Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Mikulski and Warner in submitting a resolution which would express the sense of the Congress that parity between Federal civilian pay and military pay should be maintained. Disparate treatment of civilian and military pay goes against longstanding Congressional policy that for more than a decade has ensured parity for all those who have chosen to serve our Nation, whether that service be in the civilian workforce or in the armed services. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important resolution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I rise to express my support for S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act, a bill to guarantee all Americans with private health insurance, and particularly those in HMOs or other managed care plans, certain fundamental rights regarding their health care coverage. Over the past decease, our health care system has changed dramatically. Today, approximately 161 million Americans receive medical coverage through some type of managed care organization. Regrettably, the change has had some unfortunate consequences. Many in managed care plans experience increasing restrictions on their choice of doctors, growing limitations on their access to necessary treatment, and an overriding emphasis on cost cutting at the expense of quality. This shift to managed care, largely a response to rapidly increasing medical costs, has resulted in a health care system overly driven by the need to secure healthy profit margins. The impact these market forces have on the health care Americans receive must be moderated. Access to quality health care is an essential human need, and in a democratic society, it must be recognized as a fundamental right. Our bill would guarantee basic patient protections to all consumers of private insurance. It would ensure that patients receive the treatment they have been promised and have paid for. This bill would prevent HMOs and other health plans from arbitrarily interfering with doctors' decisions regarding the treatment their patients require. Our bill would restore patients' ability to trust that their health care practitioners advice is driven solely by health concerns, not cost concerns. HMOs and other health care plans would be prohibited from restricting which treatment options doctors may discuss with their patients. In addition, our bill would outlaw the use of financial incentives to reward doctors for cutting costs by recommending against potentially necessary treatments. One of the most critical patient protections that would be provided under our bill is guaranteed access to emergency care. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act would ensure that patients could go to any emergency room during a medical emergency without calling their health plan for permission first. Emergency room doctors could stabilize the patient and focus on providing them the care they need without worrying about payment until after the emergency has subsided. S. 6 would also ensure that health plans provide their customers with access to specialists when needed because of the complexity and seriousness of the patient's sickness. This provision is extremely important to ensure that persons suffering from serious, ongoing conditions, like cancer, have access to care by oncologists or other specialists. Many managed care plans provide exemplary coverage for their members, including innovative preventive care benefits, because they recognize that it is more efficient to keep people healthy than to treat them after they become ill. Unfortunately, not all plans are administered with this philosophy. Many Americans, enrolled in poorly run plans, are not obtaining the care they need and are entitled to receive. The improved health of millions of Americans depends on the enactment of this bill. It will establish Federal requirements ensuring that private health care plans provide their members with a minimum level of coverage. I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly supporting, S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues on the Senate Steel Caucus in sponsoring the Trade Fairness Act of 1999. This legislation seeks to respond to the current steel import crisis and prevent future crises by amending U.S. trade law and creating a comprehensive steel import monitoring system. Within the past year, foreign steel has been imported into the United States at unprecedented levels and at prices far below cost. As economic markets have failed in Russia and Asia, foreign steel manufacturers have increasingly turned to the United States to sell their product and, in return, obtain hard currency. In fact, the import rate rose 30 percent in the first ten months of 1998, as compared with the same period last year, and U.S. steel imports this past October were the second highest in history. As a result, U.S. steel manufacturers are faced with a real crisis, one that threatens to undermine a key sector of our economy. Plants across the country have been forced to shorten shifts, lay-off workers and, in some cases, declare bankruptcy. In my own state, workers at Bethlehem Steel's Sparrows Point Division have been subjected to shorter hours, shorter shifts and even the shutting down of Sparrows Point's galvanized steel line. Mr. President, for the past fifteen years, the U.S. steel industry has worked aggressively to streamline its operations, improve productivity and cut costs, but it cannot compete against illegally dumped steel. It is, in fact, time for this Congress to Stand Up For Steel. With this legislation, we can begin to do just that. The Trade Fairness Act of 1999 is comprised of two sections which will enhance the ability of the Administration to take action on this crisis. The first of these sections amends the emergency safeguards provisions, Section 201, of the 1974 Trade Act which allows the President to grant temporary import relief to a domestic industry which the International Trade Commission finds has been seriously injured by increased imports. This section seeks not only to ensure that the steel industry is treated equitably, but that all domestic industries may be allowed to compete fairly in the global marketplace. The second section creates a comprehensive steel import monitoring program which requires importers to provide information including the name and address of the importer, supplier and producer of the goods to be imported, the country of origin of the goods, the expected date of entry of the goods, a description of the goods, including the classification of these goods under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, and the quantity of the goods to be imported. This information will aid the Administration in monitoring the amount of steel brought into the United States and allow these numbers to be tabulated and released at a rate faster than at present. Mr. President, as you know, on January 7, the Administration submitted the ``Report to Congress on a Comprehensive Plan for Responding to the Increase in Steel Imports.'' I am disappointed that this report appears largely to be a recital of things already done by the Administration, rather than new steps planned to address the problem. The Administration should be focusing on keeping America's steelworkers in their line of work, instead of in line collecting unemployment. For over a century, the steel industry has stood tall and served as a foundation of the American economy. The time for the Administration to Stand Up For Steel is now. The U.S. steel industry and the 226,000 Americans employed by it deserve nothing less than the full support of their country. The Trade Fairness Act of 1999 would allow the Administration to provide strong support for the American steel industry. I strongly urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize continued U.S. participation in the International Mobile Satellite Organization, currently known as ``Inmarsat'', during and after its restructuring, scheduled to take place April 1. The United States is currently a member of this organization, but its structure and functions are slated for significant reform. Rather than actually owning and operating mobile satellite telecommunications facilities, the intergovernmental institution will retain the much more limited role of overseeing the provision of global maritime distress and safety services, ensuring that this important function is carried out properly and effectively under contract. U.S. participation in the organization--which will keep the same name but change its acronym to ``IMSO''--will not require a U.S. financial contribution and will not impose any new legal obligations upon the U.S. government. Privatization of Inmarsat's commercial satellite business is an objective broadly shared by the legislative and executive branches, American businesses, COMSAT, which is the U.S. signatory entity, and the international community. To give some brief background, Inmarsat was established in 1979 to serve the global maritime industry by developing satellite communications for ship management and distress and safety applications. Over the past 20 years, Inmarsat has expanded both in terms of membership and mission. The intergovernmental organization now counts 85 member countries and has expanded into land-mobile and aeronautical communications. Inmarsat's governing bodies, the Assembly of Parties and the Inmarsat Council, have reached an agreement to restructure the organization, a move that has been strongly supported and encouraged by the United States. This restructuring will shift Inmarsat's commercial activities out of the intergovernmental organization and into a broadly-owned public corporation by next spring. The new corporation will acquire all of Inmarsat's operational assets, including its satellites, and will assume all of Inmarsat's operational functions. All that will remain of the intergovernmental institution is a scaled-down secretariat with a small staff to ensure that the new corporation continues to meet certain public service obligations, such as the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). It is important to U.S. interests that we participate in the oversight of this function, as well as be fully represented in the organization throughout the process of privatization. The legislation I am introducing will enable a smooth transition to the new structure. It contains two major provisions. First, it authorizes the President to maintain U.S. membership in IMSO after restructuring to ensure the continued provision of global maritime distress and safety satellite communications services. Second, it repeals those provisions of the International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act that will be rendered obsolete by the restructuring of Inmarsat, including all those relating to COMSAT's role as the United States' signatory. The bill's provisions will take effect on the date that Inmarsat transfers its commercial operations to the new corporation. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very important issue: the protection of every American's personal, sensitive, financial information that is held by their bank, securities broker- dealer, or insurance company. I am introducing a bill to provide basic financial privacy protections for our citizens. I am pleased that Senators Dodd, Bryan, Leahy, Edwards, and Hollings are joining me in the introduction of the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999. This bill seeks to protect a fundamental right of privacy for every American who entrusts his or her highly sensitive and confidential financial information to a financial institution. Every American should know whether the financial institution with which he or she does business undertakes to sell or share that personal sensitive information with anyone else. Every American should know who would be obtaining that information, and why. Every American should have the opportunity to say ``no'' if he or she does not want that confidential information disclosed. Every American should be allowed to make certain that the information is correct. And these rights should be enforceable. This bill, Mr. President, would accomplish these objectives. Few Americans understand that, under current Federal law, a bank, broker, or insurance company may take any information it obtains about a customer through his or her transactions, and sell or transfer that information to a third party. For example, they may sell that information to a direct marketer or another financial institution, or post it on an Internet website without obtaining the customer's consent or even notifying the customer. The amount of information that can be disclosed is enormous. It includes: Savings and checking account balances; certificate of deposit maturity dates and balances; any check an individual writes; any check that is deposited into a customer's account; stock and mutual fund purchases and sales; life insurance payouts; and health insurance claims. Today's technology makes it easier, faster, and less costly than ever for institutions to have immediate access to large amounts of customer information; to analyze that data; and to send that data to others. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies are increasingly affiliating and ``cross-marketing,'' or selling the products of affiliates to existing customers. This can entail the warehousing of large amounts of highly sensitive customer information and selling it to or sharing it with other companies, for purposes unknown to the customer. While cross-marketing can bring new and beneficial products to receptive consumers, it can also result in unwanted invasions of personal privacy without customers' knowledge. A June 8, 1998 Business Week commentary entitled ``Big Banker May Be Watching You'' underscored the potential abuses: Suppose that when you retired, your bank started deluging you with mailings for senior services--each tailored to your exact income, health needs, and spending habits. Or your lender slashed your credit-card limit from $20,000 to $500 after you were diagnosed with a serious disease. Those two Orwellian scenarios may sound far-fetched, but they might not be for long. In the wake of the . . . mad rush by large insurers to acquire thrift charters, consumer advocates are raising valid questions about whether the insurance arms of these new conglomerates will share sensitive medical records with their lending and marketing divisions. The New York Times in an October 11, 1998 article entitled ``Privacy Matters: When Bigger Banks Aren't Better'' observed that: A growing number of bankers, lawmakers, banking regulators and consumer advocates [are] worried about the potential dark side of the mergers sweeping the financial industry. As banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies combine into huge new conglomerates, and with legislation before Congress to make such mergers even easier, there is increasing concern about the amount of personal financial and medical data that can be collected under one roof. Surveys show that the public is widely concerned about its privacy. A November 1998 Louis Harris & Associates survey found that 88 percent of consumers are concerned about threats to their personal privacy--more than half, 55 percent, are ``very concerned.'' 82 percent of consumers say they have lost all control over how personal information is used by companies and 61 percent do not believe that their rights to privacy as a consumer are adequately protected by law or business practices. Major corporations have bumped up against privacy concerns when expanding their marketing services. For example, in the last 2 years, some major consumer companies announced that they would share or sell their customers' private data to marketers. When customers learned through newspapers stories what was happening, they complained strongly and the companies abandoned the planned sales of the data. Citizen groups have recently expressed serious concerns about the privacy implications of banks' amassing large databases to meet proposed regulatory requirements to ``know your customers.'' The Washington Post in an October 31, 1998 editorial entitled ``Privacy Here and Abroad'' observed widepsread public concern over privacy, stating: Concern over the privacy of personal data is sharpening as the problem appears in more and sometimes unexpected contexts--everything from employer testing of people's genetic predisposition to resale of their online reading habits or their bank records. When the data are medical or financial, everyone but the sellers and resellers seems ready to agree that people should have some measure of control over how and by whom their data will be used. Congress has protected citizens' privacy on prior occasions. In response to public concerns, Congress passed privacy laws restricting private companies' disclosure of customer information without customer consent, such as in the Cable Communications Policy Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act. Yet while video rentals and cable television selections are prohibited by law from being disclosed, millions of Americans' financial transactions each day have no Federal privacy protection. Abuses have arisen from the sharing of financial information without a customer's knowledge or permission. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last year took enforcement action against a large bank that had been giving sensitive customer financial information, including lists of customers with maturing certificates of deposit, to an affiliated stock broker. The SEC found the bank and the broker's employees ``blurred the distinction between the bank and the broker dealer'' and the broker's sales representatives ``used materially false and misleading sales practices'' which ``culminated in unsuitable purchases by investors.'' The SEC found many of the targeted bank customers were elderly. Many groups have voiced support for legislative consumer financial privacy protections. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) submitted testimony to the Senate Banking Committee expressing concern about the vulnerability of citizens, particularly the elderly, and saying that: AARP supports the principle that consumers should have a voice in the use of their personal financial information. Currently, banks freely share information about their customers' insured deposit accounts with their uninsured, non-banking affiliates. Brokerage affiliates routinely solicit bank customers based upon this information. This not only blurs the line between banking and non-banking functions, but furthers confuses consumers about which products are insures by the bank, and which are merely sold by the bank's securities affiliate without guarantees. Customers should be given the choice as to whether banks can share information about their accounts with any other entity. Subsequently, in a letter dated August 25, 1998 with views on H.R. 10, AARP expressed its special concern about older Americans' vulnerability: [E]lderly Americans are among those most vulnerable to the complex and fundamental changes already occurring in this period of financial transformation--and they will be put at further risk by the financial mergers permitted by this proposed legislation if the issue of information privacy is not addressed. In a written statement before the Banking Committee on June 24, 1998, Consumers Union testified, As financial services firms diversity and ``cross market'' an array of financial products, their interest in obtaining information about consumers is on a collision course with consumers' interest in protecting their privacy. . . . We believe legislation should prohibit depository institutions and their affiliates from sharing or disclosing information among affiliates or to third parties without first obtaining the customer's written consent. A group of seven privacy and consumer groups, representing conservative and liberal orientations, including The Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, Consumers Federation of America, Consumers Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy International, Privacy Times, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, wrote on August 26 1998 to all Senate Banking Committee Members to ``sound an urgent alarm about the lack of protections for consumers' financial privacy.'' On September 9, 1998, The Washington Post published an editorial, ``. . . And a Matter of Privacy,'' arguing, Along with medical records, financial and credit records probably rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most expect will be kept from prying eyes. As with medical data, though, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial data has been increasingly compromised by mergers, electronic data-swapping and the move to an economy in which the selling of other people's personal information is highly profitable--and legal. The Post editorial concluded that the privacy amendment to last year's proposed financial modernization legislation which I introduced with Senators Dodd and Bryan was ``a protection well worth considering, especially in the banking context. As the pace of the much-touted `information economy' quickens, safeguards against these previous unimagined forms of commerce become ever more important.'' The United States now faces pressure from the European Union nations as a result of our lack of privacy protections, in comparison with the ones implemented by the European Union. The European Union Data Protection Directive, which went into effect on October 25, 1998, goes much further than any privacy protections in place in the U.S. The Directive requires that member states protect privacy rights in the collection of data by both the public and private sectors. It prohibits the transfer of data without first obtaining the individual's unambiguous consent regarding the transfer of data without first obtaining the individual's unambiguous consent regarding the transfer and use of his or her personal financial data. The EU Directives provides ``that the transfer to a third country of personal data . . . may take place only if . . . the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection.'' Since the European Union views current U.S. privacy policy as inadequate, U.S. companies that do not provide adequate privacy safeguards may have difficulty conducting business in the EU. The Department of Commerce proposed a safe harbor so that companies which meet certain guidelines would be allowed to conduct business in the EU and send data from the EU to the United States. The EU has not accepted the proposed safe harbor as adequate, and negotiations continue. Meanwhile, U.S. businesses must negotiate private privacy agreements with EU countries or face uncertainties in doing business. Congress by enacting privacy protection legislation could meet the EU standard and thereby solve this problem for American companies. Unfortunately, industry self-regulation to protect the privacy of information has been tried and, generally, has not worked. Many, if not most, consumers are not informed of plans to sell or share their financial transaction and experience data, are not notified of a right to object, have no access to verify the accuracy of data, and have no independent body to enforce privacy protection. Recent studies by the FTC and the FDIC of on-line Internet privacy protection found self- regulation to be ineffective. Privacy protections for ``off-line'' transactions are far weaker. I believe that the protection of the privacy of customers' personal financial information is much too important to ignore any longer. Therefore, I am, along with Senators Dodd, Bryan, Leahy, Edwards, and Hollings, introducing the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999. This bill would require the Federal banking regulators--the Federal Deposit Insurance Company, Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision--and the Securities and Exchange Commission to enact rules to protect the privacy of financial information relating to the customers of the institutions they regulate. The regulators would define ``confidential customer information'' in a way that includes balances, maturity dates, transactions, and payouts in savings accounts, certificates of deposit, securities holding and insurance policies. The regulators would require an institution to: (1) tell its customers what information it will sell or share, and when, to whom and for what purposes it will be sold or shared; (2) give customers the right to ``opt out,'' which means they can say ``no'' to the sharing or selling information to affiliates--unless the customer objects, institutions could sell or share customer financial data; and (3) obtain a customer's informed consent before selling or sharing confidential customer information with an unaffiliated third party. Under the Act, regulated financial institutions would be required to allow the customer to review the information to be disclosed for accuracy and to correct errors. Also, these institutions could not use confidential customer information obtained from another entity, such as an insurance underwriter, unless that entity had given its customers the same type of privacy protections as the regulated entities had given their customers. Disclosure of data under several circumstances would be exempted from coverage, including disclosure of information that is not personally identifiable, disclosure necessary to execute the customer's transaction, and other limited purposes. The Federal bank and securities regulators would enforce the regulations. The bill recognizes the complexity of the subject matter involved. Rather than have Congress micromanage a solution, we would leave it to the regulators with a direction as to the scope and purposes that should be followed. This approach would afford an opportunity for public notice and comment, so all of those affected could present their arguments. The banking and securities regulators would develop the rules to implement these broad principles in the way most appropriate for the industry, balancing the consumer's privacy choice with business' desire to sell or share their customer's sensitive financial information with others. As we proceed in an age of technological advances and cross-industry marketing of financial services, we need to be mindful of the privacy concerns of the American public. Consumers who wish to keep their sensitive financial information private should be given a right to do so. Congress can and should provide that privacy protection by giving consumers enforceable rights of notice, consent, and access through passage of the Financial Information Privacy Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999, together with a brief summary of the bill and some newspaper articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the remarkable achievements of one of my constituents, Rachael Younkers, who has won the title of 1999 Maryland Teacher of the Year. This honor is a tribute to her dedication to and mastery of the art of teaching seventh and eighth grade students at Plum Point Middle School, and is even more impressive by the fact that this 27-year-old is the youngest person ever to win the award in its twelve year history. I am so proud to congratulate Mrs. Younkers, the first winner from Southern Maryland, for being named the 1999 Maryland Teacher of the Year from 23 other Maryland candidates. Mrs. Younkers is a native of Calvert County who, according to students and peers alike, brings a unique energy to her classes which serves to excite her students about social studies topics that may otherwise seem dull or out-of-date. Through the use of innovative teaching techniques, including learning games and exploration of the internet, Mrs. Younkers has brought a fresh perspective to her teachings. It has always been my firm belief that the education and training of our young people is one of the most important tasks in a democratic society. Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to join me in recognizing the hard work that has led Mrs. Younkers to receive this recognition. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Southern Maryland Extra to the Washington Post be inserted into the Record immediately following my remarks, and I yield the floor. (From the Washington Post, Southern Maryland Extra, Oct. 22, 1998) In Room, 216 at Plum Point Middle School, social studies teacher Rachael Younkers is quizzing her students on the great European explorers: Christopher Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Sir Francis Drake and so forth. You wouldn't think a roomful of 13-year-olds would be interested in a bunch of long-dead strangers, but that's clearly not the case in this class. Hand after hand shoots up in the air, students eager to supply the appropriate answers. Later, when the class adjourns to the library, the youngsters rush about looking for the needed information. There's a certain excitement in the air, a feeling that school and learning and even homework can be, well, fun. Plum Point Principal Michael Reidy sums up the situation this way: ``Mrs. Younkers has a spirit about her that creates magic in the classroom.'' That spirit has won Younkers the title of 1999 Maryland Teacher of the Year. Younkers, 27, is the youngest teacher to win the award in its 12-year history and the first from Southern Maryland. She received the award--which includes a $5,000 check and other prizes--at a ceremony Friday evening in Baltimore. Younkers has taught seventh- and eighth-grade social studies at the Huntingtown school for five years, her entire career in education. Younkers, a native of Calvert County, said her inspiration in teaching has been her mother, a social studies teacher at Northern High School. One of the most important lessons her mother passed along was the importance of actively involving students in their education, she said. ``My teaching philosophy is based on an ancient Chinese proverb: `Tell me, I forget. Show me, I remember. Involve me, I understand,' '' Younkers said. And involve her students she does. During a class on Tuesday, Younkers divided her 28 eighth-graders into teams and dispatched them to the library to research a specific explorer. Among their tasks: Finding the explorer's photograph on the Internet, drawing a detailed picture of his ship and writing a daily log of weather conditions during his voyage. The students even had to compose a letter to the king and queen explaining why they should fund the explorer's trip. ``Learning is not a spectator sport,'' Younkers said. ``The kids are the actual players in the game, and they need to be actively involved in their own learning. I see myself as a partner in their education, and that's how we win.'' Her students seem to like the technique. ``It's not like we're talking about a lot of dead guys,'' said Nathan Bowen, an eighth-grader from Prince Frederick. ``She really brings it to life.'' Nathan said he especially likes all the fun games Younkers comes up with, including baseball and basketball matches that are played in the classroom and adapted to the subject being studied. Treasure hunts and ``Social Studies Jeopardy'' also are frequent occurrences in Room 216. Larkin Jones, also an eighth-grader, said she admires her teacher's personality. ``She's always smiling and happy, and she knows a lot about you.'' And that fact that she's young makes it ``really easy to talk to her,'' Jones said. Indeed, Younkers has made such an impression on Larkin that she recently confided in her mother that she might want to be a social studies teacher when she grows up, ``just like Mrs. Younkers.'' ``She's been a tremendous influence on her,'' said Donna Jones, Larkin's mother. Jones, a guidance counselor at Plum Point added that Younkers has a unique ability to help all students--whether they're honor roll or in need of remedial instruction.'' As a counselor, it's very comforting to know that no matter what level a student is, if they have Mrs. Younkers, they'll have a wonderful year.'' Younkers beat out 23 state semi-finalists, who were chosen from among Maryland's 49,000 teachers. She now advances to the national Teacher of the Year competition. For the national contest, she must adopt an issue that she will advocate. Younkers said she will work to encourage the best and the brightest students to become teachers. Maryland, like other states, will face a severe teacher shortage in coming years, and, as Younkers said, ``Our students deserve to learn from highly qualified instructors.'' The national Teacher of the Year will be selected in the spring. In the meantime, Younkers is maintaining a rigorous speaking tour--talking to other educators, as well as politicians--and her students are getting used to the extra media attention and the parents who stop by with gifts and words of praise.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that yesterday both Houses of Congress passed the ``Africa: Seeds of Hope Act of 1998,'' clearing the measure for signature by the President. This legislation, which I introduced together with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, in July, is designed to prevent hunger and malnutrition in Africa while at the same time helping American farmers and developing lasting and mutually beneficial ties between our peoples. Food security is critical to establishing the basis for long-term peace, democracy and prosperity in Africa. By redirecting existing bilateral aid and investment programs toward small-scale farming and rural development, the ``Seeds of Hope Act'' will promote sustainable agricultural development and food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Further, this initiative will foster research and extension activities and help to build local markets, providing important opportunities for mutual cooperation between U.S. and African farmers, educators, scientists and entrepreneurs. The bill, as adopted, is intended to accomplish several important objectives. First, it aims at providing new opportunities for the poorest of the poor, especially women, by expanding access to credit and technology, improving information and farming techniques, and creating more efficient market mechanisms. Second, it is designed to maximize the efficiency of current aid programs. It directs the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to focus more of its efforts on projects that improve food security and meet the needs of the rural poor, and requires the participation of affected communities in all phases of project planning and development. The initiative strengthens coordination with non-governmental organizations, cooperatives, educational institutions and local marketing associations that have relevant expertise. In this way, it encourages the latest agricultural methods and most successful business practices, while ensuring they are appropriate to local conditions and adapted to specific climates. Third, this legislation mobilizes new resources for investment in African agriculture and rural development through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), working with small businesses and other U.S. entities to develop the capacities of small-scale farmers and rural entrepreneurs. Particularly in this budgetary environment, it is essential to expand the public-private partnership in this area. Finally, the ``Africa: Seeds of Hope Act'' establishes a new and more reliable mechanism for providing emergency food aid overseas. Rather than waiting until emergencies arise to purchase food for donation, the bill establishes a humanitarian trust that buys commodities when they are in surplus and distributes them immediately when they are needed. This mechanism will allow for more timely and cost-effective responses to humanitarian crises. Mr. President, a great deal of planning and hard work went into the passage of this legislation, not only by my colleagues and their staff members but especially by the private, voluntary organizations involved in sustainable development, such as Catholic Relief Services and Bread for the World. These organizations work directly with the African communities most affected by hunger and famine, and their input into this process was quite valuable. I commend them for their efforts, and I know they join me in welcoming the passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator would yield, as the Ranking Democrat of the Senate Banking Committee, I would also like to know the views of the Senator from Montana.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to a man who has dedicated his life to improving opportunities for others. He is Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, who served as President of the National Federation of the Blind from 1968 to 1986 and as the Federation's President Emeritus until his death on October 12, 1998. In these capacities, Dr. Jernigan has become widely recognized and highly respected as the principal leader of the organized blind movement in the United States. On September 14, 1998, Mr. President, I was privileged to attend an especially moving ceremony to recognize Dr. Jernigan for worldwide leadership in the development of technology to assist blind people. The award, consisting of $15,000 Canadian and a 2-ounce gold medallion, was given by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and the event was held at the Canadian Embassy here in Washington. This recognition by our neighbors to the north was a tangible expression, Mr. President, of the respect which Dr. Jernigan has earned throughout his lifetime of service on behalf of blind people in the United States and around the world. Through his grit, determination, and skill, Dr. Jernigan achieved personal success. But more important than that, as a lifetime teacher and mentor, he gave others the chance for success as well. Born blind in 1926, Kenneth Jernigan grew up on a small Tennessee farm with little hope and little opportunity. But, Mr. President, in the story of Kenneth Jernigan, from his humble beginning in the hills of Tennessee to his stature as a national--and even an international-- leader, the story of what is right with American is told. Dr. Jernigan may have been blind in the physical sense, Mr. President, but he was a man of vision nonetheless. In his leadership of the National Federation of the Blind, he taught all of us to understand that eyesight and insight are not related to each other in any way. Although he did not have eyesight, his insight on life, learning, and leading has no equal. Mr. President, for those who knew him and loved him, for the blind of this country and beyond, and for the National Federation of the Blind-- the organization that he loved and built--the world without Kenneth Jernigan will be difficult. But the world he has left in death is a far better world because of his life. The legacy which Dr. Jernigan has left is shown in the hundreds of thousands of lives that he touched and the lives that will still be touched by his example and the continuing power of his teaching. This will be the case for many generations to come. Mr. President, Kenneth Jernigan will be missed most by his family and friends, but his loss will be shared by all of us because he cared for all of us. He cared enough to give of himself. With the strength of his voice and the power of his intellect, he brought equality and freedom to the blind. As he did so, Mr. President, Kenneth Jernigan taught us all to love one another and live with dignity. That is the real and lasting legacy of Kenneth Jernigan. Mr. President, on September 24, 1998, an article entitled ``Friends Pay Homage to Crusader for the Blind, Jernigan Still Working Despite Lung Cancer'' appeared in the Baltimore Sun. Because it presents a fitting tribute to Dr. Jernigan's life and work, I ask to insert the text of this article in the Record at this point. The article follows. Friends Pay Homage to Crusader for the Blind, Jernigan Still Working Despite Lung Cancer (by Ernest F. Imhoff) A steady stream of old friends--maybe 200 in the past months--have been visiting Kenneth Jernigan at his home in Irvington. Pals who followed the old fighter for the blind as he tenaciously led fights for jobs, for access, for independent living, for Braille, and for civil rights have come to say thank you and goodbye to a dying blind man they say expanded horizons for thousands of people. James Omvig, a 63-year-old blind lawyer, and his sighted wife Sharon flew from Tucson, Ariz., to visit with the president emeritus of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), who is in the latter stages of lung cancer. ``The wonderful life I've had is all due to Dr. Jernigan,'' Omvig said. In the 1950s, he ``was sitting around at home'' in Iowa, after learning chair- making, until he met Jernigan and began studying Braille and other subjects. Omvig then graduated from college, got a law degree, became the first blind person hired by the National Labor Relations Board and later developed programs for the blind at Social Security in Baltimore, Alaska, and elsewhere. One topic of conversation among the friends has been Jernigan's latest project, a proposed $12 million National Research and Training Institute for the Blind for NFB headquarters in South Baltimore. Last week, Larry McKeever, of Des Moines, who is sighted and has recorded material for the 50,000-member federation, came to chat and cook breakfast for the Jernigans. Donald Capps, the blind leader of 58 South Carolina NFB chapters, called to congratulate Jernigan on being honored recently at the Canadian Embassy for his Newsline invention that enables the blind to hear daily newspapers. Floyd Matson, who is sighted and has worked with Jernigan for 50 years, came from Honolulu to be with ``my old poetry and drinking buddy.'' A dramatic example of the high regard in which blind people hold Jernigan came during the annual convention of 2,500 NFB members in Dallas in July. A donor contributed $5,000 to start a Kenneth Jernigan Fund to help blind people. Quickly, state delegations caucused and announced their own donations. The result: pledges of $137,000 in his honor. Jernigan, 71, who was born blind and grew up on a Tennessee farm with no electricity, learned he had incurable lung cancer in November. In the past 10 months, Jernigan has been almost as busy as ever. He has continued projects such as editing the latest in his large-type ``Kernel Book'' series of inspirational books for the visually impaired. But his focus has been the proposed four-story institute, for which $1 million has been raised. It will house the nerve center of an employment program; research and demonstration projects leading to jobs and independent living; technology training seminars; access technology, such as applications for voting machines, airport kiosks and information systems; and Braille literacy initiatives to reverse a 50 percent illiteracy rate among visually impaired children. In fighting for the blind, Jernigan has frequently been a controversial figure. Before he moved to Baltimore in 1978, the Iowa Commission for the Blind, which he headed, was the subject of a conflict-of-interest investigation by a gubernatorial committee. In the end, Gov. Robert Ray felt the committee's report vindicated the commission. The governor and the committee described the commission's program for the blind as ``one of the best in the country.'' There are good things in everything, even this illness,'' said his wife, Mary Ellen Jernigan. ``You expect to hear from old friends. But in letters and calls, we hear from hundreds of people we don't know.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. So the correct version of the Joint Explanatory Statement is that which will appear in today's Senate Record?

Mr. SARBANES. Is it the further understanding of the Chairman of the Banking Committee that page H10775 of the Congressional Record for October 13, 1998 contains a printing error?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to address a question to the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato: it is my understanding that the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on S. 1260, as printed by the Government Printing Office in Report 105-803, and as it appeared in the Congressional Record for Friday, October 9, 1998, contained an error and was incomplete. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I opposed the securities litigation preemption bill when it was before the Senate. I am sorry to see that the conference report now before us is no better. I continue to believe that this bill is a solution in search of a problem, and that it will do more harm than good. Why do I call this bill a solution in search of a problem? Because there has been no explosion in frivolous lawsuits filed in State court. The supporters of this bill allege that class action lawsuits alleging securities fraud have migrated from Federal court to State court since 1995. In fact, as I have pointed out previously, every study indicates that the number of securities fraud class actions brought in State court increased in 1996 but then declined in 1997. Why do I say this bill will do more harm than good? Because this bill likely will deprive individual investors of their opportunities to bring their own actions in State court, separate and apart from class actions. Although the bill's supporters suggest that it deals only with class actions, in fact the scope of the bill is much broader. The bill's definition of ``class action'' will pick up, against their will, individuals who choose to file their own lawsuits under State law. These shortcomings were not remedied in conference. Indeed, the one improvement made to the bill on the Senate floor was weakened in conference. Senators will remember that the Senate adopted an amendment to this bill, offered by Senators Bryan, Johnson, Biden, and myself. The amendment exempted State and local governments and their pension funds from the coverage of the bill. The conference report now before us weakens this provision. The conference report contains the House- passed version, which requires that State and local governments be named plaintiffs and authorize participation in the specific suit. This version offers scant protection to State and local officials. The Government Finance Officers Association, Municipal Treasurers Association, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities wrote to us concerning this provision on September 28, 1998. Their letter states, ``many smaller governments and small pension plans are unable to keep abreast of pending actions. Thus, any affirmative steps on their part may not occur simply because they are unaware of the existence of such a case.'' These organizations expressed their strong support for the Senate version of this provision, only to be ignored by the conference committee. On a positive note, I am pleased that the Statement of the Conference Committee makes clear that neither this bill nor the Litigation Reform Act of 1995 alter the scienter standard applied by the courts under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Courts in every Federal circuit in the country hold that reckless conduct constitutes scienter sufficient to establish a violation of section 10(b) and rule 10b-5, the principal antifraud provision of the 1934 act. Chairman Levitt of the SEC has described the recklessness standard as ``critically important'' to ``the integrity of the securities markets.'' For the reasons I have described, a broad coalition of State and local officials, senior citizen groups, labor unions, academics, and consumer groups oppose this bill. They oppose it because it may deprive defrauded investors of remedies. The headline of a column by Ben Stein in the USA Today newspaper of April 28, 1998, summarizes this opposition: ``Investors, beware: Last door to fight fraud could close.'' He wrote of this bill, ``state remedies . . . would simply vanish, and anyone who wanted to sue would have to go into federal court, where . . . impossible standards exist.'' He warned, ``this is serious business for the whole investing public.'' the associations of public officials I have cited are concerned about this bill because they invest taxpayers' funds and public employees' pension funds in securities, and fear they will be left without remedies if they are defrauded. Over two dozen law professors, including such nationally recognized securities law experts as John Coffee, Joel Seligman, and Marc Steinberg, expressed their opposition in a letter earlier this year. They oppose any legislation ``that would deny investors their right to sue for securities fraud under state law.'' Similarly, the New York State Bar Association opposes this bill. A report prepared by the bar association's section on commercial and Federal litigation concluded, ``the existing data does not establish a need for the legislation'' and ``the proposed solution far exceeds any appropriate level of remedy for the perceived problem.'' I would also like to point out the opposition of the American Association of Retired Persons, the Consumer Federation of America, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the United Mine Workers. I urge Senators, out of caution, to vote against this conference report. The recent bull market was the longest in history, and bull markets tend to conceal investment frauds. Should the decline in stock market values continue, it is likely that frauds will be uncovered. The level of participation in the stock market by America's families is at a record level, both directly through ownership of stocks and indirectly through pension funds and mutual funds. Should this bill be enacted, investors will find their State court remedies eliminated. In too many cases, investors will be left without any effective remedies at all. Such a result can only harm innocent investors, undermine public confidence in the securities markets, and ultimately raise the cost of capital for deserving American businesses. Mr. President, I ask that an exchange of correspondence between Chairman Levitt and Senators D'Amato, Gramm, and Dodd be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to say in view of the comments that were just made, the Eisenhower Program, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, that dealt with math and science as I understand it?

Mr. SARBANES. It was designed to improve the quality of math and science teachers in the classroom. Now we are being told we are trying to direct where the funds should go. The first point I want to make is that this has a long pedigree coming right from the Eisenhower administration.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator for his intervention. That is a very important point. Because the critics stand up and say it is all going to administration. Now we learn 2.5 percent of it, Federal and State, as I understand it from the Senator, is going to administration. I think we need to underscore that. I want to come back to this notion that we are trying to direct where the money should go and somehow that is a departure from past practice or hasn't in the past, at least, had strong bipartisan support. It is clear that math and science is one of the critical areas. I earlier asked the Senator, wasn't this whole education emphasis important to the U.S. competitive role in the world economy. We can look at what other countries are doing, and we know the kind of investments they are making in math and science. We started with the Eisenhower administration, and that, I think, was at the time of Sputnik that that program was energized to try to improve the quality of math and science. We had some successes, but there has been a relapse, there has been a lapse back, and one of the programs that was cut, as I understand it from the Senator from Massachusetts, and which he is emphasizing we need to restore, is this program to improve the quality of the math and science teachers in the schools all across our country. Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Yes, I will yield to the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it seems to me--and the other program, I take it, is we have a deterioration in the physical quality of many of our public schools in the Nation. Young children are going to school in circumstances that no one would tolerate. In fact, I understand some of these schools do not meet ordinary building standards. And there are serious problems in that regard. Once again, we are trying to emphasize a program. Of course, another aspect of what the President is pushing for is more teachers in the classrooms so we can have smaller class sizes, which most people agree is extremely important in the lower grades where we are trying to teach reading and we first introduce young people into their education. In fact, I ask the Senator, what is the situation with respect to overcrowded classrooms across the country?

Mr. SARBANES. If I recall the chart that the Senator earlier displayed on juvenile crime, it peaks in the hours I think between about 3 and 8 p.m., which makes the after-school programs extremely important.

Mr. SARBANES. That was a program that we put into place during the Eisenhower administration.

Mr. SARBANES. As I recall, it was done on an overwhelming bipartisan basis.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator agree with me that with this emphasis on the global economy, if we don't educate our children to the fullest measure of their capacity, we are not going to be able to compete internationally? It has assumed a dimension now that we have never confronted before in terms of our economic survival in the world economy.

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me just 2 minutes?