Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. May I have 30 seconds, if the chairman has any time?

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 19 years, Inmarsat has expanded both in terms of membership and mission. The intergovernmental organization now counts 84 member countries and has expanded into land-mobile and aeronautical communications. Inmarsat's governing bodies, the Inmarsat Council and the Assembly of Parties, recently 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 that we 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. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of Kimbel E. Oelke, publisher of the Dundalk Eagle--a homespun and pioneering publication committed to covering the local news stories that directly affect the daily lives of the citizens of the greater Dundalk area. Once sold for 10 cents to 500 subscribers and written entirely by Mr. Oelke at its founding in 1969, the Dundalk Eagle is now circulated to 24,000 people by a staff of twenty. Oelke's commitment to the community extended beyond his distribution of the newspaper to include his participation in the creation of the Dundalk Library, the Dundalk Chamber of Commerce, the Dundalk Association of Businesses and the Greater Dundalk Sports Hall of Fame. From the age of seven when he first moved to Baltimore, Oelke had journalistic ambitions. I think all would agree that the realization of his dream has not only enriched the lives of thousands of his readers, but conveyed a sense of community too often missing in our modern era. Kimbel Oelke's commitment to community journalism will leave a legacy of service for future generations both in and out of Dundalk. I extend my most sincere sympathies to his wife Mary, their three sons and seven daughters, and to all the family and friends of Kimbel Oelke. Mr. President, I ask that two articles celebrating Kimbel Oelke's life be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the Sun, Aug. 4, 1998] Kimbel E. Oelke, 80, Longtime Publisher of Dundalk Eagle and Community Booster (By Fred Rasmussen) Kimbel E. Oelke, publisher of the Dundalk Eagle, died Sunday of a heart attack while attending Mass at St. Rita Roman Catholic Church in Dundalk. He was 80. Mr. Oelke, a well-known figure in eastern Baltimore County, was a seasoned newspaper reporter and editor when the unthinkable happened one day. He woke up one morning and noticed his name missing from the mastheads of Dundalk's Community Press and the Eastern Beacon, where he had worked for 31 years. He had complained when the newspapers began expanding and turning away from local news coverage, and the owner, Stromberg Publications, demoted him to advertising manager of the Essex Times, another of the chain's newspapers. Disgruntled, he quit. He was in his early 50s and had a wife and 11 children to support. He and his wife took a gamble. They took their savings and started their own newspaper. The Dundalk Eagle, a tabloid, arrived on May 15, 1969. Its slogan was ``Of The People, By The People, For The People.'' In a front-page editorial, Mr. Oelke wrote, ``I am firmly convinced that there is a need for a paper in the greater Dundalk area continually cognizant of the needs and desires of the people and the local businesses.'' The paper sold for 10 cents a copy and subscriptions were $1 a year. It has grown from 500 subscribers to a paid circulation of 24,000 and a staff of 20. For many years, Mr. Oelke wrote most of the newspaper copy and was a familiar figure in courtrooms, police stations and firehouses. Tipsters kept his phones ringing. The paper was homespun and covered Dundalk and its environs in great detail. Mr. Oelke's appetite for Dundalk minutiae was insatiable. One of the Mr. Oelke's space-saving tricks, which gave his newspaper a particularly distinguishing if not unusual look, was his use of ampersands--``&''--instead of the word ``and'' in copy. ``The Eagle is more family-like than at most places,'' said Wayne Laufert, who was hired as a reporter in 1986 and was named editor in 1996. ``That's due to the personalities of Mr. and Mrs. O. Most of us think of them as grandparents. They treated a group of 20 or more people to Christmas dinner every year and hosted summer parties where we ate crabs and played softball.'' Mr. Laufert described Mr. Oelke as ``a very warm person'' who had ``difficulty saying `no' to people. He was very accommodating and it was one of his most endearing qualities.'' Deborah I. Cornely of Dundalk, a daughter and the paper's managing editor, said, ``He was the kind of man who was very humble. He never bragged about his accomplishments, but most of all tried to give everyone an even break.'' Deeply involved in the community, Mr. Oelke led the efforts to establish the Dundalk Library, the Dundalk Chamber of Commerce, the Dundalk Association of Businesses and the Greater Dundalk Sports Hall of Fame. Mr. Oelke, a soft-spoken man who had a penchant for green eyeshades and big King Edward cigars, was born in Louisville, Ky. When he was seven, his family moved to Dundalk, when his father was transferred there by American Standard, the maker of plumbing fixtures. The 1935 graduate of Sparrows Point High School once dreamed of becoming a major-league baseball player, but his hitting failed him. In 1938, he became sports editor of the Community Press. ``When I was in high school, I had two ambitions: To be a baseball player and to be a newsman,'' he told the Dundalk Eagle on the newspaper's 25th anniversary. After serving with the Navy in the Pacific during World War II, he returned to the Press and was promoted to editor. Studying at night, he earned a law degree from the University of Baltimore Law School. Services will be held at 8:30 p.m. today at the Duda-Ruck Funeral Home of Dundalk, 7922 Wise Ave. He is survived by his wife, the former Mary Georgina Jarboe, whom he married in 1946; three sons, Timothy Oelke of New Freedom, Pa., James A. Oelke of Corpus Christi and Andrew P. Oelke of Seattle; seven other daughters, Kim E. Boone of Dundalk, Barbara E. Oelke of Monkton, Elizabeth A. Oelke of Fawn Grove, Pa., Mary Jane Oelke of White Marsh, Suzanne C. Oelke of Seattle, Amy K. Christensen of Upperco and Kerry A. Raszewski of Monkton; a sister, Virginia Becker of Dundalk; 16 grandchildren; and four great-grandchildren.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will be brief. I simply want to, first of all, commend the distinguished chairman of the committee for the very effective work I think he has done in bringing this to this point. I think it is important to understand we have not reached the bill yet. We are now actually postcloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. I do not think it is clear at this point yet exactly how many of these procedural hoops we will have to go through in order to finally get to the substance of the bill and in order, in the end, to have a vote up or down on the bill. I hope the leadership could commit to staying with this process as long as is necessary in order to reach that point, because I think there is overwhelming support for this legislation in this body--overwhelming support. I think the Financial Services Act of 1998, which has been brought out of the Senate Banking Committee, is a carefully balanced piece of legislation. It would finally respond to an issue we have been wrestling with for years and years. I say to the chairman of the committee, we have been dealing with this issue for a very, very long time, and finally we have brought it to the point where we have an opportunity, I think, to put into law important legislation for the operation of the financial services industry. This legislation would permit banks to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies within a financial holding company structure, regulated by the Federal Reserve. The Banking Committee held four hearings in preparation for marking up this legislation after it passed the House. It passed the House by just one vote. We are informed, and I believe reliably informed, that the vote in the House on this legislation as is now being presented to the Senate would produce a very substantial majority. In other words, well above, clearly well above the vote that it obtained in just managing to get through the House and coming over to the Senate. The changes we have made have generally been met with favor on the other side of the Capitol. We heard from the administration, the financial regulators, the various industry groups, public interest and consumer groups, and in the end the bill was brought out of the Banking Committee on the 11th of September by a broad, bipartisan majority of 16 to 2. The legislation, as I indicated, is balanced. It would expand the range of permissible financial activities for commercial banks while preserving the safety and soundness of the financial system, providing adequate consumer protections, and expanding access to the financial system for all Americans. This bill has received unprecedented support across the entire range of the financial services industry. Just last Wednesday, the American Bankers Association, the Independent Bankers Association, the American Council of Life Insurance, the Independent Insurance Agents of America, the American Insurance Association, the Securities Industry Association, the Investment Company Institute and the Financial Services Council sent a joint letter to the two leaders--to Senators Lott and Daschle--saying: The Senate Banking Committee, through its actions on H.R. 10, the financial modernization bill, in its discussions with a wide variety of parties including both Members of Congress and representatives of the private sector, has now produced a carefully negotiated product. They indicated their very strong support for the package which we are bringing to the Senate. Last Friday, the American Community Bankers, who represent the thrift industry, sent a letter to the two leaders expressing support of H.R. 10, and stating: ACB supports the bill as a generally constructive measure. These letters obviously reflect a very broad consensus that has been put together around this bill. Obviously, it is my hope we will be able to move it through the Senate over the next few days and move it on towards enactment into law. It is interesting to note, since I have colleagues on the other side who are raising the CRA issue, that the industry groups affected by the CRA issue are in favor of this bill. The community groups, I have to tell you because I am very much aware of it, are opposed to this bill, because they think it is inadequate on CRA. You know, they are making that concern very clear. So I say to my colleagues on the other side who come along and they say, ``We are going to attack CRA,'' that the very people affected by it, the industry groups, say, ``We can live with this.'' The community groups are very unhappy with it. So we have that situation here. In addition, and I am going to talk later in more detail about the separation between banking and commerce, which I think is an important aspect of this bill and one that Paul Volcker wrote a very thoughtful op-ed piece about in the Washington Post, on September 10. Let me just quote that and then I will not develop that issue any further tonight: A convincing argument can be made for combinations of banking, securities and insurance companies--under appropriate regulatory and supervisory safeguards. What cannot be defended is reshaping the financial services industry by ad hoc regulatory decisions, manipulating or manufacturing loopholes in plain contravention of the intent of the unchanged law. The proposed legislation will maintain and strengthen elements of financial regulation and oversight essential to the overall stability of the system. Specifically, H.R. 10 would reinforce the long-standing policy of the United States against the combination of banking and ``commerce,'' broadly defined. As I indicated, I will come back to many other commentators who have stressed the importance of that aspect of this legislation, and I think one of its major accomplishments is to draw that line and draw a clear line and avoid this sort of fudging that has been taking place in this area. On the safety and soundness, let me say I think the regulatory structure put in place by this legislation is important and would permit the formation of financial holding companies. These financial holding companies would be able to engage in any activity that is determined to be financial in nature or incidental to such financial activities. Thus, the holding company could include a commercial bank, securities firm, mutual fund or insurance company. Each entity within the holding company would be regulated by its existing regulator. Thus, a commercial bank would be regulated by its bank regulator, whether that is the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC or the Federal Reserve. The securities firm and the mutual fund would be regulated by the SEC and by the appropriate State securities regulators, and the insurance company would be regulated by State insurance regulators, as is now the case. So you have functional regulation of each entity within the new financial holding company. In addition, the Federal Reserve would serve as the so-called umbrella regulator of the financial holding company. The Federal Reserve would have authority to set capital at the holding company level. It would have authority to conduct examinations and request reports from subsidiaries of the financial holding company if it determines they are necessary to assess a material risk to the bank holding company for its subsidiaries. I think this balance is an effective approach to protecting the safety and soundness of the financial system and most independent observers, with respect to safety and soundness questions, agree with that evaluation. There are also important consumer protections contained in the legislation with respect to the sale of uninsured financial products, and I am sure we will have a chance to develop those in some detail. Where we find ourselves procedurally is the next vote, obviously, will be on the actual motion to proceed to the bill. At that point, the bill would then be before us and open to amendment. I subscribe to the position put forward by the chairman of the committee that Members ought to have a chance to offer an amendment; we ought to have reasonable debate on them and then move to vote on them, one way or another, and work through the legislation in that fashion. It has been a long road to reach this point. I think it is important to try now to conclude deliberations on this important legislation in an orderly and rational fashion, and I think the approach the chairman has outlined certainly accommodates that. We hear stories or rumors that people are out to simply try to delay this as long as they can in order to, in effect, sink the legislation. I very much hope that doesn't happen. An awful lot of work has gone into bringing us to this point, as is reflected by the comments of the various parties who have been deeply interested and affected by this legislation. I, frankly, think the Congress now has an opportunity to finally come to grips with an issue--this issue is being dealt with on an ad hoc basis. No one thinks it should be done that way. No one. At least I don't think anyone. I don't want to speak for all of my colleagues, but that is true of all of the regulators, all of the commentators. They say the way to deal with this is to do it statutorily through enactment by the Congress. So we will just have to see as we move ahead whether we can come to closure on this important issue. I very much hope it will be possible to do so. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send the first of these amendments to the desk.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, again I thank Senator McCain and ranking member Ford for their cooperation throughout this effort. As the chairman has recognized, this is a very sensitive problem, and we recognize what the chairman and others are seeking to accomplish here in terms of increased competition in further flights, but we felt it necessary, obviously, to press the case for the noise mitigation problem. I must say both the chairman and ranking member have recognized that problem. We think what we have proposed here will help solve that. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as I understand it, this reference to the high-density airport encompasses what I was specifically directing toward, but it gives it a more general statement, and it is certainly acceptable to us in light of that.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3639 (Purpose: To mitigate adverse environmental noise consequences of exemptions for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport flight operations by making available financial assistance for noise compatibility planning and programs)

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am concerned about the provisions in sections 606 and 607 of this legislation which would increase the number of flights and grant exemptions to the 1,250-mile nonstop perimeter rule at Reagan Washington National Airport. These changes would alter longstanding Federal policies and agreements governing the operations of the three Washington area airports--Reagan National, Dulles, and BWI--and could result in unacceptable noise impacts for tens of thousands of citizens living in the flight path of Reagan National along the Potomac. I recognize that the chairman and other Members are concerned about potential barriers to entry of new carriers at Reagan Washington National. While recognizing this, I think we must seek a careful balance between the benefits of increased competition and legitimate concerns of our citizens about aircraft noise. Anyone who lives in the flight path of Reagan Washington National Airport knows what a serious problem aircraft noise poses for human health, and even for performing daily activities. Despite having restrictive nighttime noise rules, aircraft noise remains a major concern for many of our citizens who live in Reagan Washington National's flight path. The Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, a coalition of citizens and civic associations which has been working for more than a decade to reduce aircraft noise in the Washington metropolitan area, has analyzed data from a recent Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority report which shows that approximately 1/3 of the 32 noise-monitoring stations in the region have a day-night average sound level which is higher than the 65-decibel level that has been established by the EPA and the American National Standards Institute as a threshold above which residential living is considered compatible. Addressing existing noise impacts and the impacts of noise from further flights into Reagan Washington National Airport must, therefore, be a top priority. Senators Mikulski, Robb, and Warner have joined with me in framing some amendments to the pending bill to address the potential impact that would arise from increasing the slots and changing the perimeter at National Airport. These amendments seek to provide a noise safety net to mitigate adverse environmental noise consequences of exemptions to the existing operating rules. Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. President, today, I rise to offer three amendments with my colleague, Senator Sarbanes to address the needs of my constituents in regard to this legislation. I also note that I am a proud co-sponsor of two amendments offered by Senator Warner of Virginia that further addresses our citizens concerns. Mr. President, I want to make it very clear that I am opposed to any changes in the perimeter rule and slot rules at Ronald Reagan National Airport. I believe the present balance among the three regional airports serves the public well. The present slot rules governing Reagan National work well and should be maintained. However, I recognize that this legislation has overwhelming support in the Senate and will pass with a majority vote. As a result, Senator Sarbanes and I have crafted two amendments to minimize any potential impact from changes to the slot and perimeter rules. The first amendment creates a mandatory set-aside of federal funds to mitigate any noise impacts that arise from changes to the perimeter and slot rules. The amendment requires the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to set aside no less than ten percent of their federal funds to prevent noise pollution in areas affected by noise from National and Dulles International Airports. For my constituents, this means that they will be eligible for financial assistance to soundproof their homes and schools. This amendment will ensure that residents in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties will finally get some relief from noise that impacts their communities. Currently, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority does not utilize federal funds for noise mitigation activities. This amendment will ensure that federal funds are used for noise mitigation. For the first time, federal funds will be dedicated to reducing noise in the Washington area. The second amendment requires that any new slots be distributed evenly during the day to avoid the possibility of stacking new flights early in the morning or in the evening. I want to make sure that my constituents do not suffer additional noise during the time they are at home in the morning or the evening. When families are together, they should not have to endure additional aircraft noise when enjoying their breakfast or dinner. The third amendment gives the Washington Airports Authority and the State of Maryland priority consideration for airport improvement grants. Because Maryland is affected by changes to the perimeter and slot rules, this area should receive priority consideration. In addition, to the amendments sponsored by myself and Senator Sarbanes, we have worked closely with Senator Warner on two other amendments to further address the needs of our constituents. One amendment requires a formal environmental review and public hearing before new slot exemptions are granted at Reagan National. I believe this is fair and necessary to ensure that our constituents have a role in this process and have their voices heard. A second amendment seeks to guarantee that the pending nominations to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board are confirmed in an expeditious manner. A fully functioning board is necessary to proceed with the modernization of Reagan National and Dulles and I support the pending nominations. Mr. President, I could not stop this bill, so Senator Sarbanes and I decided to change it. For the first time, we succeeded in providing funds for noise mitigation for our constituents. While I would have preferred no changes to the slot and perimeter rules, I believe our amendments will go a long way to reducing noise impact for our constituents. Amendment No. 3637 (Purpose: To ensure that certain funds made available to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority are used for noise compatibility planning and programs)

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to mitigate adverse consequences of the exemptions from the rules governing Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport flight operations by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to make both the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and the State of Maryland eligible for priority consideration when the FAA distributes noise discretionary funds under the Airport Improvement Program. With increases in the amount of flights at Reagan National--and these other two airports are interrelated, of course, Dulles and BWI--the problem of noise pollution is likely to grow, and it is vital that we make prudent investments in noise abatement activities. Therefore, we seek this priority status in order to be able to ensure that we are doing everything we can to soundproof homes and schools and take other steps to address the noise pollution problem for those living in the flight paths. I understand, Mr. President, that the committee has, as it were, a refinement of this amendment, and this is certainly acceptable to us. I, again, express my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member for working with us in such a positive and constructive way on this issue. Amendment No. 3640 to Amendment No. 3639

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to mitigate the environmental noise consequences of new air carrier slots added to the Ronald Reagan National Airport inventory. By precluding air carrier slot clustering during the operational day, it would prohibit more than two new operations per hour during the period between 7 a.m. and 9:59 p.m. It seeks to achieve a more appropriate balance between the commercial interests of air carriers, the demands of the traveling and shipping public, and the concerns of residents living under the flight pattern. We understand the addition of the slots. This is primarily an effort to spread them out over the course of the operational day and to prevent heavy clustering, particularly in the early morning or late evening hours. I understand the committee feels that this is compatible with the objectives we are trying to seek. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I wonder if that cow gives milk.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to assure that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority provide funding for noise abatement activities such as soundproofing of homes and schools, buying homes that are affected by noise, and improving land use planning. It provides that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority will expend at least 10 percent of its FAA grant money on noise compatibility planning and programming. Let me note in submitting this amendment that MWAA is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars of capital improvement at Reagan National, yet it is not spending a dime on the noise abatement activities. By comparison, Chicago O'Hare is currently spending $205 million of its passenger facility charges on noise abatement and mitigation activities. In my own State of Maryland, BWI is spending a substantial portion of its AIP fund for noise mitigation efforts. In fact, since enactment of the AIP program, the Maryland Aviation Administration has received 46 AIP grants for BWI, totaling approximately $119 million. Seventeen of these grants, totaling more than $52 million, were for noise mitigation. In other words, 44 percent of all AIP grants for BWI have been for noise mitigation activities. In direct contrast, since 1991, when Reagan Washington National Airport first became eligible for AIP funds, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has received $106 million in AIP discretionary entitlement funds and none of those funds for financing of the airport's passenger facilities charges has been used for noise abatement activity. I understand that the rationale that MWAA has given for not spending any funds for noise abatement was that it cannot have a 150 noise compatibility plan approved by FAA. Now that it has such an approved plan, it is time that AIP funds be spent to provide some relief for noise-impacted communities. This amendment seeks to have the Federal Government address the need for greater balance between airport expansion and associated environmental impact. I know this is an issue that the chairman has taken an interest in. I know he raised it in confirmation hearings with respect to members of the MWAA. We very much welcome his interest. We have tried to work with the committee as we deal with these amendments. It is my understanding that the amendment is acceptable to the committee. I urge its adoption.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3638 (Purpose: To mitigate adverse environmental noise consequences of exemptions of additional air carrier slots added to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as a result of exemption)

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Durbin, the Ranking Member of the Courts Subcommittee, on passage of S.1301, the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Bill of 1998. I especially want to thank him for insisting that S.1301 address not only the need for greater responsibility on the part of debtors, but also the need for greater responsibility on the part of creditors. In particular, this bill takes notice of the fact that credit card companies often act as enablers to individuals who end up in bankruptcy after falling prey to one too many promises of easy credit from these companies. S.1301 requires that credit card companies provide consumers with the information they need to behave in a responsible manner, rather than luring them into tighter financial straits with false promises of easy credit. The bill that passed out of the Judiciary Committee did not take such an evenhanded approach, and I, among others both on and off the Judiciary Committee, noted the need to bring greater balance to this issue on the floor. Thanks to Senator Durbin's leadership, the efforts of several other Democratic Senators, and the cooperation of Senator Grassley and other Republicans, the bill we will soon pass is a product that, as amended, acknowledges the shared responsibility for the rise in bankruptcies between creditors and debtors, and strives to discourage reckless behavior on both sides of credit transactions.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank Senator Durbin for his kind words. I also note, however, that we still have much work to do in this area. None of the consumer-oriented provisions that we have succeeded in adding to S.1301 are in the House-passed bankruptcy bill, and I daresay that the credit card companies are less than thrilled with even the modest steps we have taken on behalf of consumers here in the Senate. I ask my colleague from Illinois, is it not safe to expect that there will be efforts during the bankruptcy conference to strip out some of these provisions from the conference report, and to bring to the Senate a bankruptcy bill that is, once again, merely a wish list of the credit card companies? I further ask my colleague, will we not need to be vigilant in our efforts to preserve these consumer-oriented provisions during the conference?

Mr. SARBANES. I thank my distinguished colleague from Illinois, and pledge my support for his efforts in this regard. Only if we are able to preserve our hard-fought gains in the Senate in conference will we be able to pass bankruptcy reform legislation that will stand the tests of time and fairness. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am submitting a concurrent resolution to redesignate the United States Capitol Police Headquarters as the ``Eney, Chestnut, Gibson Memorial Building'' in honor of the three brave United States Capitol Police Officers who have been killed in the line of duty since the inception of the Capitol Police. The United States Capitol Police are a very special breed. They have a very special duty and a special trust. They guard our nation's Capitol and keep it safe and secure for the citizens of the world. When Officers Gibson and Chestnut were killed on July 24, 1998, I joined my colleagues on the floor to express my profound shock, and to express my very heartfelt sympathies to their families. I quoted an editorial in Roll Call then and I want to read from it again because I think it sums up the nature of our Capitol Police Force: Sometimes, given the comparative low level of violence around the Capitol complex and given that Capitol Police Officers are usually seen cheerfully directing traffic or gently herding tourists, it's forgotten that ours--meaning the Capitol Hill Police Force--is a real police force. We who live and work around the Capitol know--but others don't--that our police also fight crime in the neighborhood as well as watch the Capitol. But now all America understands that the Capitol Police do not just stand guard, but also stand ready to be heroes. That knowledge was derived last week at a heartrending cost. So Mr. President, the purpose of this concurrent resolution is not just to memorialize these three officers, but to honor in perpetuity the bravery, and acknowledge the sacrifice of the men and women who put their lives on the line daily to protect this symbol of democracy. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this measure.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Kennedy's amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the legislation--upon which this amendment is based--to raise the minimum wage 50 cents a year over the next two years bringing it to $6.15 per hour by the year 2000. For more than half a century, Congress has acted to guarantee minimum standards of decency for working Americans. The object of a Federal minimum wage is to make work pay well enough to keep families out of poverty and off Government assistance. Any individual who works hard and plays by the rules should be assured a living standard for his or her family that can keep them out of poverty. If nothing is done before the year 2000, the real value of the minimum wage will be just $4.82 in 1997 dollars--about what it was before Congress last acted to increase the minimum wage in 1996. The increase being proposed today would bring the purchasing power of the minimum wage to $5.76. Now, no one asserts that raising the minimum wage will correct every economic injustice, but it will certainly make a significant difference to those on the low end of the economic scale. We have the opportunity to enact what is in my view a modest increase to help curb the erosion of the value of the minimum wage in terms of real dollars, and it is an opportunity which we should not let pass us by. Currently, full-time minimum wage worker earns just $10,712 --$2,600 below the poverty level for a family of three. A dollar increase in the minimum wage would provide a minimum wage worker with an additional $2,080 in income per year, helping to bring that family of three closer to the most basic standard of living. This extra income will help a family pay their bills and quite possibly even allow them to afford something above and beyond the bare essentials. According to the Department of Labor, 74 percent of workers who will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage are adults, 50 percent work full time, 60 percent are women and 40 percent are the sole breadwinners in their families. Mr. President, these are not the part- time workers and suburban teenagers many opponents of the minimum wage increase would have you believe. After 30 years of spiralling deficits we are on the verge of balancing the budget for the first time in 30 years - 4 years ahead of schedule. Today, the budget is virtually balanced, unemployment is at a 25-year low, and inflation is at a 30-year low. However, despite this period of economic prosperity, the disparity between the very rich in this country and the very poor continues to grow. According to the Economic Policy Institute, projections for 1997 indicate that the share of the wealth held by the top 1 percent of households grew by almost 2 percent since 1989. Over that same period, the share of the wealth held by families in the middle fifth of the population fell by half a percent. In light of these estimates, consider that the Department of Labor predicts that 57 percent of the gains from an increase in the minimum wage will go to families in the bottom 40 percent of the income scale. It is both reasonable and responsible for Congress to enact measures which provide a standard that allows decent, hard-working Americans a floor upon which they can stand. We did it back in 1996 when we approved, by a bipartisan vote of 74-24, a 90 cent increase in the minimum wage bringing it to its current level of $5.15 per hour, and it is appropriate to do it here again. With the economy strong, we have a responsibility to reinforce this basic economic floor for millions of American workers to prevent them from sliding further into the basement. This is, and always has been, an issue of equity and fairness for working men and women in this country and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and vote against the motion to table.