Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. That is correct.

Mr. SARBANES. That is right. What this amendment does, very simply, is it provides that when the investors are removed from the State court to the Federal court, they can bring their State statute of limitations with them. If they filed in the State court, and they complied with the statute of limitations, they ought not to find themselves taken into Federal court and then being told they do not comply with the shorter statute of limitations and they are out of the courthouse when they, in fact, complied at the State level with the State statute of limitations. This is to deal with this unfairness whereby an investor can file a timely suit under State rules and without advance warning later be dismissed under a different set of rules. Anyone who wished to bring the suit in the Federal court would have to abide by the 1- and 3-year limitation of Lampf. But this is clearly unfair to an investor who is acting in a reasonable manner. This amendment is supported by a broad coalition of government officials and consumer groups. The National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and others have written to express their support for an amendment to allow plaintiffs to carry State statute of limitations with them in cases filed in State court which are removed to Federal court. The Consumer Federation of America has joined as well. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is an effort to deal with what, I think, is a very specific and definable flaw in this legislation. I don't think investors going into a State court, timely under State law--and I refer back to the comments of Chairman Breeden and others about the complexities of these cases, the difficulty of discovering the fraud, the difficulty of bringing the suit once the fraud is discovered--that they then ought to find themselves foreclosed altogether from any equitable relief simply by removal to the Federal court and the application of the shorter statute of limitations. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand that the leadership doesn't intend to have votes much beyond 6 o'clock or thereabouts, and I suggest to my colleague that we set aside this amendment and do the next amendment, which I will send to the desk, which actually is interrelated in concept with this amendment, and that we have a vote on the two amendments beginning about 5:40.

Mr. SARBANES. For ordering votes, we should not have any second degree.

Mr. SARBANES. Just to sketch it out, it was my assumption then in the morning we will have one other amendment to offer. We will do that amendment and then final passage is my expectation.

Mr. SARBANES. Of course, we have used up all the debate time. What should we have, 10 minutes on each side before final passage, or 30 minutes equally divided before final passage?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the current amendment, and I will send an amendment to the desk, and that no second-degree amendments be in order to either, and that the vote begin on the amendment to be set aside at 5:40, to be followed by a vote on the amendment which will be sent to the desk.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I withdraw the request.

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

Mr. SARBANES. I apologize to the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment interrelates with the other amendment that has been set aside on which a vote will occur later. The sponsors of this bill say their goal is to wipe out frivolous class-action lawsuits alleging securities fraud. What are class-action lawsuits? They are lawsuits brought by a single person, not just on his own behalf, but on behalf of other persons similarly situated. In other words, one person can bring a lawsuit on behalf of an anonymous and potentially enormous group of people. Why do we allow someone to bring such a lawsuit? Because in many situations, it is the only economical way people can pursue remedies. If a large number of people have each suffered a relatively small loss, it may not be economical for any one of them to pay the costs of a lawsuit. There are many examples of class-action suits by investors who have been defrauded. It is a tool that allows individuals to share the cost of a lawsuit when they are injured. Because they can be brought on behalf of a potentially enormous class, on occasion they can be misused to coerce defendants into settlement. This is the abuse about which the sponsors of the legislation complain. They argue that companies are coerced by flimsy securities fraud class-action suits, that it is cheaper for the company to settle rather than to fight them, and that these class actions are being misused. I share the view that frivolous securities fraud class-action suits should not be tolerated, either in Federal court or in State court, and lawyers who file worthless suits hoping to extort a settlement should not be able to pursue that practice. But this bill reaches beyond the frivolous class action. Here is the problem. The definition of class action in this bill is too broad. It will prevent investors from bringing individual actions solely on their own behalf in State court. Since they were enacted over 60 years ago, the Federal securities laws have preserved the right of individual investors to bring securities fraud suits under State law. This system has worked well. State remedies offer important protections to investors where Federal remedies fall short. But the definition that is contained in this bill for ``class action'' is too broad. The bill has a three-pronged definition of ``class action.'' And these prongs permit individual investors to be brought into Federal court against their will. The bill includes, as a class action, any group of lawsuits in which damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 persons, even if the suits are brought by separate lawyers without coordination. So to tie it into the previous amendment, what happens is an investor goes into State court, in a timely fashion, he files an individual suit, and if 50 others do the same thing, they can be removed to Federal court as, quote, a ``class action,'' although it is not a class action as a class action is ordinarily considered or ordinarily defined. They lift them out of the State court and put them into the Federal court, and they are shut out because of the statute of limitations. Individual investors ought not to have to lose their remedies under State law in order to deal with the problem of frivolous class actions. And so the amendment that is offered narrows the bill's definition of ``class action'' to a suit brought on behalf of unnamed parties similarly situated. We do not use this ``50 investor'' definition which means unwary people are going to be trapped and lose their remedy. Now a broad coalition of State and local government associations have written to us supporting this amendment--the National Association of State Retirement Administrators as well. Here is what they have to say about the definition of ``class action'' in the bill. The definition of ``class action'' contained in S. 1260 is overly broad. The definition of ``class action'' in S. 1260 would allow single suits filed in the same or different courts to be rolled into a larger class action that was never contemplated or desired by individual plaintiffs and have it removed to Federal court. Claims by the bill's proponents that individual plaintiffs would still be able to bring suit in Federal court are belied by this provision. If we can narrow the definition of ``class action'' to a proper class action, and then that is taken into Federal court, then the statute of limitations will apply, if that prevails. On the other hand, if you are going to have a definition of ``class action'' that is so broad that individual investors can be covered, they ought not be subjected to the risk of losing their suit altogether because it is removed in a Federal court and they are bound by a statute of limitations that they had no idea was going to come into play in their instance. So, Mr. President, I very strongly urge this amendment. I think it corrects a very important weakness in this legislation. We can narrow the definition of who is covered by the class action so we no longer have to worry about the individual investor being shut out unfairly. I think we ought to significantly improve this legislation and narrow it so it applies to what it is asserted it is meant to apply to, and does not apply to individual investors who I think need to have their remedies preserved in the State courts. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object, and I do not object, subsequent to that, then, I take it what the leadership would like to do is try to finish, so we will offer a third amendment and debate that. We hope the time will not be too long on that. Then we would be able to vote on that amendment and then on final passage.

Mr. SARBANES. I have no objection.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Bryan, Senator Johnson, and Senator Biden. I will be very quick, because the manager has indicated he will accept this amendment. This amendment preserves the right of State and local governments and their pension plans to bring securities fraud suits under State law. They have never been professional plaintiffs. They have never abused the system. They have to go through an elaborate process to even bring suit. They obviously are concerned with protecting the public and the taxpayers, and it seems to me a reasonable exemption from the provisions of this bill as it applies to these governmental units. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I want to commend the Senator from Nevada for a very powerful statement and for his very strong presentation of the arguments. All I want to say to my colleague is, I am confident in making the prediction that events down the road, when the investors come in, innocent people, and say, ``We didn't have a remedy,'' he will be proven correct.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the President, Vice President, and my colleagues in Congress in recognizing the significant contribution of all public employees to our Nation's well-being. This week, from May 4 through May 10, is Public Service Recognition Week and today begins a three-day celebration of events on the Mall designed to highlight the creative, innovative and effective government programs serving Americans across the country. I am indeed proud to bring special attention to the dedicated individuals who have chosen public service as a career and who, through years of hard work, have helped to contribute to our Nation's growth and prosperity. Their important work includes protecting our Nation, keeping our food supply safe, participating in medical and scientific research, and maintaining highway and air safety. The excellent service provided by Federal employees often goes unrecognized and it is only when these services become necessary for an individual or when the services are unavailable--as we experienced just two years ago during the shutdown of the Federal government--that people truly appreciate the importance of Federal employees. It is with this in mind that I want to again thank and praise the millions of men and women in the Federal workforce who perform these important jobs every day. I view public service as an honorable career and a high calling, and I am proud that our Government has such a conscientious and highly qualified workforce. Despite previous attempts to undervalue the ideals which make public service rewarding and attractive to many, Federal employees continue to work positively and responsibly, while accomplishing many vital tasks. President Kennedy once stated: Let the public service be a proud and lively career. And let every man and woman who works in any area of our nation government, in any branch, at any level, be able to say with pride and honor in future years: 'I served the United States Government in that hour of our Nation's need. The Nation has unquestionably benefitted from the many wonderful achievements of Federal employees. In setting aside this week to acknowledge our Nation's public servants, we all have an opportunity to give these employees the thanks and recognition they so greatly deserve. I am very pleased to extend my appreciation to such a worthy an committed group of men and women and encourage them to continue in their efforts on behalf of all Americans.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, while I support H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service restructuring bill that is now before the Senate, I would like to express my opposition to any amendment that would seek to remove an IRS employee representative from the citizens oversight board established in that legislation. Mr. President, the idea of having an employee representative on the oversight board is hardly a novel one. In fact, that idea has been incorporated into virtually every IRS reform proposal that has been made in the last couple of years, including: The recommendation of the bipartisan Commission to Restructure the Internal Revenue Service; H.R. 2676, the House IRS reform bill that passed that body by a vote of 426-4. The Senate Finance Committee's version of the IRS bill, which we are now considering; and The recommendation of the Administration. That an employee representative has been deemed an essential part of the proposed oversight board in particular--and IRS reform in general-- should not be surprising. The IRS is an enormous agency of over 100,000 employees. The IRS reform bill we are now considering gives the proposed oversight board significant authority to review and approve plans for this agency's operation--its strategic plans, its reorganization plans, its budget requests, and other fundamental operational matters. Without the cooperation and input of the IRS' employees in this process, how can we possibly expect the Board's responsibilities to be discharged in a manner that will make the oversight board an effective instrument of reform? Let us not forget that IRS employees have been instrumental in bringing to light much of the information that has caused Congress to undertake the reform efforts before us now. Let us also recall that IRS employees have expertise in the operation of the agency that is unique and irreplaceable. This expertise is absolutely integral to effecting the kinds of changes that we in Congress--and more important, the American people--want and expect. Mr. President, the idea of having employee input in the basic management decisions of major enterprises is not a novel one. In fact, the placement of an employee representative on the IRS oversight board mirrors similar steps taken in several private sector businesses. For example: Northwest Airlines has a union representative on its Board of Directors; Similarly, the steelworkers union holds a position on the Boards of Directors of several of our nation's biggest steel companies. Thus, both the private sector and--in this legislation--the public sector have recognized the value of having employee input and participation in the management of major enterprises. Those who seek to eliminate employee participation on the oversight board charge that a union representative on the board will have conflicting interests that will hinder the board's effectiveness. Mr. President, My colleagues should note that this union representative: Is subject to nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate; Must make full financial disclosure in accordance with current laws, like all other Board members; Is, unlike other Board members, subject to additional disclosure requirements, including requirements to file financial disclosure information with the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees. Will receive a waiver of conflict of interest laws along the lines of those granted in over 1000 cases a year, where the public benefit of the individual's participation in government decisionmaking outweighs the potential benefit arising out of that participation. In short, Mr. President, the union representative will face greater scrutiny than any other member of the Board; such scrutiny will ensure that this representative will discharge his or her duties diligently and responsibly. Moreover, the House and the Senate Finance Committee have determined that the public benefit of having an employee representative on the Board outweighs the potential conflict by having him or her on the Board. I think this determination is indisputably correct, and should not be disturbed by the full Senate. In closing, let me make a few remarks about federal employees in general. It has become all to fashionable in recent years for Congress to berate federal employees and to denigrate the many contributions they make to our nation. Federal employees render invaluable service to this nation. They work hard and are proud of that work. Many of them are highly educated and skilled. In short, they bring a great deal of expertise and dedication to their roles as civil servants. Such dedication ought to be recognized, applauded, and, most important in this context, utilized to help the government's efforts become more responsive to our constituents. We are now engaged in such an effort. To remove federal employees from the oversight board would be shortsighted and a disservice to the nation. I therefore urge my colleagues to preserve the current composition of the oversight board and to defeat any amendment that would change that composition by removing the employee representative. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, joined with Senator Lieberman, I am introducing legislation to provide our nation's workforce with the information technology and computer skills it needs to meet the emerging and rapidly changing requirements in our various technology sectors. I am delighted to have my distinguished colleague from Connecticut--whose efforts on behalf of the high technology sector and its workforce have been second to none--join as an original co-sponsor of the Technology Skills Partnership Act of 1998. The purpose of the Technology Skills Partnership Act is to establish regional initiatives to provide the skills that industry and workers require to remain competitive in the global, high technology marketplace. The United States is currently the world's science and technology leader. Technical innovation, which according to a 1995 report by the President's Council of Economic Advisors has been responsible for more than half of America's productivity growth over the past fifty years, has positioned us at the forefront of the global economy. In my view, we could not have achieved this status without the most skilled, innovative, and competitive workforce in the world. The high tech global economy is evolving at such a rapid pace however, that if we fail to keep our workforce honed and highly skilled --whether in advanced computer programming or computer based manufacturing technology --we risk losing this edge. A growing number of industries throughout the country are reporting serious difficulties in hiring workers with appropriate computer and information technology skills. Recent reports have estimated up to 190,000 unfilled information technology jobs in the United States due to a shortage of qualified workers. Many businesses point to the lack of skilled workers as a primary reason for their limited competitiveness and growth. In my own State of Maryland, the high technology sector currently faces an estimated lack of 10-12,000 workers with appropriate technology skills. A recent Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development survey indicates that 80% of firms which hire manufacturing or skilled trades workers, reported significant difficulty in finding applicants with the required skills for technology intensive jobs. The same survey indicates that more than two thirds of businesses hiring computer technicians, engineers, analysts, or other technical or laboratory personnel experienced difficulty finding qualified workers. It also mentions that fifty-five percent of firms that hire college-level scientist or technical program graduates reported the same difficulty and that 62% of these firms reported that their need for hiring these types of graduates is expected to increase over the next five years. Without the appropriate skills for the new economy, hundreds of thousands of American workers face stagnation in their jobs or worse. While well intentioned, most existing training programs are not structured in a way which addresses this problem from the perspective of industry and directly prepares our workers for these types of positions. To help meet the demand in this regard, a unique approach which is flexible enough to address the fluctuations and transitions of our high technology economy is required. In order to train and educate new entrants to the workforce, workers dislocated by economic change, and workers already in the workplace facing increased demands for higher levels of technology related skills, we must establish an industry driven framework which recognizes and addresses this need on a continuum. Without such a framework, this country and its workers stand to lose significant ground in the global economy. While some post-secondary training institutions have reached out to industry and become more customer-focused, more still must identify ways to respond directly to the changing skills and needs of employers. Many community colleges, and even four-year colleges and universities, lack the resources to purchase up-to-date equipment on which to train workers in relevant knowledge and skills. In addition, while some colleges and universities have been able to establish partnerships with some larger firms that have human resource departments, building partnerships and a two-way dialogue with small and medium-sized firms has proven more difficult. Relevant, focused and systematic training and upgrading of infotech skills is essential to linking and transitioning our supply of skilled American workers to the powerful and emerging demand of today's high tech economy. Without direct participation by industry, however, and an understanding of regional dynamics which help us identify specific solutions to address specific industry and regional needs, a significant portion of the U.S. workforce will be left behind. Mr. President, having the appropriate information technology skills is becoming more and more important in all sectors of our economy, not only in high and biotech industries and the manufacturing sector, but also in the so-called low-tech industries. More than half of the new jobs created between 1984 and 2005 require or will require some education beyond high school. The percentage of workers who use computers at work has risen from 25% to 46% between 1984 and 1993. Moreover, firms today are not only using more technology, but are also reorganizing production processes in new ways, such as cellular production, use of teams, and other high performance structures and methods requiring higher levels and new kinds of skills. According to the American Society for Training and Development, company spending on training has not kept up with today's evolving needs. In 1995, American businesses spent $55 billion a year upgrading the skills of their employees, 20 percent more than a dozen years ago. However, the number of employees has increased by 24 percent, meaning that private-sector spending hasn't kept pace. In order to bridge this gap, we need to pool our resources and coordinate our perspectives on this matter. Most firms, but particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, have limited capacity to engage in significant and sustained workforce development efforts. Managers and owners of most firms are simply too busy running their business to develop training systems, especially for new or dislocated workers. Firms also often lack information on what kind of training their firms need and where to get it. As a result, most firms forego training initiatives and instead try to hire workers away from other companies in related fields. Moreover, because workers are so transient, individual employers are reluctant to bear the burden of training employees, be they new or incumbent workers, simply due to the likelihood is that the employee will leave and go to work for a competitor. In light of this possibility, many firms simply cannot envision an adequate return on the investment for paying to train their employees. This, coupled with an increasingly competitive global marketplace, is one reason why many larger companies that once supported in-house training programs have since eliminated these efforts. The legislation I am introducing would establish regional working groups across the country in which employers, public agencies, schools, and labor unions can pool resources and expertise to train workers for emerging job opportunities and jobs threatened by economic and technological transition. It will help develop targeted consortia of industry, workers and training entities across the country to assess where and what gaps in this regard exist and provide the skills that industry and workers require to remain competitive and get ahead. Specifically, it would authorize a grants program--to be overseen by the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology--and provide up to a $1 million federal match, for every dollar invested by state and local governments and the private sector for these working groups. The Department would budget $50 million annually for this purpose and funds would be allocated through a competitive grants process, with each consortia of firms as applicants. Through a sector based approach, this legislation would direct meaningful participation in building an alliance by ensuring that each consists of at least 10 firms. These alliances would allow for participation from state and local officials, educational leaders, regional chapters of trade associations and union officials. However, each would be predominantly made up of industry, and as I have mentioned, would be industry driven. Indeed, if we are going to address the skills crisis in this country, industry must have a leadership role in establishing the means by which we continue to build and upgrade the skills of workers in technology related fields. Smaller scale versions of the types of skills alliances which my legislation proposes to develop have already shown promise. In Wisconsin, metal-working firms got together with the AFL-CIO in a publicly sponsored effort that used an abandoned mill building as a teaching facility, teaching workers essential skills on state-of-the- art manufacturing equipment. Rhode Island helped develop a skills alliance among plastics firms, who then worked with a local community college to create a polymer training laboratory linked to an apprenticeship program that guarantees jobs for graduates. In Washington, DC telecommunications firms donated computers, and helped to set up a program to train public high school students to be computer network administrators and are now hiring graduates of the program at an entry-level salary of $25,000-30,000. Each of these initiatives is an investment in our workforce for the 21st Century. If we are to truly transition the U.S. worker to a technology based economy, we must ensure that these best practice examples become standard practice. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring the swift enactment of this legislation. I ask that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, 50 years ago the State of Israel proclaimed its independence as a homeland and beacon of hope to Jews around the world. At 4:06 p.m. on April 30, 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared that the establishment of Israel would be effective at midnight the same day. Eleven minutes into the next day, the United States became the first country to extend recognition to the State of Israel when President Truman declared to the American people: This government has been informed that a Jewish State has been proclaimed in Palestine and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel. The ensuing rejection of Israel's appeal for peace expressed in its 1948 Declaration of Independence represented a missed opportunity of historic proportions. The Declaration stated: ``We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their people in an offer of peace and unity and appeal to them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the good of all.'' Yet for 50 years, the people of Israel have endured war and violent conflict, including a war of independence, the Six Day War, and the Yom Kippur War, weathered constant challenges to their survival, faced isolation, an economic boycott, and struggled against terrorism. To build an independent Jewish nation on a small piece of land would have been difficult even under the most ideal conditions. For Israel to have done so while the country's very existence was constantly being threatened is truly a tremendous accomplishment. In the face of hostility and adversity, Israel has persevered and developed into a thriving and diverse nation. The special relationship between the United States and Israel is fundamentally based on shared values and experiences. As a vibrant democracy like our own, and despite the heavy burdens imposed on the country by war, Israel is a land of immigrants and pioneers whose democratic achievements reflect the hard work, sacrifice, courage, devotion, and self-discipline of its people. Few societies have sustained such pressure and kept their commitment to a strong democracy as Israel has done. In just 50 years the Israeli people have built modern cities and prosperous farms, and established high quality educational and medical institutions. Israel has accomplished this while remaining a refuge for Jews fleeing oppression and persecution around the world, as earlier Israel offered a new life to the survivors of the Holocaust. In keeping with its earliest hopes, Israel has been successful in forging ties with some of its neighbors and former adversaries, and sought to strengthen its security by ending the cycle of conflict and violence marking its first 50 years. Israel's willingness to take risks for peace has been borne out in the Camp David Peace Accord which settled the state of war with Egypt, in Israel's recognition of a Palestinian Authority, and in the 1994 agreement ending war between Israel and Jordan. Throughout these years, through good and difficult times, the United States and Israel have maintained an enduring strategic partnership which has served us well. The United States commitment to Irsael's strength and security remains firm. As President Clinton declared before the Knesset in 1994, ``The survival of Israel is important not only to our interests, but to every value we hold dear as a people. Our role in war has been to help you defend yourself by yourself. That is what you have asked. Now that you are taking risks for peace, our role is to help you to minimize the risks of peace.'' Today, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Jewish state, we recognize the tremendous achievements of the Israeli people and commemorate the fruitful and enduring partnership between our two nations. We wish for Israel the lasting peace and stability its people have long sought and offer our congratulations on the inspiring example they have set.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, joined with Senator Lieberman, I am introducing legislation to provide our nation's workforce with the information technology and computer skills it needs to meet the emerging and rapidly changing requirements in our various technology sectors. I am delighted to have my distinguished colleague from Connecticut--whose efforts on behalf of the high technology sector and its workforce have been second to none--join as an original co-sponsor of the Technology Skills Partnership Act of 1998. The purpose of the Technology Skills Partnership Act is to establish regional initiatives to provide the skills that industry and workers require to remain competitive in the global, high technology marketplace. The United States is currently the world's science and technology leader. Technical innovation, which according to a 1995 report by the President's Council of Economic Advisors has been responsible for more than half of America's productivity growth over the past fifty years, has positioned us at the forefront of the global economy. In my view, we could not have achieved this status without the most skilled, innovative, and competitive workforce in the world. The high tech global economy is evolving at such a rapid pace however, that if we fail to keep our workforce honed and highly skilled --whether in advanced computer programming or computer based manufacturing technology --we risk losing this edge. A growing number of industries throughout the country are reporting serious difficulties in hiring workers with appropriate computer and information technology skills. Recent reports have estimated up to 190,000 unfilled information technology jobs in the United States due to a shortage of qualified workers. Many businesses point to the lack of skilled workers as a primary reason for their limited competitiveness and growth. In my own State of Maryland, the high technology sector currently faces an estimated lack of 10-12,000 workers with appropriate technology skills. A recent Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development survey indicates that 80% of firms which hire manufacturing or skilled trades workers, reported significant difficulty in finding applicants with the required skills for technology intensive jobs. The same survey indicates that more than two thirds of businesses hiring computer technicians, engineers, analysts, or other technical or laboratory personnel experienced difficulty finding qualified workers. It also mentions that fifty-five percent of firms that hire college-level scientist or technical program graduates reported the same difficulty and that 62% of these firms reported that their need for hiring these types of graduates is expected to increase over the next five years. Without the appropriate skills for the new economy, hundreds of thousands of American workers face stagnation in their jobs or worse. While well intentioned, most existing training programs are not structured in a way which addresses this problem from the perspective of industry and directly prepares our workers for these types of positions. To help meet the demand in this regard, a unique approach which is flexible enough to address the fluctuations and transitions of our high technology economy is required. In order to train and educate new entrants to the workforce, workers dislocated by economic change, and workers already in the workplace facing increased demands for higher levels of technology related skills, we must establish an industry driven framework which recognizes and addresses this need on a continuum. Without such a framework, this country and its workers stand to lose significant ground in the global economy. While some post-secondary training institutions have reached out to industry and become more customer-focused, more still must identify ways to respond directly to the changing skills and needs of employers. Many community colleges, and even four-year colleges and universities, lack the resources to purchase up-to-date equipment on which to train workers in relevant knowledge and skills. In addition, while some colleges and universities have been able to establish partnerships with some larger firms that have human resource departments, building partnerships and a two-way dialogue with small and medium-sized firms has proven more difficult. Relevant, focused and systematic training and upgrading of infotech skills is essential to linking and transitioning our supply of skilled American workers to the powerful and emerging demand of today's high tech economy. Without direct participation by industry, however, and an understanding of regional dynamics which help us identify specific solutions to address specific industry and regional needs, a significant portion of the U.S. workforce will be left behind. Mr. President, having the appropriate information technology skills is becoming more and more important in all sectors of our economy, not only in high and biotech industries and the manufacturing sector, but also in the so-called low-tech industries. More than half of the new jobs created between 1984 and 2005 require or will require some education beyond high school. The percentage of workers who use computers at work has risen from 25% to 46% between 1984 and 1993. Moreover, firms today are not only using more technology, but are also reorganizing production processes in new ways, such as cellular production, use of teams, and other high performance structures and methods requiring higher levels and new kinds of skills. According to the American Society for Training and Development, company spending on training has not kept up with today's evolving needs. In 1995, American businesses spent $55 billion a year upgrading the skills of their employees, 20 percent more than a dozen years ago. However, the number of employees has increased by 24 percent, meaning that private-sector spending hasn't kept pace. In order to bridge this gap, we need to pool our resources and coordinate our perspectives on this matter. Most firms, but particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, have limited capacity to engage in significant and sustained workforce development efforts. Managers and owners of most firms are simply too busy running their business to develop training systems, especially for new or dislocated workers. Firms also often lack information on what kind of training their firms need and where to get it. As a result, most firms forego training initiatives and instead try to hire workers away from other companies in related fields. Moreover, because workers are so transient, individual employers are reluctant to bear the burden of training employees, be they new or incumbent workers, simply due to the likelihood is that the employee will leave and go to work for a competitor. In light of this possibility, many firms simply cannot envision an adequate return on the investment for paying to train their employees. This, coupled with an increasingly competitive global marketplace, is one reason why many larger companies that once supported in-house training programs have since eliminated these efforts. The legislation I am introducing would establish regional working groups across the country in which employers, public agencies, schools, and labor unions can pool resources and expertise to train workers for emerging job opportunities and jobs threatened by economic and technological transition. It will help develop targeted consortia of industry, workers and training entities across the country to assess where and what gaps in this regard exist and provide the skills that industry and workers require to remain competitive and get ahead. Specifically, it would authorize a grants program--to be overseen by the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology--and provide up to a $1 million federal match, for every dollar invested by state and local governments and the private sector for these working groups. The Department would budget $50 million annually for this purpose and funds would be allocated through a competitive grants process, with each consortia of firms as applicants. Through a sector based approach, this legislation would direct meaningful participation in building an alliance by ensuring that each consists of at least 10 firms. These alliances would allow for participation from state and local officials, educational leaders, regional chapters of trade associations and union officials. However, each would be predominantly made up of industry, and as I have mentioned, would be industry driven. Indeed, if we are going to address the skills crisis in this country, industry must have a leadership role in establishing the means by which we continue to build and upgrade the skills of workers in technology related fields. Smaller scale versions of the types of skills alliances which my legislation proposes to develop have already shown promise. In Wisconsin, metal-working firms got together with the AFL-CIO in a publicly sponsored effort that used an abandoned mill building as a teaching facility, teaching workers essential skills on state-of-the- art manufacturing equipment. Rhode Island helped develop a skills alliance among plastics firms, who then worked with a local community college to create a polymer training laboratory linked to an apprenticeship program that guarantees jobs for graduates. In Washington, DC telecommunications firms donated computers, and helped to set up a program to train public high school students to be computer network administrators and are now hiring graduates of the program at an entry-level salary of $25,000-30,000. Each of these initiatives is an investment in our workforce for the 21st Century. If we are to truly transition the U.S. worker to a technology based economy, we must ensure that these best practice examples become standard practice. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring the swift enactment of this legislation. I ask that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in commemorating the 83rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide, which consumed the lives of one and a half million men, women and children. Today, as we remember the sacrifice of the Armenian people, we honor them by renewing our commitment to protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of all humanity. It is imperative, Mr. President, that no nation or individual ever forget the injustices suffered by the Armenians in 1915. Perhaps the most prominent witness to the Armenian genocide was Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey at the time, who described the wide-scale and deliberate orchestration of atrocities against the Armenian people as ``the Greatest Horror in History.'' He later wrote, ``Whatever crimes the most perverted instincts of the human mind can devise, and whatever refinements of persecutions and injustice the most debased imagination can conceive, became the daily misfortunes of this devoted people. I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915. The killing of the Armenian people was accompanied by the systematic destruction of churches, schools, libraries, treasures of art and of history in an attempt to eliminate all traces of a noble civilization some three thousand years old.'' Ambassador Morgenthau's assessment of the great tragedy was consonant with public reporting at the time the events took place. Newspaper headlines in mid-1915 heralded, ``More Armenian Massacres,'' ``Armenian Horrors Grow,'' ``Tales of Armenian Horrors Confirmed,'' ``800,000 Armenians Counted Destroyed,'' ``Spare Armenians, Pope Asks Sultan.'' On July 16, 1915, Morgenthau sent the following message by telegraph to the Secretary of State: ``Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eyewitnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under pretext of reprisal against rebellion.'' Other diplomats and consular officers substantiated the Ambassador's report of what was taking place. Abram Elkus, Morgenthau's successor, through his cables to the State Department confirmed his predecessor's assessment. We must not allow a handful of revisionists to shake our resolve to prompt recognition and acceptance of responsibility for this well- documented historical event. Indeed, Morgenthau and other diplomats who witnessed and reported in great detail the enormous devastation of the Armenian community would be astonished to learn today that the abundant evidence they collected, much of which is held in our own National Archives, and the testimony of survivors who are still with us, have come under challenge. Despite the irrefutability of the documentation and testimony, including extensive accounts from survivors, witnesses, and historians, there are those who deny the past, blame the victims, and oppose reconciliation. It is a tribute to the indomitable spirit of the Armenian people that, after enduring centuries of oppression, they have reestablished a free and independent state that is making new strides toward democracy and economic revitalization. In its short existence, the Republic of Armenia has survived the earthquake of 1988, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and a blockade by its neighbors. The spirit of the Armenian people is reflected not only in their dedication to rebuilding a nation from the ashes of totalitarianism, but also in the strength and vibrancy of the Armenian-American community. Americans of Armenian origin have successfully contributed to the cultural, social, economic, and political life of this country while preserving the rich faith and cultural traditions of their forebears. Clearly, the spirit of the Armenian people continues to thrive. Mr. President, to ensure that such a tragedy never be repeated it is incumbent upon us to remember the victims of the Armenian genocide and pay tribute to the survivors. Just as we have vowed never to forget the Nazi Holocaust, we must continually remind ourselves of the events of 1915. They became, after all, a precedent for Hitler, who rationalized his barbarism by asking, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' As citizens of a nation founded on the ideals of freedom and human dignity, we must educate ourselves about the events that constituted the Armenian genocide and renew our commitment never to remain indifferent in the face of such assaults on humanity. In the words of the great philosopher, George Santayana, ``those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing new legislation to help ease congestion, protect our nation's natural resources, and improve mobility and accessibility in our national parks and wildlife refuges. The ``Transit In Parks Act'' or TRIP bill is a new federal transit grant initiative that is designed to provide mass transit and alternative transportation services for our national parks, our wildlife refuges, federal recreational areas, and other public lands managed by three agencies of the Department of the Interior. When the parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. Travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was difficult and long and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our nation's great natural wonders. Early in this century landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the national park lands to millions of Americans. Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The on-going tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars has resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has five million visitors a year. It may surprise you to know that the average visitor stay is only three hours. As many as 6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,000 parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot. In the decade from 1984 to 1994, the number of visits to America's national parks increased 25 percent, rising from 208 million to 269 million a year. This is equal to more than one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut-out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other parks: Yosemite, which has more than 4 million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than 3 million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent damage to our nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage. The legislation I am introducing builds upon two previous initiatives to address these problems. First is the study of alternative transportation strategies in our national parks that was mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. This study, completed by the National Park Service in May 1994, found that many of our most heavily visited national parks are experiencing the same problems of congestion and pollution that afflict our cities and metropolitan areas. Yet, overwhelmingly, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads primarily for private automobile access. Second, last November, Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt signed an agreement to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around national parks. The findings in the Memorandum Of Understanding entered into by the two departments are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind. In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or science areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas. On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed. The challenge for park management is two-fold: to conserve and protect the nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. The Transit in Parks Act will go far to meeting this challenge. The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded mass transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources, to prevent adverse impact on those resources, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. This new federal transit grant program will provide funding to three Federal land management agencies in the Department of the Interior--the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management--that manage the 375 various parks within the National Park System, including national battlefields, monuments and national seashores, as well as the national wildlife refuges and federal recreational areas. The program will allocate capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national park lands. The bill authorizes $50 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2003. It is anticipated that other resources--both public and private--will be available to augment these amounts in the initial phase. The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement entered into last November between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The projects eligible for funding shall be developed through the ISTEA planning process and selected in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. The bill provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. It is anticipated that the Secretary of Transportation shall select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major national parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this section, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban public transit system. Project selection should include the following criteria: the historical and cultural significance of a project; safety; and the extent to which the project would conserve resources, prevent adverse impact, enhance the environment, improve mobility, and contribute to livable communities. The bill also identifies projects of regional or national significance that more closely resemble the Federal transit program's New Starts projects. Where the project costs are $25 million or greater, the projects shall comply with the transit New Starts requirements. No single project shall receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance. Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior, to undertake a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in the national parks and other public lands eligible for assistance under this program. The objective of this study is to better identify those areas with existing and potential problems of congestion and pollution, or which can benefit from mass transportation services, and to identify and estimate the project costs for these sites. This program can create new opportunities for the Federal land management agency to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the ISTEA planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands. The on-going tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks--quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities. So today, as we celebrate Earth Day and throughout this entire week as we mark National Parks Week, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is strongly supported by the American Public Transit Association, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters and additional supporting material be included in the Record immediately following my remarks. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to recognize the enormous environmental and economic benefits that transit can bring to our national parks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be printed in the Record: Text of the Bill; Section-by-section summary; Washington Post November 26, 1997, article: ``Strict Limits on Cars set for 3 National Parks''; and Letters of support; from the American Public Transit Association, from the National Parks and Conservation Association, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund.