Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing on behalf of myself, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Torricelli, legislation to create a National Military Museum Foundation. The purpose of this legislation is to encourage and facilitate private-sector support in the effort to preserve, interpret and display the important role the military has played in the history of our nation. This legislation is, in my judgment, crucial at this particular moment in history, when we are on the verge of jeopardizing two-centuries worth of military artifacts and negating the possibility of such collections in the future. It has been the long-standing tradition of the U.S. Department of War and its successor, the Department of Defense, to preserve our historic military artifacts. Since the days of the revolution to the conflict in Bosnia, Americans have been proud of the role that our military has had in safeguarding our democracy, and we have tried to ensure that future generations will know that role. Over the years we have accumulated a priceless collection of military artifacts from every period of American history and every technological era. The collection includes flags, uniforms, weapons, paintings and historic records as well as full-size tanks, ships and aircraft which document history and provide provenance for our nation and armed services. In recent years, however, the dedicated individuals who identify, interpret, catalog and showcase those artifacts have found themselves shortchanged and shorthanded. With financial resources diminishing, not only are we cheating ourselves out of the military treasures currently warehoused out of public sight, but we are in danger of lacking the funds to update our collections with new items. ``A morsel of genuine history,'' wrote Thomas Jefferson to John Adams in 1817, ``is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' Mr. President, today, significant pieces of our military history are being lost, shoved into basements, or subject to decay. With each year also comes less funding, and our artifacts are multiplying at a pace that exceeds the capabilities of those who are trying to preserve them. Since 1990 alone, the services have closed 21 military museums and at least eight more are expected to close in the next few years. We cannot let this proceed any further. Military museums are vital to documenting our history, educating our citizenry and advancing our technology. More than 86 museums in 31 states and the District of Columbia daily instill Americans from veterans to new recruits to elementary school students with a sense of the sacred responsibility that military servicemen bear to defend the values that have made this country great. Military museums teach our servicemen the history of their units, enhancing their understanding both of the team of which they are a part and the significance of the service they have pledged to perform. And when a museum makes history come alive to young children, those children learn for themselves that what this country stands for and the sacrifices that have been made to preserve the freedoms we often take for granted. Many of our servicemen have learned their military history through these artifacts rather than textbooks, and many of our technological advances have come as a direct result of these artifacts. The ship models and ordinances at U.S. Naval Academy Museum in Annapolis, MD, for example, have been used by the Academy's Departments of Gunnery and Seamanship. It has also been reported that a study of an existing missile system, preserved in an Army museum, saves the Strategic Defense Initiative $25 million in research and analysis costs. These museums serve as laboratories where engineers can learn from the lessons of the past without going through the same trial and error process as their predecessors. Yet without adequate funding, these benefits will be lost forever. According to a 1994 study conducted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation entitled, ``Defense Department Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,'' the Department of Defense's management of these resources has been ``mediocre,'' with the cause attributed to ``inadequate staffing and funding.'' More than 80 percent of the museums studied said their survival relies heavily on outside funding. When asked about their greatest needs, the response was nearly always staff and money. And those museums that reported sufficient staffing from volunteers nevertheless said that the dearth of funds for restoration and construction paralyzed them from fully utilizing the available labor. According to the study, money is so tight that brochures and pamphlets are often unaffordable, leaving visitors with no explanations about the objects that have come to see. A young child might be duly impressed by the sight of a stern-faced general, but the historical lesson is greatly diminished if the child is not told the significance of the event portrayed or why the general looked so grim that day. Perhaps most distressing, the study reported ``substantial collections of rare or unique historical military vehicles and equipment that are unmaintained and largely unprotected due to lack of funds and available expertise.'' In addition, the museums were found to be struggling so much with the care of items already in house, that they were unable to accept new ones. With a new class of military artifacts from the Vietnam and Gulf Wars soon to be retired, one wonders whether those artifacts will be preserved. If we do not take action to save what we have and acquire what we don't, future generations will see these pockets of negligence as blank pages in the living history books that these museums truly are. Only a Foundation can address these problems. The alternate solution--to press the services to devote more money to these institutions--is implausible in this budgetary climate. The Secretary of Defense must place his highest priority on the readiness of our forces. Closely allied to that priority is the effort to improve the quality of life for our citizens on active duty. And, as aging equipment faces obsolescence, the Secretary has indicated that the future will bring an increased emphasis on replacing weapons systems. By all realistic assumptions, the amount of funds appropriated for museums is likely to continue downward. My bill recognizes the growing need for a reliable source of funding aside from federal appropriations. A National Military Museum Foundation would provide an accessible venue for individuals, corporations or other private sources to support the preservation of our priceless military artifacts and records. A National Military Museum Foundation could also play an important role in surveying those artifacts that we know to exist. Currently, these is no museum oversight or coordination of museum activities on the DOD level. A wide-ranging Foundation survey would therefore not only eliminate duplication, but would most likely discover gaps in our collections that must be filled before it is too late. Under the proposed legislation, the Secretary of Defense would appoint the Foundation's Board of Directors and provide basic administrative support. To launch the Foundation, the legislation authorizes an initial appropriation of $1 million. It is anticipated that the Foundation would be self sufficient after the first year. This is a small price to pay to save some of our most precious treasures. This legislation is modeled on legislation that established similar foundations, such as the National Park Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, both of which have succeeded in raising private-sector support for conservation programs. My bill is not intended to supplant existing Federal funding or other foundation efforts that may be underway, but rather to supplement those efforts. The premise for establishing a national foundation is, in part, to elevate the level of fund raising beyond the local level, supplementing those efforts by seeking donations from potentially large donors. I also want to emphasize the inclusiveness of the Foundation, which will represent all the branches of our armed services. Mr. President, statistics reveal that foundations established without the mandate of a federal statute and the backing of an established agency seldom succeed. With ever-diminishing federal funds, we cannot expect the Department to put our military museums ahead of national security. Truly, an outside source committed to sustaining our museums is imperative. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing on behalf of myself, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Torricelli, legislation to create a National Military Museum Foundation. The purpose of this legislation is to encourage and facilitate private-sector support in the effort to preserve, interpret and display the important role the military has played in the history of our nation. This legislation is, in my judgment, crucial at this particular moment in history, when we are on the verge of jeopardizing two-centuries worth of military artifacts and negating the possibility of such collections in the future. It has been the long-standing tradition of the U.S. Department of War and its successor, the Department of Defense, to preserve our historic military artifacts. Since the days of the revolution to the conflict in Bosnia, Americans have been proud of the role that our military has had in safeguarding our democracy, and we have tried to ensure that future generations will know that role. Over the years we have accumulated a priceless collection of military artifacts from every period of American history and every technological era. The collection includes flags, uniforms, weapons, paintings and historic records as well as full-size tanks, ships and aircraft which document history and provide provenance for our nation and armed services. In recent years, however, the dedicated individuals who identify, interpret, catalog and showcase those artifacts have found themselves shortchanged and shorthanded. With financial resources diminishing, not only are we cheating ourselves out of the military treasures currently warehoused out of public sight, but we are in danger of lacking the funds to update our collections with new items. ``A morsel of genuine history,'' wrote Thomas Jefferson to John Adams in 1817, ``is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' Mr. President, today, significant pieces of our military history are being lost, shoved into basements, or subject to decay. With each year also comes less funding, and our artifacts are multiplying at a pace that exceeds the capabilities of those who are trying to preserve them. Since 1990 alone, the services have closed 21 military museums and at least eight more are expected to close in the next few years. We cannot let this proceed any further. Military museums are vital to documenting our history, educating our citizenry and advancing our technology. More than 86 museums in 31 states and the District of Columbia daily instill Americans from veterans to new recruits to elementary school students with a sense of the sacred responsibility that military servicemen bear to defend the values that have made this country great. Military museums teach our servicemen the history of their units, enhancing their understanding both of the team of which they are a part and the significance of the service they have pledged to perform. And when a museum makes history come alive to young children, those children learn for themselves that what this country stands for and the sacrifices that have been made to preserve the freedoms we often take for granted. Many of our servicemen have learned their military history through these artifacts rather than textbooks, and many of our technological advances have come as a direct result of these artifacts. The ship models and ordinances at U.S. Naval Academy Museum in Annapolis, MD, for example, have been used by the Academy's Departments of Gunnery and Seamanship. It has also been reported that a study of an existing missile system, preserved in an Army museum, saves the Strategic Defense Initiative $25 million in research and analysis costs. These museums serve as laboratories where engineers can learn from the lessons of the past without going through the same trial and error process as their predecessors. Yet without adequate funding, these benefits will be lost forever. According to a 1994 study conducted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation entitled, ``Defense Department Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,'' the Department of Defense's management of these resources has been ``mediocre,'' with the cause attributed to ``inadequate staffing and funding.'' More than 80 percent of the museums studied said their survival relies heavily on outside funding. When asked about their greatest needs, the response was nearly always staff and money. And those museums that reported sufficient staffing from volunteers nevertheless said that the dearth of funds for restoration and construction paralyzed them from fully utilizing the available labor. According to the study, money is so tight that brochures and pamphlets are often unaffordable, leaving visitors with no explanations about the objects that have come to see. A young child might be duly impressed by the sight of a stern-faced general, but the historical lesson is greatly diminished if the child is not told the significance of the event portrayed or why the general looked so grim that day. Perhaps most distressing, the study reported ``substantial collections of rare or unique historical military vehicles and equipment that are unmaintained and largely unprotected due to lack of funds and available expertise.'' In addition, the museums were found to be struggling so much with the care of items already in house, that they were unable to accept new ones. With a new class of military artifacts from the Vietnam and Gulf Wars soon to be retired, one wonders whether those artifacts will be preserved. If we do not take action to save what we have and acquire what we don't, future generations will see these pockets of negligence as blank pages in the living history books that these museums truly are. Only a Foundation can address these problems. The alternate solution--to press the services to devote more money to these institutions--is implausible in this budgetary climate. The Secretary of Defense must place his highest priority on the readiness of our forces. Closely allied to that priority is the effort to improve the quality of life for our citizens on active duty. And, as aging equipment faces obsolescence, the Secretary has indicated that the future will bring an increased emphasis on replacing weapons systems. By all realistic assumptions, the amount of funds appropriated for museums is likely to continue downward. My bill recognizes the growing need for a reliable source of funding aside from federal appropriations. A National Military Museum Foundation would provide an accessible venue for individuals, corporations or other private sources to support the preservation of our priceless military artifacts and records. A National Military Museum Foundation could also play an important role in surveying those artifacts that we know to exist. Currently, these is no museum oversight or coordination of museum activities on the DOD level. A wide-ranging Foundation survey would therefore not only eliminate duplication, but would most likely discover gaps in our collections that must be filled before it is too late. Under the proposed legislation, the Secretary of Defense would appoint the Foundation's Board of Directors and provide basic administrative support. To launch the Foundation, the legislation authorizes an initial appropriation of $1 million. It is anticipated that the Foundation would be self sufficient after the first year. This is a small price to pay to save some of our most precious treasures. This legislation is modeled on legislation that established similar foundations, such as the National Park Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, both of which have succeeded in raising private-sector support for conservation programs. My bill is not intended to supplant existing Federal funding or other foundation efforts that may be underway, but rather to supplement those efforts. The premise for establishing a national foundation is, in part, to elevate the level of fund raising beyond the local level, supplementing those efforts by seeking donations from potentially large donors. I also want to emphasize the inclusiveness of the Foundation, which will represent all the branches of our armed services. Mr. President, statistics reveal that foundations established without the mandate of a federal statute and the backing of an established agency seldom succeed. With ever-diminishing federal funds, we cannot expect the Department to put our military museums ahead of national security. Truly, an outside source committed to sustaining our museums is imperative. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Low Vision Information Center, LVIC, located in Bethesda, Maryland. This unique center provides critical help to visually impaired individuals and their families. Low vision is the third leading cause of disability in the United States whose causes, among others, include macular degeneration and glaucoma. Low vision is a life altering condition which prevents millions of Americans from performing ostensibly elementary tasks such as reading, walking without aid, dialing the telephone, and even recognizing the faces of family and friends. Unlike other vision complications, low vision cannot be corrected with glasses and contacts, nor are there medical or surgical solutions available. There are, however, research and rehabilitation centers which address low vision, including Maryland's own Johns Hopkins Lions Vision Research and Rehabilitation Center at the Wilmer Eye Institute, which research the condition and help formulate ways in which the challenges posed by low vision can be reduced. The LVIC provides a related but unique service. Established 20 years ago, LVIC is dedicated to helping individuals with low vision cope with daily tasks in a home-like setting with the most up-to-date technology, LVIC has served more than 40,000 clients and their families during its 20-year history. Currently, LVIC staff and volunteers see up to 150 clients a month in their downtown Bethesda office. LVIC helps people with everything from successfully pouring a cup of coffee, to writing personal checks, to learning how to use a talking watch. Additionally, LVIC often shows vision professionals what it is like to suffer from low vision by providing them with goggles that simulate various eye afflictions. Staff and volunteers also visit senior centers and nursing homes to educate this populace about low vision. Mr. President, it has always been my firm belief that public service is one of the most honorable callings, one that demands the very best, most dedicated efforts of those fortunate enough to serve their fellow citizens. LVIC provides a critical public service to countless individuals in our society, both by directly helping those who suffer from low vision, and by educating professionals and lay people alike on the causes, symptoms and technology available relating to low vision. I am pleased to join with all of LVIC's clients and their families, staff and volunteers in celebrating 20 years of public service that has significantly improved the quality of life for low vision individuals in our society.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report now before us on the budget resolution. The Congressional budget process as we know it is 25 years old this year. Silver anniversaries such as this one are important milestones, but this year's budget resolution provides no cause for celebration. For a number of reasons, I am deeply disappointed in the resolution that my Republican colleagues appear determined to adopt today. First are issues of process. As a member of the Budget Committee, I have been disappointed in the amount of time that we have had available to study the budget proposals before us. Consideration in committee, on the Senate floor, and now in relation to this conference report has been marked by the absence of detailed, written proposals that would provide the basis for sound decisions. Indeed, I understand that at the conference on this resolution, there was not even a draft resolution to which members could react. After less than 6 hours of consideration, and with no text available, the conference committee hurriedly approved this report early Wednesday morning. The Senate has not had the chance to give the measure a proper review, yet here we are the very next day asked to approve a $1.4 trillion budget. It is troubling that the majority's desire to beat today's statutory April 15 deadline has prevailed over thoughtful consideration and debate. The result of this haste and the deficient policy making process will be quite clear to the American people once they understand this budget's real implications. Mr. President, I believe that this budget will take the country in the wrong direction. We are now in the 96th month of the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. We are truly in a virtuous economic cycle, as growth reached 6.1 percent in the last quarter of 1998, and 3.9 percent for the year. 1998 was the sixth year of such steady growth, a pattern of robust increases that many economists once thought unsustainable over such long periods. I am proud to have been a part of the effort in 1993 that helped to create this positive economic climate. Working together, President Clinton 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 1980s, 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. Thanks to the strong economy and the fiscal discipline begun in 1993, the country is in a fiscal position no one dreamed possible even two 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 fiscal year 2000, $153 billion in fiscal year 2002, and continuing for the foreseeable future. Earlier in the decade, OMB estimates for the 2002 deficit ran as high as $576 billion. This year, those forecasts have been turned upside down. CBO's recent projections call for unified budget surpluses rising from $131 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $381 billion if fiscal year 2009. The budget resolution before us will seriously endanger this hard-won progress, and will short-change national priorities that the American people have clearly indicated they want to see addressed. Depending upon one's point of view, this is either the last budget of the old millennium, or the first of the new. In either case, it is an opportunity for us to think seriously about our Nation's needs and priorities as we look into the next century, and chart an appropriate course for the future. This budget, however, is less a forward-looking policy blueprint than a political document aimed at short-term gain. This is unfortunate, because as we look toward the future we face some very real challenges, the most significant of which will come in Medicare and Social Security. Together, these are two of the crowning achievements of American government, and have lifted literally millions of older Americans out of poverty. These programs have worked, and continue to work every day for our senior citizens and their families. To prepare the country for the future, any budget that we pass must meet several criteria. It must extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. It must recognize the magnitude of these obligations in a forthright way, and include a mechanism to boost national savings and economic growth, so that we are in a better position to meet them. It should be designed to reduce, not increase, the growing income disparities that can fray our social fabric. Finally, it should protect other important national priorities. Support for communities, scientific research, veterans benefit, education, environmental protection, and the like should not be sacrificed for tax breaks for the well-to-do. This proposal fails to meet any of these criteria. Instead, it appears tailor-made to accommodate the majority's priority of huge tax cuts for the wealthy. While the total available for tax cuts starts off at $15 billion in fiscal year 2000, that mushrooms to $142 billion over 5 years and $778 billion over the next 10 years. Who will benefit from these tax cuts? If past is prologue, lower and middle income Americans will not. Capital gains cuts, repeal of estate taxes, and more corporate loopholes all give tax relief where it is least needed--to those already at the top of the income scale. These have been part and parcel of previous Republican tax cut packages, and there is no reason to suspect that this year will be any different. The Republican budget would require devastating, unsustainable cuts in critical programs that serve millions of Americans. In order to provide massive increases in defense outlays while trying to stay under the discretionary caps passed 2 years ago, this plan makes dramatic cuts in almost every other area of government. According to estimates from the Office of Management and Budget, the combination of defense increases, protection of a select few programs, and retention of the budget caps would force spending reductions in non-defense discretionary programs of $26.9 billion in fiscal year 2000 alone. This would require an unprecedented across-the-board cut of over 11 percent in real terms from fiscal year 1999 levels across a broad array of important government functions. On top of these huge cuts, this budget will cripple important programs far into the future in order to fund the majority's tax cuts. After the current spending caps expire, any future increases would be held to well under the rate of inflation. This means that every year, important functions will continue to suffer real cutbacks amounting to billions of dollars. Incredibly, discretionary levels in 2009--10 years from now--will be just 2.6 percent over those enacted this fiscal year, 1999. This will not even begin to make up for losses to inflation, to say nothing of increased needs caused by a growing population. I also must note that the conference report does not specifically call for continuation of the traditional parity in pay increases between military and civilian government employees. I successfully sponsored an amendment to maintain this parity in S. 4, the military pay increase bill passed by the Senate earlier this session, and I urge the Senate to continue its support for this principle as the appropriations process moves forward. Mr. President, this budget proposal falls far short of the mark in almost every important respect. It would harm important programs ranging from Head Start to the FBI, from air traffic control to food safety inspections, while providing a huge tax cut for the wealthy. The plan utterly fails to meet the most fundamental tests--it does not extend the solvency of Social Security in any way, and does nothing meaningful to address the more immediate problems in Medicare. When Democrats introduced amendments in the Budget Committee and on the floor that would specifically put saving Social Security and Medicare ahead of the Republican tax cut, the measures were defeated. Republicans opposed Social Security and Medicare at their inception, and this budget resolution shows that they still do not see how important these programs are to millions of individuals. The Republican priorities evident in this resolution simply are not shared by most of the American people. I strongly oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this week from April 11-17 we are celebrating the 41st 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. 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 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, today the Democratic members of the Senate Banking Committee--myself, Senators Dodd, Kerry, Bryan, Johnson, Reed, Schumer, Bayh, and Edward--are joining with the Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle, in introducing the Financial Services Act of 1999. Senator Daschle and the Democratic members of the Senate Banking Committee strongly support financial services modernization legislation. Last year, every Democratic member of the Committee voted for financial services modernization in the form of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1998. That bill was reported by the Committee on a bipartisan vote of 16 to 2. In a Committee markup of financial services legislation on March 4 of this year, every Democratic member of the Committee voted for financial services modernization in the form of a substitute amendment that I offered. The substitute amendment contained the text of last year's bill with the addition of a provision that would permit banks to conduct expanded financial service activities through operating subsidiaries. The substitute amendment was defeated on a party line vote of 11 to 9. The bill being introduced today consists of the substitute amendment that was offered in the Banking Committee markup. We introduce this legislation because it meets certain basic goals. These include permitting affiliations among firms within the financial services industry, preserving the safety and soundness of the financial system, protecting consumers, maintaining the separation of banking and commerce, and expanding access to credit for all communities in our country. Unfortunately, the bill reported out of the Senate Banking Committee does not meet these goals and was opposed by every Democratic member of the Committee. We are disappointed that the Committee Majority has abandoned the consensus so carefully developed last year. The broad, bipartisan margin of support enjoyed by last year's bill reflected the compromises struck during the course of its consideration. It was not opposed by a single major financial services industry association. The legislation being introduced today reflects compromises among Committee Members and among industry groups on a wide range of issues, including the Community Reinvestment Act, consumer protections, and the separation of banking and commerce. The decision by the Committee Majority to abandon these compromises has resulted in less than unanimous industry support for the Committee-passed bill. In addition, civil rights groups, community groups, consumer organizations, and local government officials strongly oppose the Committee-passed bill. We are disappointed as well that the Committee Majority has refused to recognize that enactment of financial services legislation entails accommodation of views not only of members of the Congress, but in particular the view of the White House and the Treasury Department. On March 2, before the Committee's markup, President Clinton wrote: This Administration has been a strong proponent of financial legislation that would reduce costs and increase access to financial services for consumers, businesses, and communities . . . I agree that reform of the laws governing our nation's financial services industry would promote the public interest. However, I will veto the Financial Services Modernization Act if it is presented to me in its current form. The President warned that the bill ``would undermine the effectiveness of the Community Reinvestment Act,'' ``would deny financial services firms the freedom to organize themselves in the way that best serve their customers,'' ``would . . . provide inadequate consumer protections,'' and ``could expand the ability of depository institutions and nonfinancial firms to affiliate . . .'' None of these concerns was fully addressed by the Committee Majority at markup. Unless the concerns of the Administration are addressed, it is clear the Committee-passed bill will not be enacted into law. We believe the bill we are introducing today is a balanced, prudent approach to financial services modernization legislation. It could not only be passed by the Congress, but signed into law by the President. It is clearly the approach most likely to lead to the enactment of financial services modernization legislation in this Congress.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Oregon for joining in this initiative. This is an effort to focus attention on the need to provide adequate funding for International Affairs, the so- called 150 account, which is essential for maintaining our security and building peace. U.S. international leadership requires effective diplomacy, which is in many ways our first line of defense. If we do it effectively, we do not have to resort to using our military strength. I want to make it very clear that the chairman of the Budget Committee has been sensitive to this problem. We appreciate the constraints within which the committee has had to work, and in the past the chairman has been responsive to our concern. Secretary Albright, of course, has just made some very strong statements about how pressed and handicapped she feels by the funding levels proposed in this budget. This amendment is an effort to show that the Members of this body recognize the importance of providing the necessary resources for the conduct of U.S. diplomacy, and our intention, as we move through this budget process, to find additional funds with which to address the programs in the 150 account. We have an urgent and sustained requirement to provide for upgrades in embassy security. We do not want to take that out of the other international programs, because that account is already at rock bottom--indeed, below rock bottom. Mr. President, recently I received a letter from the Coalition for American Leadership Abroad, which stated in part: We are deeply concerned that over the last decade our institutions, programs, and the necessary resources to support diplomacy, America's front line in today's world, have been seriously impacted by budget cuts. Our organization, the Coalition for American Leadership Abroad (COLEAD), a nonpartisan coalition of 37 non-profit foreign affairs organizations, seeks to support and strengthen American engagement in world affairs. We believe that we should not withdraw from the world and that American leadership in world affairs is not only vital for our national interests and security but also to build a better world community. We should not turn our backs on the 95% of mankind beyond our borders. U.S. funding for our diplomatic effort, in its many forms, has decreased by some 50% in real terms over the past dozen years. We are especially concerned about the projected downward trend in the foreign affairs budget for the next three years. Thus, we need to restore a rational sense of balance and proportion to our funding allocations for programs that preserve and protect our interests abroad. Effective American diplomatic leadership cannot exist without resources. We strongly believe that the time has come to examine American interests and programs in order to develop a broad bi-partisan consensus which would gain public and leadership support. We need to develop a better and wider consensus about how best to support these efforts in terms of institutions and resources. Our goal should start and end with a stronger America abroad, rather than a weaker nation in world affairs. Mr. President, hopefully, as we work through this budget process over the coming weeks and months, we will be able to find a way to respond to the challenges that we are facing with respect to the various programs and policies that are contained in the 150 account. As Secretary Albright has pointed out, there is a clear and present danger to American safety, prosperity, and values if we do not adequately address the resource question. I am very hopeful that we will be able to come to grips with this in a realistic way, and I appreciate the initiative of my distinguished colleague from Oregon in this regard. This is simply a call to begin confronting this problem as we move down the budget path. I am pleased to join in support of this amendment. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Robert Oakley be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Two each?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, entitled the ``Transit in Parks Act'' or TRIP, to help ease the congestion, protect our nation's natural resources, and improve mobility and accessibility in our National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Reid, Murkowski, Boxer, Kennedy, Moynihan, Schumer, Kerry, and Murray who are cosponsors of this important legislation. The TRIP legislation is a new federal transit grant initiative that is designed to provide mass transit and alternative transportation services for our national parks, our wildlife refuges, federal recreational areas, and other public lands managed by three agencies of the Department of the Interior. I first introduced similar legislation on Earth Day, 1998 and, during consideration of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21, part of my original bill was included as section 3039, authorizing a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in our national park lands. The objective of this study is to better identify those areas with existing and potential problems of congestion and pollution, or which can benefit from mass transportation services, and to identify and estimate the project costs for these sites. The fiscal year 1999 Transportation Appropriations bill included $2 million to help fund this important study. I am pleased to report that much important research that will more fully examine the park transportation and resource management needs and outline potential solutions and benefits is underway. Before discussing the bill in greater detail, let me first provide some background on the management issues facing the National Park System. When the national parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. Travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was difficult and long and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our nation's great natural wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the national park lands to millions of Americans. Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars has resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has five million visitors a year. It may surprise you to know that the average visitor stay is only three hours. As many as 6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,000 parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot. In the decade from 1984 to 1994, the number of visits to America's national parks increased 25 percent, rising from 208 million to 269 million a year. This is equal to more than one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut-out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other parks: Yosemite, which has more than four million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than three million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent damage to our nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage. My legislation builds upon two previous initiatives to address these problems. First is the study of alternative transportation strategies in our national parks that was mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. This study, completed by the National Park Service nearly five years ago in May 1994, found that many of our most heavily visited national parks are experiencing the same problems of congestion and pollution that afflict our cities and metropolitan areas. Yet, overwhelmingly, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads primarily for private automobile access. Second, in November 1997, Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt signed an agreement to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around national parks. The findings in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the two departments are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind. In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or science areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas. On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed. The challenge for park management is twofold: to conserve and protect the nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. The Transit in Parks Act will go far to meeting this challenge. The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded mass transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources, to prevent adverse impact on those resources, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. This new federal transit grant program will provide funding to three Federal land management agencies in the Department of the Interior--the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management-- that manage the 378 various parks within the National Park System, including National Battlefields, Monuments and National Seashores, as well as the National Wildlife Refuges and federal recreational areas. The program will allocate capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national park lands. The bill authorizes $50 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003. It is anticipated that other resources--both public and private--will be available to augment these amounts in the initial phase. The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement in the 1997 MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The projects eligible for funding would be developed through the TEA-21 planning process and selected in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior. The bill provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. It is anticipated that the Secretary of Transportation would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major national parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this section, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional public transit system. Project selection should include the following criteria: the historical and cultural significance of a project; safety; and the extent to which the project would conserve resources, prevent adverse impact, enhance the environment, improve mobility, and contribute to livable communities. The bill also identifies projects of regional or national significance that more closely resemble the Federal transit program's New Starts projects. Where the project costs are $25 million or greater, the projects will comply with the transit New Starts requirements. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance. I firmly believe that this program can create new opportunities for the Federal land management agency to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the TEA-21 planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands. Mr. President, the ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks-- quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities. As we begin the final countdown to a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is strongly supported by the American Public Transit Association, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Community Transportation Association of America, the Environmental Defense Fund, American Planning Association, Bicycle Federation of America, Friends of the Earth, Izaak Walton League of America, National Association of Counties, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Scenic America, The Wilderness Society, and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill, and a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to recognize the enormous environmental and economic benefits that transit can bring to our national parks.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, entitled the ``Transit in Parks Act'' or TRIP, to help ease the congestion, protect our nation's natural resources, and improve mobility and accessibility in our National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Reid, Murkowski, Boxer, Kennedy, Moynihan, Schumer, Kerry, and Murray who are cosponsors of this important legislation. The TRIP legislation is a new federal transit grant initiative that is designed to provide mass transit and alternative transportation services for our national parks, our wildlife refuges, federal recreational areas, and other public lands managed by three agencies of the Department of the Interior. I first introduced similar legislation on Earth Day, 1998 and, during consideration of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21, part of my original bill was included as section 3039, authorizing a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in our national park lands. The objective of this study is to better identify those areas with existing and potential problems of congestion and pollution, or which can benefit from mass transportation services, and to identify and estimate the project costs for these sites. The fiscal year 1999 Transportation Appropriations bill included $2 million to help fund this important study. I am pleased to report that much important research that will more fully examine the park transportation and resource management needs and outline potential solutions and benefits is underway. Before discussing the bill in greater detail, let me first provide some background on the management issues facing the National Park System. When the national parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. Travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was difficult and long and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our nation's great natural wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the national park lands to millions of Americans. Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars has resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has five million visitors a year. It may surprise you to know that the average visitor stay is only three hours. As many as 6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,000 parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot. In the decade from 1984 to 1994, the number of visits to America's national parks increased 25 percent, rising from 208 million to 269 million a year. This is equal to more than one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut-out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other parks: Yosemite, which has more than four million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than three million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent damage to our nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage. My legislation builds upon two previous initiatives to address these problems. First is the study of alternative transportation strategies in our national parks that was mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. This study, completed by the National Park Service nearly five years ago in May 1994, found that many of our most heavily visited national parks are experiencing the same problems of congestion and pollution that afflict our cities and metropolitan areas. Yet, overwhelmingly, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads primarily for private automobile access. Second, in November 1997, Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt signed an agreement to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around national parks. The findings in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the two departments are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind. In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or science areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas. On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed. The challenge for park management is twofold: to conserve and protect the nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. The Transit in Parks Act will go far to meeting this challenge. The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded mass transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources, to prevent adverse impact on those resources, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. This new federal transit grant program will provide funding to three Federal land management agencies in the Department of the Interior--the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management-- that manage the 378 various parks within the National Park System, including National Battlefields, Monuments and National Seashores, as well as the National Wildlife Refuges and federal recreational areas. The program will allocate capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national park lands. The bill authorizes $50 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003. It is anticipated that other resources--both public and private--will be available to augment these amounts in the initial phase. The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement in the 1997 MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The projects eligible for funding would be developed through the TEA-21 planning process and selected in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior. The bill provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. It is anticipated that the Secretary of Transportation would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major national parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this section, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional public transit system. Project selection should include the following criteria: the historical and cultural significance of a project; safety; and the extent to which the project would conserve resources, prevent adverse impact, enhance the environment, improve mobility, and contribute to livable communities. The bill also identifies projects of regional or national significance that more closely resemble the Federal transit program's New Starts projects. Where the project costs are $25 million or greater, the projects will comply with the transit New Starts requirements. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance. I firmly believe that this program can create new opportunities for the Federal land management agency to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the TEA-21 planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands. Mr. President, the ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks-- quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities. As we begin the final countdown to a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is strongly supported by the American Public Transit Association, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Community Transportation Association of America, the Environmental Defense Fund, American Planning Association, Bicycle Federation of America, Friends of the Earth, Izaak Walton League of America, National Association of Counties, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Scenic America, The Wilderness Society, and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill, and a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to recognize the enormous environmental and economic benefits that transit can bring to our national parks.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise in observance of Greece's 178th anniversary of National Independence. Today, we are here to pay tribute to Greek and American democracy, and to our shared commitment to peace and stability in the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean. On March 25, 1821, the Greek people initiated their victorious pursuit of liberty from four centuries of oppressive Ottoman rule. After nearly ten years of struggle against overwhelming odds, the Greeks accomplished this historic request, reaffirming their commitment to the individual freedoms that are at the heart of the Greek tradition. From the beginning of their revolution, the Greeks had the support, emotional and material, from a people who had recently gained freedom for themselves: the Americans. Looking back at their triumphant march toward liberty, the American people followed with affinity the Greek pursuit for national independence. Since then, our two nations have remained firmly united by a shared commitment to democratic principles. These ties were reinforced by thousands of Greeks who came to America for greater economic opportunity. These immigrants and their descendants continue to make their own important and unique contributions to America's economic and political strength. As a nation whose founders were ardent students of the classics, America has drawn its political convictions from the ancient Greek ideals of liberty and citizenship. And just as America looked to the Greeks for inspiration, Greek patriots looked to the American Revolution for strength in the face of their own adversity. The exuberance and passion of a young nation dedicated to freedom lifted the spirits of the Greek patriots, and reminded them of their long- standing democratic legacy. As we enter the next century, it is appropriate that we retrace our common struggle to build societies based on individual rights, equality and the rule of law. During World War I, our nations forged a steadfast alliance to maintain peace in the Balkans. During the Second World War, Greeks heroically resisted the brutal Nazi regime, defeated Mussolini's troops, and contributed in no small part to the allied victory over the Axis Powers. At the Cold War's inception, President Truman and the American people committed to helping Greece rebuild their war-ravaged nation through the Marshall Plan. Greece continues to play an important role as a valued member of the international community within NATO and the European Union. Today, as one of the few stable democracies in its region, Greece has played a stabilizing role throughout the Balkans and is helping its neighbors progress toward greater political and economic security. Greek economic modernization, along with its status as a member of the European Union, allow Greece to act as a model for and play a constructive role in the economic well being of its neighbors. Mr. President, the new millennium promises an even stronger Greek- American relationship and further cooperation in the areas of our mutual interests. Through ties of blood and affection, as well as shared political goals and philosophical ideals, Greece has retained a special relationship with the United States. Therefore, on this important occasion, it is fitting that we remember this historical legacy and rededicate ourselves to the principles which inspired the free and democratic peoples of America and Greece.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on a subject that was the focus of considerable discussion last fall, during the Senate's consideration of bankruptcy reform legislation. During that debate, 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 it concluded that the record increase in bankruptcy filings across the nation is 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 in his opening statement on the bankruptcy reform bill last fall, and as the CBO, FDIC, and numerous economists have found, the rate of increase in bankruptcy filings is virtually identical to 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 last fall's debate, 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 emerging consensus, last year's Senate bankruptcy bill--S. 1301--contained several provisions in the Manager's 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 that placed responsibility for the surge in consumer bankruptcies on debtors and creditors alike, and enabled the Senate to pass its bankruptcy bill 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, amid pledges by the majority to resurrect it in the early days of the 106th Congress. Mr. President, if we are indeed going to enter again into a debate on bankruptcy legislation in the 106th Congress, 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 on the economic margins to accumulate debts that are beyond their ability to repay. I therefore rise today to introduce legislation that is similar, though not identical, to the language included in last year's Senate bankruptcy bill. It is my hope that this bill will stimulate discussion about the responsibilities of lenders in the bankruptcy equation, and that, when the time comes to debate bankruptcy reform, the nature and extent of these responsibilities will be a large part of the discussion. In short, this legislation amends the Truth in Lending Act to require credit card companies to disclose the following basic information in each monthly statement: (1) The required minimum payment on a consumer's monthly balance; (2) The number of months it will take to pay off that balance if the consumer makes minimum monthly payments; (3) The total cost, with interest, of paying off that balance if the consumer continues to make only minimum monthly payments; and (4) The monthly payment amount if the consumer seeks to pay off the balance in 36 months. The legislation also requires that when a debtor purchases property under a credit card plan, the retailer must disclose to the debtor, if applicable: (1) That the creditor now has a security interest in the property; (2) The nature of the security interest; (3) How the security interest may be enforced in the event of non- payment of the credit card balance; and (4) That the debtor must not dispose of the secured property until the balance on that account is fully paid. My bill calls for the Federal Reserve Board to promulgate model forms for these disclosures and, finally, requires credit card companies to provide to the Fed, and the Fed to Congress, data regarding credit card solicitations. This bill is not about restricting access to credit. Rather, it is about providing consumers with the information they need to make intelligent choices about whether to assume more debt. It advances the goal of consumer responsibility that should be at the heart of any efforts at bankruptcy reform by Congress, and I therefore urge my colleagues to review this legislation carefully and to draw upon it when--if--the issue of consumer bankruptcy reemerges in the 106th Congress.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on a subject that was the focus of considerable discussion last fall, during the Senate's consideration of bankruptcy reform legislation. During that debate, 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 it concluded that the record increase in bankruptcy filings across the nation is 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 in his opening statement on the bankruptcy reform bill last fall, and as the CBO, FDIC, and numerous economists have found, the rate of increase in bankruptcy filings is virtually identical to 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 last fall's debate, 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 emerging consensus, last year's Senate bankruptcy bill--S. 1301--contained several provisions in the Manager's 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 that placed responsibility for the surge in consumer bankruptcies on debtors and creditors alike, and enabled the Senate to pass its bankruptcy bill 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, amid pledges by the majority to resurrect it in the early days of the 106th Congress. Mr. President, if we are indeed going to enter again into a debate on bankruptcy legislation in the 106th Congress, 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 on the economic margins to accumulate debts that are beyond their ability to repay. I therefore rise today to introduce legislation that is similar, though not identical, to the language included in last year's Senate bankruptcy bill. It is my hope that this bill will stimulate discussion about the responsibilities of lenders in the bankruptcy equation, and that, when the time comes to debate bankruptcy reform, the nature and extent of these responsibilities will be a large part of the discussion. In short, this legislation amends the Truth in Lending Act to require credit card companies to disclose the following basic information in each monthly statement: (1) The required minimum payment on a consumer's monthly balance; (2) The number of months it will take to pay off that balance if the consumer makes minimum monthly payments; (3) The total cost, with interest, of paying off that balance if the consumer continues to make only minimum monthly payments; and (4) The monthly payment amount if the consumer seeks to pay off the balance in 36 months. The legislation also requires that when a debtor purchases property under a credit card plan, the retailer must disclose to the debtor, if applicable: (1) That the creditor now has a security interest in the property; (2) The nature of the security interest; (3) How the security interest may be enforced in the event of non- payment of the credit card balance; and (4) That the debtor must not dispose of the secured property until the balance on that account is fully paid. My bill calls for the Federal Reserve Board to promulgate model forms for these disclosures and, finally, requires credit card companies to provide to the Fed, and the Fed to Congress, data regarding credit card solicitations. This bill is not about restricting access to credit. Rather, it is about providing consumers with the information they need to make intelligent choices about whether to assume more debt. It advances the goal of consumer responsibility that should be at the heart of any efforts at bankruptcy reform by Congress, and I therefore urge my colleagues to review this legislation carefully and to draw upon it when--if--the issue of consumer bankruptcy reemerges in the 106th Congress.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation together with Senators Warner, Campbell, and Murray, which would grant a Federal Charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated. This legislation recognizes and honors the 5.7 million Americans who fought and served during the Korean War for their struggles and sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and ideals of our Nation. Mr. President, the year 2000 will mark the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War. In June 1950 when the North Korea People's Army swept across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea, members of our Armed Forces--including many from the State of Maryland--immediately answered the call of the U.N. to repel this forceful invasion. Without hesitation, these soldiers travelled to an unfamiliar corner of the world, and joining an unprecedented multinational force comprised of 22 countries, they risked their lives to protect freedom. The Americans who led this international effort were true patriots who fought with remarkable courage. In battles such as Pork Chop Hill, the Inchon Landing and the frozen Chosin Reservoir, which was fought in temperatures as low as 57 degrees below 0, they faced some of the most brutal combat in history. By the time the fighting had ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or prisoners of war--some of whom are still missing--and 54,246 Americans had died, the most of any American war in the 20th Century. One hundred and thirty-one Korean War Veterans were awarded the Nation's highest commendation for combat bravery, the Medal of Honor. Ninety-four of these soldiers gave their lives in the process. There is an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial which reflects these losses and how brutal a war this was. It reads, ``Freedom is not Free.'' Yet, as a nation, we have done little more than establish this memorial to publicly acknowledge the bravery of those who fought the Korean War. The Korean War has been termed by many as the ``Forgotten War.'' Mr. President, freedom is not free. We owe our Korean War Veterans a debt of gratitude. Granting this federal charter--at no cost to the government--is a small expression of appreciation that we as a nation can offer to these men and women, one which will enable them to work as a unified front to ensure that the ``Forgotten War'' is forgotten no more. The Korean War Veterans Association was originally incorporated on June 25, 1985. Since its first annual reunion and memorial service in Arlington, Virginia, where its members decided to develop a national focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown substantially to a membership of over 25,000. At present, the KWVA is the only veterans organization comprised exclusively of Korean War Veterans and one of the few such organizations of its size without a federal charter. Over the years, it has established a strong record of service and commitment to fellow Korean War veterans, ranging from its efforts on behalf of Project Freedom to its successful effort to construct a national Korean War Veterans Memorial on the Mall. A federal charter would allow the Association to continue and grow its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. Specifically, it will afford the Korean War Veterans' Association the same status as other major veterans organizations and allow it to participate as part of select committees with other congressionally chartered veterans and military groups. A federal charter will also accelerate the Association's ``accreditation'' with the Department of Veterans Affairs which will enable its members to assist in processing veterans' claims. Mr. President, the Korean War Veterans have asked for very little in return for their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation together with Senators Warner, Campbell, and Murray, which would grant a Federal Charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated. This legislation recognizes and honors the 5.7 million Americans who fought and served during the Korean War for their struggles and sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and ideals of our Nation. Mr. President, the year 2000 will mark the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War. In June 1950 when the North Korea People's Army swept across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea, members of our Armed Forces--including many from the State of Maryland--immediately answered the call of the U.N. to repel this forceful invasion. Without hesitation, these soldiers travelled to an unfamiliar corner of the world, and joining an unprecedented multinational force comprised of 22 countries, they risked their lives to protect freedom. The Americans who led this international effort were true patriots who fought with remarkable courage. In battles such as Pork Chop Hill, the Inchon Landing and the frozen Chosin Reservoir, which was fought in temperatures as low as 57 degrees below 0, they faced some of the most brutal combat in history. By the time the fighting had ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or prisoners of war--some of whom are still missing--and 54,246 Americans had died, the most of any American war in the 20th Century. One hundred and thirty-one Korean War Veterans were awarded the Nation's highest commendation for combat bravery, the Medal of Honor. Ninety-four of these soldiers gave their lives in the process. There is an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial which reflects these losses and how brutal a war this was. It reads, ``Freedom is not Free.'' Yet, as a nation, we have done little more than establish this memorial to publicly acknowledge the bravery of those who fought the Korean War. The Korean War has been termed by many as the ``Forgotten War.'' Mr. President, freedom is not free. We owe our Korean War Veterans a debt of gratitude. Granting this federal charter--at no cost to the government--is a small expression of appreciation that we as a nation can offer to these men and women, one which will enable them to work as a unified front to ensure that the ``Forgotten War'' is forgotten no more. The Korean War Veterans Association was originally incorporated on June 25, 1985. Since its first annual reunion and memorial service in Arlington, Virginia, where its members decided to develop a national focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown substantially to a membership of over 25,000. At present, the KWVA is the only veterans organization comprised exclusively of Korean War Veterans and one of the few such organizations of its size without a federal charter. Over the years, it has established a strong record of service and commitment to fellow Korean War veterans, ranging from its efforts on behalf of Project Freedom to its successful effort to construct a national Korean War Veterans Memorial on the Mall. A federal charter would allow the Association to continue and grow its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. Specifically, it will afford the Korean War Veterans' Association the same status as other major veterans organizations and allow it to participate as part of select committees with other congressionally chartered veterans and military groups. A federal charter will also accelerate the Association's ``accreditation'' with the Department of Veterans Affairs which will enable its members to assist in processing veterans' claims. Mr. President, the Korean War Veterans have asked for very little in return for their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask that the text of the measure 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. They have worked diligently to achieve social change and personal triumph usually 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. 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. In Maryland, we are proud to honor the many women who have played such critical roles in the development of our State heritage. They include Margaret Brent, who, in 1648, became America's first woman lawyer and landholder, and Harriet Tubman, who saved thousands of lives during the Civil War through the Underground railroad. Other great Maryland women include Henrietta Szold, the founder of Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America and Dr. Helen Taussig, who developed, in 1945, the first successful medical procedure to save ``blue babies.'' 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 the lives of us all 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 turn. 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. A female physician still 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. At every age, women are more likely than their male contemporaries to be poor, and the average personal income of men over 65 is nearly double that of their female peers. Tragically, the incidence of AIDS among black and Hispanic women and teenage girls is far out of proportion to their percentage of the population. 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. Black and white women's death rates from heart disease have dropped significantly since 1970. Women are now the majority in some professional and managerial occupations that were largely male until relatively recently. Mr. President, as we begin a new millennium, it is my hope that our progress in securing women's rights will accelerate. 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, I rise today to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of one of the area's finest news stations, WTOP, a station that has been a trustworthy and informative source of regional and national news since 1969. In our increasingly inter-connected society where technology has increased the speed at which information is collected, disseminated and analyzed, the importance of responsible journalism has become even more important. WTOP has maintained a reputation as an accurate news source by its reporting of events from Watergate to the recent impeachment trial; from Vietnam to conflicts in the Persian Gulf; from issues regarding the District of Columbia to the politics of my home State of Maryland. In addition to news accounts on these issues, WTOP always has weather, traffic and sports reports to complete its effective coverage. Much as CNN is the leader in television news coverage, WTOP leads the way in providing up-to-date radio news 24 hours a day. I would also like to commend the service of one individual in particular, WTOP's Congressional correspondent Dave McConnell, who has been with the station for almost 20 years. I have worked first-hand with Dave over the years and have the utmost respect for his journalistic integrity and his dedication to reporting the news in a precise yet understandable way. Indeed, his ``Today on the Hill'' broadcasts have provided listeners with the most up-to-date information on legislative activities on Capitol Hill by talking directly with members of Congress about the issues. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize the professionalism of this station and its employees on this auspicious anniversary, and to extend my best wishes to WTOP for the next 30 years and beyond.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. I say to the chairman of the committee, I am not the one who is introducing what he describes as an extraneous issue into this debate. I am simply addressing the fact that it was introduced into this debate by others. I do not think it should be here, frankly.

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that the amendment which the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, is offering for additional teachers in effect is a follow-on to a decision that this Congress made in the last session. Did we not authorize additional teachers in the last session?

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that, first of all, that was extensively discussed. And my understanding is that it is consistent with recent educational studies, that small class size in the early years has been shown to have significant benefits. You talk about, we are spending a lot of money and we do not know whether it is producing results. One thing we seem to know, on the basis of the study, is that if we can lower these class sizes, particularly in the early years, we are going to get beneficial results. If you ask anyone about the difference between the situation in the public schools and private schools, for which parents pay a lot of money, the first thing that leaps out at you is small class size. If you ask parents why they are laying out all of this money, one of the first things they say is, to get a small class size. And these studies that have been done, as I understand it, support the proposition that the small class size will produce significant results, particularly when directed toward the early years so we can get these young people up to standard.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman, I hope we are not going to leave any impression here that the growing consensus on the benefit of small classes, particularly in the early grades, is somehow suspect. It is my understanding that consistently across the board students attending smaller classes in the early grades have been found to make more rapid progress than students in larger classes; that these benefits are the greatest for low-achieving minority children and low-income children, because smaller classes enable the teachers to identify and work effectively with students. In many instances they are able to address the problem early on, which prevents its worsening, perhaps to the extent of requiring special education in later years--if you are talking about conserving your resources. I understand that Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee. Students in small classes performed better than students in large classes in each grade from kindergarten through the third grade. Followup studies show that the gains lasted through at least the eighth grade. The gains were larger for minority students. In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education Program is helping to reduce class size in grades K through 3 and in low-income communities. Students in the smaller classes had significantly greater improvements in reading, math and science tests than students in the larger classes. The most significant achievement gains were among African American males. In Flint, MI, efforts over the last 3 years to reduce class size in grades K through 3 have produced a 44-percent increase in reading scores and an 18-percent increase in math scores. So the issue which the Senator from Washington and others are trying to address is an extremely important issue. It follows on the initiative that was taken by the Congress last year, and I very much hope that we will be able to address it in the course of considering this legislation. We ought to put these educational issues before the Senate and act upon them. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate that comment from the chairman of the committee. Let me just make two observations: First of all, on the need for this banking amendment, to send a message. The message has certainly been sent by many Members and by extensive public comment. In that regard, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of my statement a letter which I sent to the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on January 12 on this very issue of the ``Know Your Customer'' programs, sharply critical of the proposed regulations.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to follow up on the comments of the Senator from Colorado. First of all, I acknowledge that he is trying to address the problem, and I indicated as much when we discussed it in the Banking Committee. But the proposal there and the bill that was originally introduced would, in effect, have eliminated existing regulations addressed to the money laundering issue.

Mr. SARBANES. Ten minutes at the most.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.