Lithuanian Americans to the freedom of their native land. Their perseverance has encouraged many of us to stand in this body over the last several decades and proclaim our support for a Lithuanian republic. We in Maryland, and our Nation, are particularly fortunate to have such an active Lithuanian-American community. Longstanding traditions of self-help, volunteerism and the dedication to democratic ideals that have prevailed in the community have truly enriched the history of our country. In areas ranging from business, to academia, to the arts, Lithuanian-Americans consistently make significant contributions across the Nation. Every year Lithuanians gather in their capital, Vilnius, to commemorate this anniversary. I am proud that we in the United States have continued to stand with them on this occasion, both in years when there was much to celebrate and in years when there were only dreams of a better future. I am confident that we will continue to celebrate this anniversary in the future with the same optimism that we do this year.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am most pleased to join millions of Americans in commemorating African-American History Month and particularly this year's theme ``Heritage and Horizons: The African Legacy and the Challenges of the 21st Century.'' This theme as announced by the Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History (ASALH) is most appropriate and timely as we enter a new millennium and hopefully a new and even brighter era of African- American progress. Since 1926, Americans have observed a time during the month of February to recognize the vast history and legacy that African- Americans have contributed to the founding and building of this great nation. It was the vision of the noted author and scholar, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, that led to this celebration. As we review the last 100 years, it is important to remember that there have been many challenges and changes in the 1900's for African-Americans. During the early 1900's, discrimination against African-Americans was very wide spread. By 1907, every Southern state required racial segregation on trains and in churches, schools, hotels, restaurants, theaters, and in other public places. New leaders for the African- American race emerged such as W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington, whose intellectual thoughts on the progress and direction of African- Americans are still very much discussed in the community. There was also the Northern migration of hundreds of thousands of Southern African-Americans during World War I to seek jobs in defense plants and other factories. Many African-Americans served our country admirably during this war and in World War II. Like World War I, this war led to the expansion of defense-related industries and opportunities in the North for employment. During the 1940's, about a million Southern African-Americans moved North. Discrimination played a large role in the labor industry which led A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters to threaten a march on Washington, D.C. President Roosevelt then issued an executive order forbidding racial discrimination in defense industries. Following World War II, three major factors encouraged the beginning of a new movement for civil rights. First, many African-Americans served with honor in the war, as they had in many of the wars since the American Revolution. However, in this instance, African-American leaders pointed to the records of these veterans to show the injustice of racial discrimination against patriots. Second, more and more African-Americans in the North had made economic gains, increased their education, and registered to vote. Third, the NAACP had attracted many new members and received increased financial support from blacks and whites. Additionally, a young group of energetic lawyers, including Thurgood Marshall, of Baltimore, Maryland, used the legal system to bring about important changes in the lives of African-Americans, while Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to the conscience of all Americans. Congress had an important role in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I am pleased to note that Clarence Mitchell Jr. of Maryland played a critical part in steering this legislation through Congress. African-Americans also began to assume more influential roles in the national government, a development which has benefitted the entire Nation. Gains in education for the African-American community have been significant. From 1970 to 1980, college enrollment among African- Americans rose from about 600,000 to about 1.3 million. This gain resulted in part from affirmative action programs by predominantly white colleges and universities. By the early 1990's about 11 percent of all African-Americans 25 years of age or older had completed college. About two-thirds of that group had finished high school. There have also been many more advances and accomplishments during that time, but this is just a brief overview of what has been a tremendous and rich history and heritage for African-American people in our Nation for the last 100 years. As we look forward to a new century, we anticipate that African- Americans will continue to prosper in American society and throughout the world. Their success is our success. As we look towards the horizon, we see record breaking events for African-Americans. The unemployment rate for African-Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 8.3 percent in 1999--the lowest annual level on record. The median household income of African-Americans is up 15.1 percent since 1993, from $22,034 in 1993 to $25,351 in 1998. The real wages of African-Americans have risen rapidly in the past two years, up about 5.8 percent for African-American men and 6.2 percent for African- American women since 1996. The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998--the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in more than twenty-five years. Since 1993, the child poverty rate among African-Americans has dropped from 46.1 percent to 36.7 percent in 1998--the biggest five-year drop on record. While the African-American child poverty rate is still too high, it is the lowest level on record. As the African-American population continues to expand, we continue to strive to make laws that improve the lives of all Americans so that many more record breaking accomplishments occur. As we begin the first Census count of the 21st century, we are working to ensure that Census 2000 is the most accurate census possible using the best, most up-to-date methods to make sure every person is counted. According to the Census Bureau, the 1990 Census missed 8.4 million people and double-counted 4.4 million others. Nationally, 4.4 percent of African-Americans were not counted in the 1990 census. While missing or miscounting so many people is a problem, the fact that certain groups--such as children, the poor, people of color, and city dwellers--were missed more often than others made the undercount even more inaccurate. A fair and accurate Census is a fundamental part of a representative democracy and is the basis for providing equality under the law. Therefore, I encourage everyone to make sure your neighbor is counted. I would also like to observe that the State of Maryland is currently benefitting from a continued growth in our African-American population. Between 1990 and 1997, when the last set of complete figures were available from the Census Bureau, the number of African-Americans calling Maryland ``home'' grew to 1.4 million--an increase of 200,609 people. This makes Maryland the state with the eighth largest African- American population in the United States. Nearby Prince George's County was second in the Nation in terms of growth during this seven-year period with 68,325 new African-American residents. I am confident that an accurate Census 2000 count will show increases in these figures across the state. I am also most gratified to note that finally, a memorial to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has been approved and a site near the tidal basin in Washington D.C. was chosen. The sacrifice that Dr. King made for civil rights has touched every element of American society. I am particularly pleased to be involved in this effort to mark the contributions of this great leader. This memorial will join the monuments to Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln in some of the most hallowed ground in our Nation. Mr. President, as we look towards the future for African-Americans during this new century, it is my hope that the King Memorial will serve both as a monument to past achievements and our heritage, and also as an inspiration for our Nation to continue the struggle for an equality that includes all Americans.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would alleviate the $500,000 cost associated with the transfer of the former Bainbridge Naval Training Center in Cecil County, Maryland. It is my hope that this bill will help expedite the development of this property by the Bainbridge Development Corporation and the State of Maryland, and allow this site to realize its tremendous potential as soon as possible. Moreover, the money that the BDC will save through this waiver will be put towards salvaging several of the historic buildings on the site, namely, the historic Tome School. Next week, I will participate in the transfer ceremony for this base, which now represents 1200 acres of pristine and strategically located land. The transfer follows decades of negotiations and cleanup, and I, along with the Navy, my constituents in Cecil County, and the other members of the Maryland State congressional delegation hope to see development of this site begin promptly. In my view, the transfer of the Bainbridge site is a shining example of what can be accomplished through partnerships between Federal, State, and local governments. I introduce this bill to sustain our momentum and move this property into productive use as expeditiously as possible. Mr. President, I have spoken with the appropriate Navy officials regarding this matter and they have raised no concerns about this waiver. Indeed, this is truly a non-controversial measure with a very modest cost and I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am most pleased to join with the citizens of Maryland, Governor Parris Glendening, and other colleagues in government in welcoming Maestro Yuri Temirkanov, one of the most talented and gifted conductors of our time, as the new Music Director of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra. Maestro Temirkanov's inspired energy, imagination, and popularity, coupled with the renowned excellence and stellar reputation of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, promises Marylanders and the nation an unprecedented artistic combination. As the eleventh Music Director in the Orchestra's 83-year history, Maestro Temirkanov will oversee all artistic programming of the BSO, conduct twelve subscription concerts, the opening fundraising gala, any recordings, and will lead tours as well. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, through its critically-acclaimed concert tours, Grammy Award-winning recordings, and cutting-edge concert formats, has earned deserved respect in the world of classical music. The addition of Maestro Temirkanov takes the BSO to the highest echelon of musical excellence and achievement. A recent article from the Baltimore Sun included the following quote from Mikhail Baryshnikov: Baltimore audiences can look forward to special excitement, because Yuri Temirkanov is one of the truly inspired maestros of today. Mr. President, as a strong supporter of the arts, and on behalf of the citizens of Maryland, I take great pleasure in welcoming Maestro Temirkanov to the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra and ask that recent articles from the Baltimore Sun, Baltimore Magazine, and the Washington Post, be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the Baltimore Sun, Jan. 21, 2000] Temirkanov Powerful in BSO Debut (By Terry Teachout) So how does a brand-new music director go about making a really big impression at his inaugural concert? Yuri Temirkanov, who took the helm of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra last night, did it by detonating a performing of Gustav Mahler's 90-minute-long ``Resurrection'' Symphony at Joseph Meyerhoff Symphony Hall, aided and abetted by soprano Janice Chandler, mezzo-soprano Nancy Maultsby and the Baltimore Symphony Chorus. Short of inviting John Waters to set off nuclear weapons at midnight in the Chesapeake Bay, you can't get much bigger than that. The 61-year-old Temirkanov is not a household name outside his native Russia, where he took over the legendary St. Petersburg Philharmonic in 1968 (back when it was the Lenigrad Philharmonic) and led it by all accounts with great distinction. But he has already made waves in Baltimore. Several inches of snow didn't stop local music lovers from turning out in force to hear his official debut, and Mayor Martin O'Malley was on hand to declare him an honorary citizen of the city, expressing the hope that ``what is now great will become even greater.'' Though he's a certified performer, the major is hardly a full-fledged music critic. Still, I think he's onto something. Temirkanov gave us a ``Resurrection'' that was weighty, emphatic, deliberate and eloquent, with a resplendent finale full of great sunbursts of sound. What's more, the BSO has very clearly taken to him--with good reason. He is a powerful musical communicator with something strongly individual to say. Furthermore, it's clear that he has the kind of personality that makes orchestras long to play their best. To be sure, orchestras almost always play their best when Mahler is on the program. He has become so popular in recent decades that it is hard to remember a time when he was ever anything else. Yet in his own time and for long afterward, the extreme emotional weather of his music struck most concertgoers as peculiar at best, neurotic at worst. Though his proteges, Bruno Walter and Otto Klemperer among them, resolutely insisted on programming and recording his symphonies, he was widely thought to be little more than a virtuoso conductor who composed on the side; in Ralph Vaughan Williams' wrong-headed but witty summing up, his years of podium experience had turned him into ``a tolerable imitation of a composer.'' We know better now, but do we really know Mahler? And are his violent passions likely to wear well in our icy age of Irony Lite? Certainly anyone who sees him as a musical special-effects man, or his colossal symphonies as turn-of- the-century equivalents of such movies as ``Independence Day,'' is missing the point. Mahler was nothing if not serious, especially about spiritual matters. Above all, he was (in Walter's apt phrase) ``a God-seeker,'' and his search was fraught with angst. When rehearsing the ``Resurrection'' Symphony for his 1907 farewell concert with the Vienna Philharmonic, he went so far as to confess to that hard-boiled bunch of conductor-haters that it was a musical portrayal of ``the wrestling of Jacob with the Angel, and Jacob's cry to the Angel: `I will not let thee go except thou bless me.' '' Whatever else that is, it isn't cool. If the Second Symphony, completed in 1894, is a supreme masterpiece of religious art, it is one whose essential character is as much theatrical--even operatic--as it is spiritual. The expansive first movement was conceived as a free-standing symphonic poem called ``Todtenfeier'' (Funeral Rites), and the four sharply contrasting movements that follow describe a journey from fathomless despair to the ecstatic deliverance of the Last Judgment. Like Beethoven in his Ninth Symphony, Mahler ups the expressive ante by introducing vocal soloists and a chorus, who sing of the world's end and the heavenly life to come: ``All that has perished must rise again! Cease from trembling! Prepare to live!'' As it happens, the BSO is scarcely in need of resurrection. In his 13 years at the orchestra's helm, David Zinman deprovincialized what had long been perceived in the music business as a stodgy second-tier ensemble and turned it into one of America's strongest orchestras. Among countless other good things, he taught the BSO how to play Mahler's demanding music. His 1995 performance of the Third Symphony is one of the happiest and most vivid memories of my concert-going life. In all the hoopla surrounding Temirkanov's arrival, it's worth remembering that what happened last night would not have been possible had it not been for Zinman's superb stewardship. But Temirkanov is very much his own man, and he has had a striking effect on the sound of the BSO. Zinman was a quirky, intelligent modernist; Termirkanov is a high-octane romantic of the old school. A slight man who conducts without a baton, he makes large but straightforward gestures with his startlingly long and supple arms; he likes a dark, full sound, built from the basses up, and he favors plenty of portamento, the great swooping string slides that are so stylish in Mahler. He doesn't value precision for its own sake--the first movement was expansive rather than tightly controlled, not always to its best advantage--but he knows how to rise to an expressive occasion, and the great choral finale was beautifully controlled and superbly passionate. On the whole, this was a rather slow performance, more like Leonard Bernstein than Klemperer, and my taste runs to a Mahler that is tauter and more sardonic. Yet there a more than one way to make magic, and Temirkanov's interpretation seemed to me indelible. Indeed, the finale brought tears to my eyes, and I doubt I was alone. The soloists, not surprisingly, were excellent. Janice Chandler was bright and pure, Nancy Maultsby ripe-voiced and warm. The Baltimore Symphony Chorus did itself proud and deserved its share of the 12-minute standing ovation at evening's end. Aside from everything else, last night's concert (which will be repeated tonight at 8 p.m. and tomorrow at 11 a.m.) and next week's follow-up, an all-French program featuring pianist Leon Fleisher, are obviously designed to send out a subliminal message about the BSO's new boss. Most Russian conductors are perceived in the West as one-trick ponies, and Temirkanov is no exception: Of his 26 recordings, all but two are of Russian music. To kick off his first season with Mahler, Debussy and Ravel is thus to issue a bold declaration of independence from repertoire stereotypes, which bodes well for a conductor who will be rightly expected to play the field. Judging by last night's performance, I'd say he's off to a terrific start. I plan to return next week to hear the second chapter in what promises to be a fascinating musical story. You come, too.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I simply make the observation for those Members of the Senate who wish to be heard on this nomination that this is an opportune time, and that includes members of the committee and others who will seek either Senator Gramm or myself to yield time to them in order to speak. There are other Members who have been actually allocated time specifically. Of course, we presume they will be coming to the floor in order to use that time. I put an inquiry to the Chair: I understand that if no one speaks, the time will be charged proportionately to all those to whom time has been allocated?

Mr. SARBANES. Yes.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation now?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I cease and allow that circumstance to prevail.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Alan Greenspan to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. As I mentioned in the Banking Committee when we held the hearing on the nomination of Alan Greenspan to a fourth term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, one of the distinctive aspects of the Federal Reserve Board as an institution has been its remarkable stability of leadership. Since 1934, when President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Marriner Eccles to be Federal Reserve Board Chairman until today--a period of over 65 years--there have been only seven Federal Reserve Board Chairmen; only seven. Among them are some of the outstanding economic leaders of our country. Marriner Eccles himself served 14 years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. William McChesney Martin served 19 years. Arthur Burns and Paul Volcker each served 8 years. If Chairman Greenspan is confirmed--I am assuming, I think reasonably so, that would be the case--and serves the full length of his fourth term, as I expect he will, he will be the second longest serving Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. I think it is fair to say, in looking at his tenure as Chairman, that he will take his place among those other outstanding public servants who have provided exceptional economic leadership to our country. Earlier this week, the U.S. economy achieved the longest expansion in its history with 107 months of continuous growth. We have achieved high levels of growth that have brought us the lowest levels of unemployment in 30 years, and all of this has been accomplished with the lowest levels of inflation in 30 years. We have had a very virtuous economy in terms of low unemployment and low inflation. The expansion has now gone on long enough that its benefits have begun to be felt by the hardest to employ workers in our economy. Many companies now have instituted training programs which, of course, is all to the good. It enables us to improve the skills and the abilities of our workforce. It enables us to draw people into the workforce who heretofore have not been a part of it. A strongly vibrant economy is important to the success of any Welfare-to-Work initiative. One of the reasons that Welfare to Work has shown some of the results which it has shown is because it has taken place in the context of an economy moving towards or at full employment. The performance of the economy has defied the conventional wisdom once held by some in the economic profession that there was some arbitrary rate of unemployment below which the economy could not go without triggering inflation. Credit for this achievement should be shared. President Clinton and former Treasury Secretaries Bentsen and Rubin deserve credit for their disciplined leadership on fiscal policy which has eliminated our budget deficit and moved us into budget surpluses. The Congress also should share in that credit for maintaining fiscal discipline which has enabled us to come out of a deficit budget situation into a surplus budget situation, although I would add as a word of caution that I think we need to be extremely careful and prudent now in the steps we take. These surpluses about which so many people are talking in terms of what are they going to do with them are projected surpluses. They are not surpluses in hand and they depend very much on the continued healthy performance of the economy. I think it is imperative that we not go to excesses, whether on the spending side or the tax-cutting side, which would knock this economic engine off the track. In addition--obviously highly relevant to the subject before us-- Chairman Greenspan deserves credit for complementing the tight fiscal policy of the administration and the Congress with a monetary policy that has allowed our economy to grow. In doing so, he focused on the evidence before him and was not bound by arbitrary assumptions about the limits of our economy's ability to grow without triggering inflation. I think the Chairman has been very pragmatic as he has made his judgments. I think he has been very much driven by the facts of the situation and has not come at it with these ideological presuppositions into which he then tries to bend the facts but has taken the facts, evaluated them, and made his judgments. I am reminded of the fact that some years back within the Federal Reserve System there was a regional bank president who asserted that if the economy started growing and drove the unemployment rate down or looked as though it was going to be below 6.7 percent unemployment, then inflation would virtually automatically start to rise and, therefore, the Fed had the responsibility--the Open Market Committee-- as the economy was growing in this direction to start curtailing the economy, of slowing it down by raising the interest rates because unless they did that, a strongly growing economy would bring the unemployment rate down below 6.7 percent. And that was the magic point at which the inflation rate would start going up. Fortunately, the Chairman, Chairman Greenspan, and a majority of his colleagues, never bought into this theory. Now we see the fact we have brought unemployment down to just over 4 percent, and we have no significant inflation problem before us. There is a lot of credit that can go around. I mean, when you have success, everyone has fostered it. But I am quite happy certainly to allocate a portion of that to the Chairman and the policies of the Federal Reserve Board. I have disagreed with Chairman Greenspan in the past about monetary policy, and may well disagree with him again in the future. I have been very much oriented to growth and jobs. I have always been deeply concerned about these so-called preemptive strikes against inflation where you slow growth and job production without any visible sign of inflation--simply some sort of anticipation of it. I have always argued that we ought to let the economy run for a while and see what it produces. The recent experience, of course, has been very encouraging because we brought unemployment down very significantly and have not triggered an inflation problem. All in all, though, I think it is more than fair to say that Alan Greenspan has been a skillful and dedicated Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and merits confirmation for another term. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join in supporting this nomination of Alan Greenspan to another 4-year term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the able Senator from New York, and not only a member but a very strongly contributing member of our committee.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I express my appreciation to the managers of the bankruptcy bill, Senators Leahy, Torricelli, Grassley, and Hatch, for accepting and including an amendment I had planned to offer on the floor as part of the managers' amendment to S. 625. My amendment requires that a simple yet important disclosure be made on credit card bills to help protect consumers. During the bankruptcy reform debate in the last Congress, the Senate examined whether the increased rate of consumer bankruptcies in the Nation resulted solely from consumers' access to an excessively permissive bankruptcy process, or whether other factors also contributed to this increase. Ultimately we concluded that the record increase in bankruptcy filings across the nation was due not only to the ease with which one can enter the bankruptcy system, but also to the unparalleled levels of consumer debt--especially credit card debt-- being run up across the country. As Senator Durbin noted, and as the CBO, FDIC, and numerous economists have found, the rate of increase in bankruptcy filings paralleled the rate of increase in consumer debt. This is not a coincidence. Rather, increased bankruptcies proceed directly from the fact that Americans are bombarded daily by credit card solicitations that promise easy access to credit without informing their targets of the implications of signing up for such credit. During our debate in the last Congress, the Senate also concluded that irresponsible borrowing could be reduced, and many bankruptcies averted, if Americans were provided with some basic information in their credit card materials regarding the consequences of assuming greater debt. A consensus emerged that credit card companies have some affirmative obligation to provide such information to consumers in their solicitations, monthly statements, and purchasing materials, in light of their aggressive pursuit of less and less knowledgeable borrowers. As a result of this consensus, the Senate's bankruptcy bill in the last Congress--S. 1301--contained several provisions in the managers' amendment addressing credit card debt, and requiring specific disclosures by credit card companies in their payment and solicitation materials. These provisions, which I sponsored along with Senators Dodd and Durbin, were vital to the Senate's success in adopting balanced bankruptcy reform legislation by the overwhelming margin of 97-1. Unfortunately, the House-Senate conference committee struck these disclosure provisions from its final conference report, leaving the bankruptcy bill again a one-sided document that failed to account for the role credit card companies play in the accumulation of credit card debt and in increased consumer bankruptcy rates. As a result of the conference committee's actions, the conference report died in the waning days of the 105th Congress. As we again debate bankruptcy legislation, it remains my firm belief that Congress must address both sides of the consumer bankruptcy equation--both the flaws in the bankruptcy system that make it easy for people to declare bankruptcy even if they have the ability to pay their debts, and the lending practices that encourage people with limited financial resources to accumulate debts that are beyond their ability to repay. Last year, the Senate adopted an amendment to S. 625 that requires credit card issuers to give customers on their billing statements three disclosures: (1) warning that paying just the minimum monthly amount will increase the interest they pay and the time it takes to repay their balances; (2) a generic example; and (3) a toll-free number a customer can call for an estimate of how long he or she has to pay the minimum payment and the total payment to pay off his balance. However, the amendment contained an exception for certain credit card issuers that provide actual, instead of estimated, payment information. Such a credit card issuer would not have to disclose the warning, an example, or even the telephone number. This situation subverted the purpose of this section and distorted the balance contained in the original amendment. My amendment would restore this balance by requiring some disclosures to be given by certain credit card issuers that have a toll-free number for informing customers of the actual number of months it takes to repay outstanding balances using minimum monthly payments requirement. It requires such credit card issuers to make two disclosures: (1) the telephone number and (2) a warning. My amendment requires the credit card bill to contain the statement, ``Minimum Payment Warning: Making only the minimum payment will increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to repay your balance. For more information, call this toll-free number: __________.'' If we are going to make it harder for individuals to file for bankruptcy, we need to make certain that they are informed about their credit decisions. The minimal warning contained in my amendment helps credit card customers who pay the minimum monthly amount on their credit card bills better understand how long it will take and how much they will pay to work off the balance. The Financial Literacy Center has calculated that a consumer who, for example, has a $5,000 loan balance outstanding on which 17% interest is charged and who is paying 2% of the balance each month, will take 50 years to pay off the entire loan and end up paying $33,447. That is a very long time and a significant burden that, with the disclosures in my amendment, debtors will be able to better appreciate. My amendment helps consumers get important information that will enable them to analyze how to manage their credit card borrowing more effectively.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Senator. I will certainly do everything I can to help you meet your May 1 deadline--in fact, I hope and believe we should be able to act sooner.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to note that Congress is taking the first important step toward providing debt relief for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. As co-sponsor, with Senator Mack, of legislation to authorize U.S. participation in this critically important international initiative, I believe that easing the debt burden of the world's poorest countries is one of the most meaningful things we can do to help these nations eradicate poverty and grow their economies on a sustainable basis. The final version of the Foreign Operations appropriations bill contained enough money and authorizations to permit the HIPC Initiative to go forward, but there is more we have to do in Congress, beginning early next year, to provide the resources necessary to address the debt burden of the countries that are expected to qualify. As ranking member on the authorizing subcommittee in Foreign Relations, I intend to work hard to achieve the necessary additional authorizations there, including the very important one for U.S. contributions to the HIPC Trust Fund. I would like today to engage Senator Gramm in a colloquy on the commitment I understand he made to the Administration to act on the necessary remaining IMF authorization in the Banking Committee as well.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 761, the Third Millennium Digital Commerce Act. This is an important bill at a pivotal time in our nation's history. The rapid growth of the Internet, and its transformation from an academic research tool to a truly global communications network, is exerting its influence in more and more areas of our daily lives. One are of enormous change is the way in which Americans buy, sell, and trade products and services. Just as the general store gave way to the shopping mall and mail order catalogues, these now ``traditional'' forms of retailing are being supplanted by electronic commerce over the Internet. Electronic retailers are providing consumers with a broad range of new choices in goods and services. Electronic transactions are also becoming an integral part of business-to-business relationships. Ordering, billing, and a host of other activities are now being handled by electronic means, cutting both costs and transaction times. These techniques will make our overall economy more efficient, and the benefits should eventually be passed on to consumers. The world of electronic commerce is not without its problems, however. One of the largest of these is the lack of coherent legal framework for the conduct of electronic transactions. The commercial world is governed by a patchwork of Federal, state, and local laws. Because electronic commerce is such a recent phenomenon, it can be difficult to apply existing commercial codes and statutes to these new kinds of transactions. Often the laws are simply silent on electronic issues, leading to uncertainty for businesses and consumers alike. One such area is electronic signatures. Technology now exists that can replace written signatures on paper documents with computer code that performs the same functions. However, many states have not yet enacted laws to ensure that digital signature technologies, when used in a reasonable and appropriate manner, will be considered valid. According to business groups, this uncertainty has had a dampening effect on the growth of electronic commerce. Many state legislatures are hard at work to devise a workable, consistent legal framework for electronic records and signatures. Until their efforts are complete, however, S. 761, the bill introduced by Senator Abraham, will serve as a stop-gap measure. It will provide a measure of legal certainty, while protecting the rights of consumers under existing laws governing many types of transactions. I am pleased to have worked closely with Senator Abraham, Senator Leahy, Senator Wyden, members of the Commerce Committee, industry, and consumer groups to craft a bill that answers the legal need, yet provides for continued consumer protections. I would like briefly to describe some of these critical consumer protection aspects of the bill. While electronic commerce can provide consumers with enormous benefits, a sad stream of news articles over the past few years show clearly that there are unscrupulous operators on the Internet. The passage of this Act is intended to serve as a means of protecting consumers from deceptive practices. To provide businesses with greater legal certainty, the bill stipulates that contracts cannot be deemed unenforceable solely because they involved the use of an electronic signature. Under this bill, companies and consumers should only be able to agree to reasonable and appropriate electronic signature technologies that provide adequate security to both parties. However, as the definition of the electronic signature makes clear, the electronic signature is only valid under this Act if the person intended to sign the contract. The basic rules of good faith and fair dealing apply to electronic commerce, and this Act should not be the basis upon which parties to a contract can be asked to agree to terms and conditions for using electronic signatures and electronic contracts which are unreasonable based on the circumstances surrounding the transaction. For example, when the parties have conducted a transaction entirely in person, the fine print of a form contract should not include an agreement that the contract can be provided electronically rather than on paper. In addition, companies must deliver to consumers electronic records of the contract in a form they can receive, retain, and use to prove the terms of an agreement. Such an electronic record would have to be provided in a ``locked,'' or tamper proof, format. Regarding new laws on electronic transactions, the states have been engaged for some time, through the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, in the formulation of a model Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Versions of the UETA will be enacted by the individual states. The bill we are considering today includes a revised definition of UETA, changed from the bill reported by the Commerce Committee, that gives states more flexibility to pass versions of UETA that best meet the needs of their citizens. It is intended that California's recently passed version of UETA, for example, meet this test. I would like once again to thank my colleagues, Senator Abraham, Senator Leahy, and Senator Wyden for their hard work on this issue. I believe that we have reached an accommodation on this legislation that provides industry with the provisional legal certainty they seek, while ensuring that existing consumer laws are not diluted by the increasing use of electronic commerce. This is an important step toward making our commercial laws ready for the twenty-first century.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in recent years there has been renewed interest in the early history of the Jewish community in Greece. The Hellenic and Jewish peoples have had a long and constructive relationship, and that interaction has been one of the foundations of Western civilization. An important part of this historical movement is the renewed research on historic Jewish sites in Greece. There is now an active and impressive Jewish museum in Athens which has served as a focal point for this activity. These efforts have spawned a number of individuals to do their own family and group research; and I am pleased to report that one of my constituents, Dr. Judith Mazza, has written an excellent account of her visit to Greece entitled, ``First-time Traveler's Impressions of Jewish Sites in Greece,'' which was published in the spring 1999 issue of Kol haKEHILA. Dr. Mazza is descended from a Romaniote Jewish family from Greece, and her article depicts succinctly the rich and enduring Jewish cultural and religious legacy in Greece. I recommend it to all those interested in the history of the Jewish people and ask that the article be inserted at this point in the Record. The article follows: [From Kol haKEHILA, Spring 1999] A First-Time Traveler's Impressions of Jewish Sites in Greece (By Dr. Judith Mazza) I first saw mention of the Jewish Museum of Greece, located in Athens, about twenty years ago. Curious about my family history, I joined the Museum as an ``American Friend.'' Upon joining, I received a letter from the founder (now Director Emeritus) of the museum, Nicholas Stavroulakis, concerning my family name (Mazza, Matsas, Matza, etc). I learned from that letter that my family most probably was a Romaniote family rather than a Sephardi family. I then understood why my father's family never spoke Ladino (judaeo-espanol). My father, born in the United States, spoke Greek at home, as did his parents (who emigrated to the United States in the early 1900s from Ionnina and Corfu). My husband and I were curious to visit Jewish sites in Greece. My interest had been stimulated by the book Jewish Sites and Synagogues of Greece (Athens, 1992) by Stavroulakis and Timothy DeVinney. Prior to reading this book, I knew little about the communities that had existed in Greece prior to World War II. I did not have the opportunity to travel to Greece until November 1998. As soon as I knew I would be in Athens, I attempted to contact the Jewish Museum of Greece. Kol haKEHILA, was the first internet source to give me a way to contact the museum by e-mail. By e-mail, I asked the museum's curator, Zanet Battinou, to help find us a knowledgeable guide for our day in Athens. She recommended Dolly Asser. In addition to visiting ancient sites in Athens that day, Ms. Asser also took us to the Jewish Museum of Greece, and to the two modern synagogues in Athens. athens We began our day at the Museum. It had recently relocated and now occupies an entire building in the Plaka neighborhood. The museum has a number of floors, each with a different focus. As a first-time visitor, I found it interesting to see historic artifacts, documents, clothing and a wide variety of religious and domestic objects. There is a research library on the top floor. School children arrived as we were leaving, so apparently a visit to the Jewish Museum of Greece has become a part of the public school curriculum. After we left the museum, we visited the two synagogues. They are located on Melidoni Street, immediately across the street from one another. The street is gated and guarded by an armed policeman as a precaution against potential terrorist incidents. We first went to the Beth Shalom synagogue, which is the only actively used synagogue for the 3,500 Jews in Athens today. Ms. Asser introduced us to Rabbi Jacob Arar, who studied in France and Israel, inasmuch as there are no rabbinical schools in Greece. The outside of the building has simple lines and is faced in white marble. The interior of the synagogue is mostly wood paneled and has a warm and comfortable feeling. Directly across the street is the Ianniotiki synagogue, which had been built by Romaniote Jews from Ionnina. It is located on the second floor of the building. The lower floor houses the Athens Jewish community offices. We obtained the key to the synagogue from the office staff and walked through a hallway into a courtyard. The courtyard was fully paved except for a small area from which one large palm tree grew. We walked up the narrow exterior stairs to a walkway, and unlocked the door. This synagogue was smaller and seemed older than the synagogue across the street. We later learned that it is mostly used for special occasions. It is elegant in its simplicity. rhodes We had the opportunity to see one other Jewish site in Greece when we stopped in Rhodes a few days later. We had seen a website for the Jewish Museum of Rhodes before our travels began at www.RhodesJewishMuseum.org. We sought out the island's synagogue and adjacent museum. Finding the street in the old walled city of Rhodes was not too difficult, as it was clearly labeled and the synagogue is noted on tourist maps. As we walked toward the synagogue and museum, we knew that we were in what had once been the Jewish quarter of the city. We could see Hebrew inscriptions above some of the doorways, signifying houses built by prominent Jewish families. However, many of these buildings appeared to be in a state of disrepair. Unfortunately, we had no information about the buildings and knew virtually nothing about the Jewish community that once existed here. As we walked, we could see through iron gates, that some buildings had interior courtyards with interesting floor patterns formed by smooth black and white stones. In some courtyards, the stone patterns were intact, while in others the patterns were quite deteriorated. We could not find the synagogue itself, but luckily, we asked directions from an elderly woman. Lucia Modiano Sulam turned out to be the keeper of the synagogue and was kind enough to guide us to it. She was a Holocaust survivor, with tattooed numbers on her forearm. We were quite unprepared for what we found when we entered Kahal Shalom synagogue. The synagogue, in very good condition, was more elaborate than the synagogues we had seen in Athens. Crystal chandeliers hung from the ceiling. Beautiful carpets lay on the floor. The mosaic floor inside was made of the same black and white smooth stones that we had seen elsewhere. Here, the stones were arranged in more elaborate patterns. Chairs were placed on the two long sides of the interior and the wooden bimah was in the middle of the room. Just outside the synagogue entrance is a courtyard which has a stone mosaic floor. It is well preserved. We also visited the Jewish Museum of Rhodes, located next to the synagogue. This is a new museum in its first stage of development. Aron Hasson, a Los Angeles attorney whose family came from Rhodes, founded it. The museum currently consists of one room with white rustic walls and a curved ceiling. When we were there, the museum exhibition consisted of photographs and other printed materials. Tourism to Jewish sites in Greece We knew that the Jewish population in Greece had been decimated by the Holocaust, and that only remmants of that once-thriving community remains there. However, as a traveler and tourist, I have been stuck by the difficulty in obtaining information about Jewish sites and Jewish history of Greece. I do not understand why one organization or resource does not reference another. Organizations that have websites or access to the Internet should have hypertext links to other Greek Jewish organizations, including e-mail links to facilities that may not yet have a website. There should be a list of bibliographic references about Greek Jewry and Jewish tourist sites in Greece. When we were in the Jewish Museum of Greece shop in Athens, I was stunned to find an English language book about the Jews of Ionnina (Dalven, R., The Jews of Ioannina, Philadelphia, 1992). I purchased the book immediately! Likewise, it was through word of mouth from both Yitzhak Kerem (publisher of the electronic newsletter Sefarad) and Elias Messinas (editor of Kol haKEHILA) that I learned of the fascinating book written by Dr. Michael Matsas entitled The Illusion of Safety; The story of the Greek Jews During the Second World War (New York, 1997). In reading these books and in speaking with both Messinas and Kerem whom I recently met in Jerusalem, I understand that the Greek Jews, unlike Jews in some other parts of Europe, had ample opportunity to flee or hide from the Nazis. In instance after instance the warnings of the catastrophic consequences of not fleeing or hiding were not disseminated, or the seriousness of the situation was minimized. The communication among the communities was poor. When we visited Rhodes, we stood on its acropolis and clearly saw the Turkish coast only 11 miles away. It was difficult to come to terms with the complacency of the Jewish population of Rhodes in 1944 that resulted in their slaughter. They were among the last Greek Jews to be sent to Auschwitz. By 1944, other communities in Greece had already been eliminated. Safety lay only eleven miles away. The Jews of the city of Rhodes did not even flee to the island's countryside. Perhaps a reader can explain this puzzling apparent fact. The lesson today seems clear. To preserve the remnants of the Greek Jewish heritage, various interested organizations should cooperate with the another. They should use electronic hypertext links to cross-reference one another whenever possible. The Jewish Museum of Greece in Athens should have information about Jewish sites throughout Greece, including other museums, such as the one in Rhodes. Likewise, the Jewish Museum of Rhodes should link to as many Jewish sites throughout Greece as possible. Books, bibliographies and brochures about Jewish sites throughout Greece should be made available at each of the sites and at Tourist Offices. Never again should the Jewish community of Greece be weakened by poor communication among various components. Certainly, not in this age of electronic communications and the Internet. There are some dedicated people working in disparate organizations to preserve and memorialize Greek Jewish sites and culture. Now they need to recognize the gestalt effect that would result from closer cooperation. We came away from our experience wanting to learn more about the various communities that only existed in the past, and also those which continue to survive. We hope that others will become interested in exploring and preserving Jewish heritage in Greece. The best way to do this and to attract Jewish tourists is to make information about Jewish sites more readily available. We hope that the various organizations and interested parties will work together to that end.