Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from North Dakota, the former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and now ranking member, for an extraordinarily perceptive opening statement with respect to this budget resolution. The Senator from North Dakota has taken a long-term view of where the American economy is going and the challenges we face. He has assumed that role repeatedly, and I think it is extremely important that we not simply live for the moment and that someone point out the direction in which we are going and what the consequences will be. The vote we are about to cast has consequences. It has consequences for today, tomorrow, and many years into the future. Members of the Senate need to fully appreciate the import of this decision. I will speak a few minutes about equities in this budget resolution. What needs to be understood is that the whole driving thrust of this budget resolution is to put in place a large tax cut which, under the President's proposal, will go overwhelmingly to people at the very top of our income and wealth scale in this country. The drive to do that is carried so far that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are prepared to twist the procedures of this institution like a pretzel in order to push through their large tax cuts because they are encountering considerable resistance to them by people who are stopping and looking at them and saying this is not the responsible thing to do. Indeed, it is a reckless thing to do. One of my colleagues looking at what they are trying to do said: It never occurred to me, I never thought I would see the day when they would be using these kinds of gimmicks in order to push their agenda. This is no proper process. This is simply a twisting of process in order to try to get to this tax cut result. Let's look at what the tax cut does and its implications. The budget, of course, sets all our national priorities. We make fundamental decisions within the budget: How much support we will provide for particular programs, what we will do on the tax side. Of course, the aggregate amount of the budget can have a profound effect upon our overall economy, not only this year but extending well into the future. The Senator from North Dakota very carefully and lucidly spelled out those large budget consequences, as is, of course, the responsibility of the leader on the Budget Committee to do. We know the fiscal situation has deteriorated drastically since this administration took office. In January of 2001, when President Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a budget surplus over 10 years of $5.6 trillion. The President pointed to that surplus as a rationale for doing the 2001 tax cuts. Now, over that same period, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a $2.1 trillion deficit, assuming that the President's tax proposals are adopted. This is a swing of $7.7 trillion in our fiscal position, a swing from a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion to a projected deficit of $2.1 trillion. Yet facing this, the whole focus of this budget resolution has been whether to create room within it for another very large tax cut which the President is seeking. This is not going to be a growth package. In fact, there is hardly any stimulus in the President's proposal for this year or next year. Instead, this budget is going to drive us deeper into the deficit and debt hole. It is going to leave us with deficits projected out into the indefinite future. We are really mortgaging away our economic future. This is very bad macroeconomic policy. In addition, within this budget our urgent national priorities are not being adequately addressed. There is not enough for homeland defense. We have a pressing health care problem in this country with regard to both the uninsured and prescription drug benefits for our senior citizens. We have an affordable housing crisis in which millions of working families cannot afford even a modest apartment in many high- cost cities. The mayors across the country are saying they are getting inadequate support to meet their responsibilities. Our first responders also have very large demands placed upon them. And instead of providing fully for education to give meaning to the Leave No Child Behind educational policy, we are focused on a tax cut proposal seeking to make sure no millionaire is left behind. It must be understood that if you do these large tax cuts that benefit primarily wealthy people, you will not be able to support a number of programs which people all across the country are crying out for, and you will be boosting the deficit in a completely unreasonable fashion. There is no magic formula; it is all a question of balance. My own view is that a more sensible balance would be not to do these large tax cuts, and instead to strengthen some of these programs, and then to use the balance--most of the money--to hold down the deficit and not boost the debt and not commit the Nation down that path. Let me talk about one other issue of fairness and equity. I want to note that in almost every previous instance when the Nation went to war, not only did we not cut taxes, we raised taxes in order to help pay for the war and meet its costs. There is a conference committee meeting at this very moment on the supplemental appropriations bill. We expect it to be somewhere in the vicinity of $80 billion, most of that directed to the Department of Defense for the costs of the war and some for reconstruction. It is obvious to everyone this is but a downpayment. No one is asserting this is anywhere near meeting what the full costs will be. So we know there is more to come. That raises the question of whether this is the appropriate time to commit away significant resources for a tax cut to benefit wealthy Americans. As I said, analysis indicates that almost half of the benefits of the President's proposal would go to the top 1 percent, almost three-quarters to the top 5 percent. Is this the fair and equitable thing to do at the very time when the Nation is being rallied, as it should be, to support our men and women in the Armed Forces? This is the time when we are talking about sacrifice, and it is appropriate we should be talking about sacrifice at a time like this because one cannot follow the events taking place now in Iraq without a deep appreciation of the sacrifice our fighting men and women are making and the risks they are taking every minute. Let me ask this question: What sacrifice are those who are most favored in our society in terms of their economic position making at this critical juncture in our Nation's history? Not only are they not making a sacrifice, but indeed they are getting a very large tax cut which will place our economy in a more difficult position as we move into the future. What a sad commentary that these excessive tax cuts, which will contribute to deficits, which will build up the debt and the burden of paying the interest on that debt and, indeed, paying down that debt, will fall upon the fighting men and women when they return home and undertake their economic activities moving out into the future. They are now being called upon to make a double sacrifice, the sacrifice of serving in the Middle East and the sacrifice when they return home of helping to pay off this debt that has arisen in large part because of these enormous tax cuts that are being given to those at the very top of our income scale. Where is the fairness and the equity in this approach? The Nation faces serious challenges. We have our men and women at this very moment in danger abroad. It is a time for all to sacrifice. What sacrifice here at home will the beneficiaries of the tax cut be making? This is such a sharp contrast with previous occasions when the Nation has gone into war. In most instances, not only did we not give a tax cut, recognizing we had to pay for the war, we, in fact, increased taxes in order to meet that burden. At the beginning of World War II when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister, he told his nation, ``I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.'' Our young men and women positioned in the Middle East are called upon to sacrifice even as we debate this budget resolution. There will be sweat, there will be tears, there will be toil, and there will be blood on their part. What sacrifice will be made by those who are the most well off in our society under this budget resolution? None whatsoever. In fact, not only are they making no sacrifice, but they are programmed to reap benefits, extensive benefits, at a time when the Nation is facing critical challenges. Should not those most advantaged be making their own sacrifice instead of seeking to reap a large economic benefit? I urge the defeat of this budget resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. I am struck in looking at that chart by the extent to which the cost of these tax cuts explodes, as the Senator says, in future years. For instance, take the year 2023, this is all deficit. But all of this part of that deficit is from the explosion of the tax cut. The balance is from what happens in the trust funds for Medicare and Social Security. But this chart so clearly demonstrates that these tax cuts that are being talked about have built into them a tremendous expanded cost in future years. It is extraordinarily dramatic because all of that is exploding tax cuts. We are being set on a path that is dooming us to large deficits and large debt.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a further point? The Senator made reference to the context in which we find ourselves. I am frank to tell you, I think this is a reckless budget resolution. I think the President's budget proposal was reckless. I think this resolution is reckless. As the very able Senator from North Dakota has pointed out, we are in a war, and we have not only the war costs but the reconstruction costs. We are about to do a supplemental of about $80 billion, most of it devoted to that purpose. And there is no one who contends that is anything other than the initial downpayment on the cost. But, furthermore, we still have the worldwide battle against al-Qaida and international terrorism. We have to confront the challenge of providing for homeland security. We have other threats around the world, to mention but one, North Korea. No prudent person would give away their fiscal ability to deal with those situations the way this budget resolution does. It is extraordinary what this budget resolution is doing. I ask my friend from North Dakota, isn't this an abject failure to reserve fiscal strength to deal with these pressing problems which we know are right there in front of us?

Mr. SARBANES. In January of 2001, when this administration first came in, we were projecting out, over the 10-year time period, a surplus of $5.6 trillion. At the time, President Bush, and his Republican supporters, said: Well, we are going to run this huge surplus. We should do a tax cut because we don't want to be taking taxes just to build up a surplus. Well, a lot of people said: Don't be so sure about that. Let's not rush into it. Why don't we pay down the debt some more? We are finally doing that. No, no, they wanted to do this big tax cut because we had a projected surplus. Well, they did their tax cut. They rammed that through here. Now we are projecting big deficits, and they want to do another big tax cut, even though they are projecting big deficits. Whatever the fiscal situation is--big surpluses or big deficits--it makes no difference; they are bound and determined to do tax cuts for very wealthy people. As I understand it, analysis of the President's tax proposal shows that almost 50 percent of the benefits of that tax cut go to the top 1 percent of the population. Almost 75 percent of it goes to the top 5 percent of the population. So there is this absolutely zealous drive for big tax cuts for very wealthy people regardless of the Nation's fiscal situation and regardless of the fact that this proposal is going to drive us deeper into deficit and deeper into debt. Isn't that the situation?

Mr. SARBANES. The European Union, when they made the economic agreement with respect to all the European Union countries, set as a requirement that the deficit that a country was running could not be greater than 3 percent of GDP; and countries had to go through a rigorous effort to get below the 3 percent of GDP figure as a deficit. Yet what the President has given us, and what is reflected in this budget resolution as a first significant step in that direction, is a policy that is going to put the deficit as a percentage of GDP in the double figures. It will well exceed 10 percent.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question on that chart?

Mr. SARBANES. Oh, my.

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, this chart shows the deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product and it is almost 14 percent at this point out here; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to put a question to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, if we didn't do that, that $2.7 trillion would be in the Social Security trust fund to help us take care of the extra stress on the system that will come from the retirement of the baby boomers, this upsurge in people taking retirement, so that one needs to understand if you didn't do the tax cut or if you constrained some of these other programs, you wouldn't then be drawing down the Social Security trust fund and, therefore, it would be in a better position to address the extra stress that will come when the baby boom generation retires. Is that the connection one should be making here?

Mr. SARBANES. I would like to go back to the previous chart. As I understand it, because of the tax cut and also because we are constrained to do these programs for the war and for homeland security, over this 10-year period we are going to be using $2.7 trillion from the Social Security trust fund to cover those costs; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, when this administration came into office, it was my recollection that the Federal budget was running a surplus. Therefore, there was not only no increase in Federal interest costs, but we were, in fact, year to year, reducing Federal interest costs and had done so for 2 or 3 years prior to President Bush coming into office; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from the column: Under the shadow of war with Iraq, the House and the Senate last week fought a series of skirmishes over the federal budget for next year. One big, overriding question was at stake: Would President Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress step up to the costs of battle, of homeland defense and of national obligations at home, or would they pass the costs on to future generations? The answer, sadly, is that youngsters yet to be born will see their choices limited and their prospects blighted by the decision of today's politicians to press ahead with an unaffordable tax cut even while the costs of war and reconstruction make earlier spending estimates wildly unrealistic. The possible doubling of the national debt in the next decade will drive up interest costs that must be paid every year--billions of dollars that will not be available for Social Security, Medicare or any of the myriad responsibilities of the government here and abroad. But the squeeze is not all prospective. Some dangerous economies are being forced this year--cutbacks that will have long-term damaging consequences for American society. He then cites conversations he had with a number of attorneys general of the States, pointing out that cutting back on programs for young people will have disastrous consequences. Once again, that is the connection that has to be made to giving these large tax cuts. I listened to my colleague from North Dakota as he talked about the procedure. I put a question to him. It strikes me as all a charade, is it not? As I understand it, we are going to pass a budget resolution that is going to have a tax cut figure in it. The Finance Committee in the Senate will be told they cannot reach that tax figure. They have to have the lower tax figure, as I understand it. But then when they go to conference to reconcile their tax figure with the higher House tax figure, let's say they settle at the higher tax figure, the House tax figure, the full amount, then they can bring it back to the Senate and that is protected under the special reconciliation procedures. Is that how it will work?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield for a question about one of his charts?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as this presentation draws to a close, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a column by David Broder from March 23 entitled ``Cutbacks To Our Children.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with Senator Mikulski, to recognize the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, in Baltimore, as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States. The principal purpose of this legislation is to help educate the public about the critical importance of oral health to the overall health of all Americans. Three years ago, United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a comprehensive report entitled ``Oral Health in America,'' which identified the problem of dental and oral disease as a ``silent epidemic'' facing the country. The report found that tooth decay is the most common chronic childhood disease, which often interferes with vital functions such as eating, swallowing, and speech. Children around the country miss an estimated 51 million hours of school each year due to dental illness. Despite Federal law mandating that children eligible for Medicaid be given access to dental services, fewer than one in five of these children actually receive dental care. In addition, close to one in four Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 were found to suffer from periodontal disease, and over 8,000 men and women die from oral and pharyngeal cancers each year. The report called for the development of a National Oral Health Plan, and recommended that actions be taken to ``change perceptions regarding oral health and disease so that oral health becomes an accepted component of general health.'' By designating an official national museum and learning center dedicated to dentistry, this legislation takes an important step toward the achievement of this goal. The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National museum of Dentistry is the largest and most comprehensive museum of dentistry in this country, and, indeed, the world. An affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum sits on the grounds of the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, founded in 1840 as the world's first dental college. Many of the museum's permanent exhibits come directly from the College's vast historical collections. Housed in a building that served as the University of Maryland Dental Department from 1904 to 1929, the Museum is located directly adjacent to historic Davidge Hall, the Western Hemisphere's oldest medical building in continuous use. In 1992, a retired pediatric dentist, Dr. Samuel D. Harris of Detroit, contributed $1 million of his personal funds toward the development of the Museum. He has since made further considerable gifts to the Museum's endowment, reaffirming his belief that education is the hallmark of preventive oral care. The Museum's name honors both his generosity and his mission. With over 7,000 square feet of exhibit space, the Museum showcases the people, objects, and events that created and defined the dental profession, including one of George Washington's famed ivory dentures. The Museum's vast archives also act as an important resource for research and serious academic study of dentistry's past, with a unique collection of historical dental journals and other one-of-a-kind documents. Included in these collections are the first known dental degree and dental license. While its informative presentation of dentistry's history constitutes an important part of the Museum's exhibitions, its mission extends much further, with the ultimate goal of educating the public about the critical importance of oral health. The Museum's interactive exhibits make it particularly effective in this regard, and over 26,000 students have benefited from the Museum's vigorous educational programs since its opening in 1996. By designating the Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry as the official national museum of dentistry, we will not only recognize the critical role that dentists and oral health professionals have played in the history of our Nation's health care system, but enhance awareness and understanding of the importance of dentistry to public health. The Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry has been endorsed by the American Dental Association, the American Association of Dental Schools, Oral Health America, the Pierre Fauchard Academy, the American College of Dentists, the International College of Dentists, and the American Academy of the History of Dentistry. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter from the American Dental Association in support of this legislation be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise today to join with my fellow Marylanders and all Americans in celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. On April 11, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed this historic act, one of several landmark pieces of legislation that helped ensure equal treatment for people of all races, and helped bring to life the original founding principles of our Nation. In 1964, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made segregation in public facilities and discrimination in employment illegal. This remarkable piece of legislation was followed up 4 years later with the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which contained the Fair Housing Act that prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing. This law helps to ensure that people of all races have opportunities to live where they choose. The housing pattern in the early 1960s was one of almost complete segregation. In 1967, 80 percent of all nonwhites living in metropolitan areas lived in the central city, while up to one-third of all new factories and stores were locating outside of the central city areas. Equal access to housing was seen not only as a basic right by legislators and advocates, but it was also seen as key to increased employment opportunities. In order for people of all racial groups to advance economically, they needed access to jobs, and housing near those jobs was being denied to African Americans and others in this country. Unfortunately, 35 years after its passage, the Fair Housing Act is still needed because discrimination in housing continues. Too many minorities, disabled people, and families are unable to live where they choose because of discrimination. Each year, thousands of people turn to the Department for Housing and Urban Development and agencies around the country because they have been denied decent and safe housing based purely on their race, ethnicity, disability or familial status. As we celebrate the anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, an act that promised that we as a nation would work to ensure that all people had equal access to areas of opportunity, we must do more to act on that promise and make it a reality. The Fair Housing Act must be better enforced, so that people around the country understand that we take the act and its protections seriously. I also want to remind people that, even after achieving the American dream of homeownership, we must remain vigilant. Each year, many homeowners, particularly minority homeowners, are stripped of the wealth and equity they have accumulated in their homes over many years by the unscrupulous practices of predatory lending. The Federal Government took a small step to guard against this abuse when it passed the Home Owners and Equity Protection Act in 1994. However, we need to do more, and I intend to press legislation to move this part of the civil rights agenda forward. While we continue to make progress to ensure that people of all races are treated equally, we should also honor those great civil rights leaders who gave us their vision of equality. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 just a week after Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated at a hotel in Memphis, TN, affirming that despite this Nation's great loss, the legacy of Dr. King would live on. We must continue to recognize and honor the remarkable achievements and the ultimate sacrifice of Dr. King. In order to remember and preserve Dr. King's legacy, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Project Foundation is in the process of planning and building a memorial on The Mall to Dr. King. The process has been ongoing for several years, and I have recently offered legislation that would extend the legislative authority for the memorial by an additional 3 years. This legislation would give the foundation the extra time that it needs to complete this important project. Visitors will be able to come to the memorial from every part of this country, and indeed the world, to be inspired anew by Dr. King's words and deeds and the extraordinary story of his life. The civil rights movement inspired by Dr. King and others changed the lives of all Americans for the better. However, we can do more to live up to the expectations that he and others set for our Nation. In celebrating the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, we are reminded of how far we have come, and how far we have yet to go.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as a strong supporter of Federal programs to strengthen and protect libraries, I am pleased to recognize April 6 to 12 as National Library Week. This is the 45th anniversary of this national observance, and its longevity is evidence of the great importance our Nation places on libraries, books, reading, and education. National Library Week grew out of 1950s research that showed a troublesome trend Americans were spending more money on radios and television and less on buying books. The American Library Association and the American Book Publishers joined forces and introduced the first National Library Week in 1958 in an effort to encourage people to read and to use their libraries. When the free public library came into its own in this country in the 19th century, it was, from the beginning, a unique institution because of its commitment to the principle of a free and open exchange of ideas, much like the Constitution itself. Libraries continue to be an integral part of all that our country embodies: freedom of information, an educated citizenry, and an open and enlightened society. I firmly believe libraries play an indispensable role in our communities. They promote reading and quench a thirst for knowledge among adults, adolescents, and children. More importantly, they provide the access and resources to allow citizens to obtain timely and reliable information that is so necessary in our fast-paced society. In this age of rapid technological advancement, libraries are called upon to provide not only books and periodicals, but many other valuable resources as well--audiovisual materials, computer services, internet access terminals, facilities for community lectures and performances, tapes, records, videocassettes, and works of art for exhibit and loan to the public. Libraries provide a gateway to a new and exciting world for all--the place where a spark is often struck for disadvantaged citizens who, for whatever reason, have not had exposure to the vast stores of knowledge and emerging technology available to others. In this information age, they play a critical role in bridging the digital divide. Many families cannot afford personal computers at home, yet the role of computers has become almost necessary to a basic educational experience. The children of these families would suffer without the access to emerging technology that libraries provide to all patrons regardless of income. In addition, special facilities libraries provide services for older Americans, people with disabilities, and hospitalized citizens. During National Library Week, I wish to salute those individuals who are members of the library community and work so hard to ensure that our citizens and communities continue to enjoy the tremendous rewards available through our libraries. Library staff, volunteers, and patrons work to ensure existing libraries run smoothly and have adequate resources, as well as advocate for increased funding and new libraries. I am proud that Maryland is a State of readers. Recent statistics show that Maryland citizens borrowed more public library materials per person than those of almost any other State, nearly 9 per person. In addition, 67 percent of the State's population are registered library patrons. We are lucky to have 24 public library systems, providing a full range of library services to all Maryland citizens and a long tradition of open and unrestricted sharing of resources. The State Library Network that provides interlibrary loans to the State's public, academic, special libraries, and school library media centers has enhanced this policy. Marylanders have responded to this outstanding service by showing their continued enthusiasm and support for our public libraries. I have worked closely with members of the Maryland Library Association, colleges and universities, and others involved in the library community throughout the State, and I am very pleased to join with them and citizens throughout the Nation in this week's celebration of National Library Week. I look forward to continuing this relationship with those who enable libraries to provide the unique and vital services available to all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the attached op-ed by Carla Hayden, ``Don't Take Libraries for Granted,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this legislation would reauthorize and expand the Nutria Control Project established under Public Law 105-322 to help address the non-native rodent nutria which is destroying wetlands and valuable habitat at and around Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and in Louisiana. Sponsored by my colleague, Representative Wayne Gilchrest, the legislation authorizes $4 million in grant assistance to the State of Maryland and $2 million to the State of Louisiana for each of the next 5 fiscal years to help alleviate this invasive problem. Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and its surrounding wetlands are being threatened by the prolific and highly invasive non-indigenous species nutria which is destroying the tidal marshes and even displacing other native species. Over the past three decades, the population of nutria in Maryland has grown exponentially from about 150 to as many as 150,000--a thousand fold increase. During that same period, Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge has lost more than 40 percent of its marshes--approximately 7000 of 17,000 acres--due, in large part, to nutria. As nutria population densities continue to increase, so does the range of the creature and its associated ecological damage. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, every Maryland county south of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge on both the eastern and western shores has reported nutria. Without action, resource managers believe that valuable habitat will continue to be lost at an accelerated rate, numerous fish and wildlife resources will be impacted, and the range and distribution of this invasive species will continue to expand. In 1998, the Congress enacted legislation Public Law 105-322-- authorizing $2.9 million for a 3-year pilot project designed to develop techniques to control nutria populations and to restore degraded marsh habitat. Over the past 3 years, approximately $2 million has been appropriated for studies of the reproductive capacity of the species, methods to eradicate nutria populations, and prospects for restoring wetlands destroyed by the critter along Maryland's Eastern Shore. The authorization expired in September 2002, and new legislation is needed to move to the next phase of a control and ultimately an eradication program. Results of the project in phase II are expected to be applicable throughout the range of nutria in North America, which includes 15 States and potentially over 1 million acres of marsh habitat on national wildlife refuges. This legislation authorizes the Federal funds necessary to carry out the program. I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five measures to sustain and, indeed, renew the Federal commitment to restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski and Specter. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the historic Federal-State compact that launched the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. Over the past two decades, we have made important progress both in putting in place the comprehensive, coordinated Federal-State-local and private sector management structure to guide the program and in specific initiatives to address key problems in the watershed. Three subsequent agreements were signed in 1987, in 1992 and in 2000, respectively, setting specific goals and action plans to restore the Chesapeake watershed. There are today over 700 groups and some 40 committees involved in the Bay Program. More than twenty-five Federal agencies are partnering with EPA and the Bay area States and there are numerous State agencies, local governmental organizations and citizen groups actively engaged in the restoration efforts. The level of public support and the degree of cooperation and coordination among all parties is unparalleled. Despite these efforts, the job of restoring the Chesapeake to levels of quality and productivity that existed earlier in this century is far from complete. In its latest report card issued in November, 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation gave the Chesapeake Bay a score of 27 out of 100--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be declared ``saved.'' The index underscores the continuing serious challenges facing the Bay. Nitrogen pollution from farms and city streets, sewage treatment plants, and air deposition, among other so- called non-point sources, continue to overload the Bay. Many of the living resources--oysters, shad, white perch, crabs--which are indicators of the Bay's health, are still in decline. Toxic chemicals are still present in the Bay's surface and bottom waters, having untold impacts on water quality and wildlife. A recent analysis undertaken by the Chesapeake Bay Commission estimates that the costs to clean the Bay and achieve the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement over the course of the next seven years will exceed projected income by nearly $13 billion. Pollution from all sources will have to be further reduced, thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant efforts must be made to restore living resources, buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created, education and stewardship efforts must be dramatically expanded. While $13 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that the health of the Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the Nation. It is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the finfish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration. The five measures that we are introducing today are intended to help address some of the highest priority needs in the watershed and provide a Federal blueprint for restoring the Bay in the years ahead. I want to address each of these measures briefly. The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th Congress and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on that legislation. Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, nutrient over-enrichment remains the most serious pollution problem facing the Bay. The overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous continues to rob the Bay of life sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 35 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 110 million pounds from the current 300 million pounds to less than 190 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent. There are 304 major wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: Pennsylvania, 123, Maryland, 65, Virginia, 86, New York, 18, Delaware, 3, Washington, D.C., 1, and West Virginia, 8. These plants contribute about 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year--one-fifth--of the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/ liter would remove 46 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year or 40 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant sayings in energy usage, 20 to 30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, five to 15 percent. They are one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing nutrients discharged to the Bay. My legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading the plants with nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs. The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education--to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and citizenship among the nearly 16 million people who live in the watershed--is necessary if all of the other efforts to ``Save the Bay'' are to succeed. Expanding environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, but a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding and appreciation for the environment, their community and their role in society as responsible citizens. One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, is to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. Despite important efforts by Bay area states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage of the more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs. This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next three years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program that we established last year. The third measure would reauthorize and enhance the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Protection and Restoration Program. This program, which was first established in Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide design and construction assistance to State and local authorities in the environmental restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. To date, the Corps of Engineers has constructed or approved $9.3 million in projects under the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program including oyster restoration projects in Virginia, shoreline protection and wetland/sewage treatment projects at Smith Island in Maryland and the upgrade of the Scranton Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pennsylvania to reduce the amount of nutrients delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. These projects have nearly exhausted the current $10 million authorization. This legislation increases the authorization for this program from $10 million to $30 million. Consistent with all other environmental restoration authorities of the Corps of Engineers, it enables States and local governments to provide all or any portion of the 25 percent non-Federal share required in the form of in-kind services. It also establishes a new small-grants program for local governments and nonprofit organizations to carry out small-scale restoration and protection projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The program would be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which has extensive experience and expertise in managing these kinds of grants for other Federal agencies. Ten percent of the funds appropriated each year under this program would be set-aside for these grants. In view of the great need and the many requests for assistance from the Bay area states, this legislation is clearly unwarranted. The forth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987-1997 or almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling storm water runoff, erosion and air pollution, all critical to the Bay clean-up effort. Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Administered through the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, this program has worked closely with Federal, State and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration and stewardship activities, can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. Over the past 12 years, it has provided modest levels of technical and financial assistance, averaging approximately $300,000 a year, to develop collaborative watershed projects that address watershed forest conservation, restoration and stewardship. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; assess the Bay's forest lands; and provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands. To address these goals, the USDA Forest Service must have additional resources and authority, and that is what this measure seeks to provide. This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment and planning efforts. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations and citizen groups in conducting on- the-ground conservation projects. It also establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000 square mile watershed. The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education, Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the National Oceanic and Atmospheric, NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Office's authorities to address the living resource restoration and education and training goals and commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. It builds upon provisions contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2003, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training or, B-WET, Program-- the first federally funded environmental education program focused solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill and establishes an aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab hatchery production. To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of data collected and complied by Federal, State and local government agencies and academic institutions--data such as information on weather, tides, currents circulation, climate, land use, coastal environmental quality, aquatic living resources and habitat conditions--and make this information more useful to resource managers, scientists and the public, it establishes an internet-based Coastal Predictions Center for the Chesapeake Bay. It also authorizes a shallow water monitoring program to address critical gaps in information on near shore and river area water quality conditions needed for restoration of living resources. And to help meet Chesapeake 2000 living resource restoration goals, it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program an authorizes a new submerged aquatic vegetation restoration program. Mr. President, these measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to save the Chesapeake Bay and a blueprint for the course ahead. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other organizations in the watershed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and supporting letters to printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five measures to sustain and, indeed, renew the Federal commitment to restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski and Specter. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the historic Federal-State compact that launched the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. Over the past two decades, we have made important progress both in putting in place the comprehensive, coordinated Federal-State-local and private sector management structure to guide the program and in specific initiatives to address key problems in the watershed. Three subsequent agreements were signed in 1987, in 1992 and in 2000, respectively, setting specific goals and action plans to restore the Chesapeake watershed. There are today over 700 groups and some 40 committees involved in the Bay Program. More than twenty-five Federal agencies are partnering with EPA and the Bay area States and there are numerous State agencies, local governmental organizations and citizen groups actively engaged in the restoration efforts. The level of public support and the degree of cooperation and coordination among all parties is unparalleled. Despite these efforts, the job of restoring the Chesapeake to levels of quality and productivity that existed earlier in this century is far from complete. In its latest report card issued in November, 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation gave the Chesapeake Bay a score of 27 out of 100--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be declared ``saved.'' The index underscores the continuing serious challenges facing the Bay. Nitrogen pollution from farms and city streets, sewage treatment plants, and air deposition, among other so- called non-point sources, continue to overload the Bay. Many of the living resources--oysters, shad, white perch, crabs--which are indicators of the Bay's health, are still in decline. Toxic chemicals are still present in the Bay's surface and bottom waters, having untold impacts on water quality and wildlife. A recent analysis undertaken by the Chesapeake Bay Commission estimates that the costs to clean the Bay and achieve the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement over the course of the next seven years will exceed projected income by nearly $13 billion. Pollution from all sources will have to be further reduced, thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant efforts must be made to restore living resources, buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created, education and stewardship efforts must be dramatically expanded. While $13 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that the health of the Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the Nation. It is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the finfish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration. The five measures that we are introducing today are intended to help address some of the highest priority needs in the watershed and provide a Federal blueprint for restoring the Bay in the years ahead. I want to address each of these measures briefly. The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th Congress and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on that legislation. Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, nutrient over-enrichment remains the most serious pollution problem facing the Bay. The overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous continues to rob the Bay of life sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 35 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 110 million pounds from the current 300 million pounds to less than 190 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent. There are 304 major wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: Pennsylvania, 123, Maryland, 65, Virginia, 86, New York, 18, Delaware, 3, Washington, D.C., 1, and West Virginia, 8. These plants contribute about 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year--one-fifth--of the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/ liter would remove 46 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year or 40 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant sayings in energy usage, 20 to 30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, five to 15 percent. They are one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing nutrients discharged to the Bay. My legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading the plants with nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs. The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education--to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and citizenship among the nearly 16 million people who live in the watershed--is necessary if all of the other efforts to ``Save the Bay'' are to succeed. Expanding environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, but a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding and appreciation for the environment, their community and their role in society as responsible citizens. One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, is to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. Despite important efforts by Bay area states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage of the more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs. This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next three years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program that we established last year. The third measure would reauthorize and enhance the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Protection and Restoration Program. This program, which was first established in Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide design and construction assistance to State and local authorities in the environmental restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. To date, the Corps of Engineers has constructed or approved $9.3 million in projects under the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program including oyster restoration projects in Virginia, shoreline protection and wetland/sewage treatment projects at Smith Island in Maryland and the upgrade of the Scranton Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pennsylvania to reduce the amount of nutrients delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. These projects have nearly exhausted the current $10 million authorization. This legislation increases the authorization for this program from $10 million to $30 million. Consistent with all other environmental restoration authorities of the Corps of Engineers, it enables States and local governments to provide all or any portion of the 25 percent non-Federal share required in the form of in-kind services. It also establishes a new small-grants program for local governments and nonprofit organizations to carry out small-scale restoration and protection projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The program would be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which has extensive experience and expertise in managing these kinds of grants for other Federal agencies. Ten percent of the funds appropriated each year under this program would be set-aside for these grants. In view of the great need and the many requests for assistance from the Bay area states, this legislation is clearly unwarranted. The forth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987-1997 or almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling storm water runoff, erosion and air pollution, all critical to the Bay clean-up effort. Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Administered through the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, this program has worked closely with Federal, State and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration and stewardship activities, can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. Over the past 12 years, it has provided modest levels of technical and financial assistance, averaging approximately $300,000 a year, to develop collaborative watershed projects that address watershed forest conservation, restoration and stewardship. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; assess the Bay's forest lands; and provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands. To address these goals, the USDA Forest Service must have additional resources and authority, and that is what this measure seeks to provide. This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment and planning efforts. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations and citizen groups in conducting on- the-ground conservation projects. It also establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000 square mile watershed. The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education, Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the National Oceanic and Atmospheric, NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Office's authorities to address the living resource restoration and education and training goals and commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. It builds upon provisions contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2003, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training or, B-WET, Program-- the first federally funded environmental education program focused solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill and establishes an aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab hatchery production. To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of data collected and complied by Federal, State and local government agencies and academic institutions--data such as information on weather, tides, currents circulation, climate, land use, coastal environmental quality, aquatic living resources and habitat conditions--and make this information more useful to resource managers, scientists and the public, it establishes an internet-based Coastal Predictions Center for the Chesapeake Bay. It also authorizes a shallow water monitoring program to address critical gaps in information on near shore and river area water quality conditions needed for restoration of living resources. And to help meet Chesapeake 2000 living resource restoration goals, it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program an authorizes a new submerged aquatic vegetation restoration program. Mr. President, these measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to save the Chesapeake Bay and a blueprint for the course ahead. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other organizations in the watershed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and supporting letters to printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, since 1948 the nations of the world have celebrated April 7 as World Health Day. Yesterday marked this day, which serves two important and related purposes. It focuses world attention on a specific international health issue that in the judgment of the World Health Organization, WHO, poses immediate and urgent problems. Further, it is a platform for marshaling resources to address this issue, through programs that will continue long after the day ends. In years past World Health Day has focused on such crucial matters as the global eradication of polio and emerging infectious diseases. This year's theme is broad: ``Healthy Environments for Children,'' and it has never been more timely. While we have made great progress in the treatment of infant diarrhea, typhoid, typhus, cholera, yellow fever, malaria, dengue fever, and other environment-based diseases, access to treatment is limited or nonexistent in many parts of the world. As a result, every year more than 5 million children--the most vulnerable members of society--die before reaching the age of 14. When war or civil conflict disrupts life, the danger of infection rises, as it does among those living in refugee camps. But there is no escaping the risk anywhere that water is contaminated, food unsafe, air polluted, and sanitation systems unreliable. Children fall ill in the very places where they live. From our experience in treating infant diarrhea we know that treatment can be effective and efficient. Every year, 1.3 million children die of diarrhea often resulting from lack of access to safe drinking water or consuming dirty food. These deaths are preventable. If a child has diarrhea, a simple and effective sugar-and-salt solution called oral rehydration can treat severe loss of fluids in the body. The cost is minimal: just under 30 cents per child--this low-technology solution can save these children's lives. This year's World Health Day is a call to redouble our efforts not only to treat environment-based diseases where they occur, but especially to eliminate the conditions where they are bred. It can be done. As the grave respiratory infection known as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, appears to be spreading rapidly, World Health Day is also an appropriate time to consider the vital role that the World Health Organization plays in our interconnected world, where mobility literally gives wings to life-threatening diseases. Today's New York Times documents the spread of SARS, under a headline reading ``Fear Reigns as Dangerous Mystery Illness Spreads.'' SARS apparently first appeared in China last November. In February, when the Chinese Government began reporting cases to WHO, the organization undertook a major international tracking effort, and on March 15 WHO took what the New York Times describes as ``the highly unusual step of issuing the global health alert.'' Just last week the Chinese Government permitted a WHO team to begin work on location, in the southern Chinese city of Guanzhou, where the infection rate is very high. WHO has also created a network of infections-disease laboratories in countries around the globe, and the truly extraordinary work undertaken in these laboratories has led to the tentative identification of the infectious agent. This marks a tremendous step in dealing with the intensifying threat to world health that SARS poses. According to the New York Times, SARS ``has become an international epidemic,'' and WHO is instrumental in organizing the international response. It is not just that WHO provides the administrative framework for a coordinated response to health issues; its personnel are on the front lines in every effort to keep diseases from spreading and in treating the victims. For the most part we do not know their names, but we do know that they have dedicated their skill and even their lives to WHO's mission. A WHO physician--Dr. Carlo Urbani, Director of Infectious Diseases in the Western Pacific Region for WHO--was the first to recognize SARS as a new and deadly disease. He threw himself into the fight to control the disease when he saw his first case, in Vietnam, persuading the government to adopt infection-control and isolation procedures. He is credited, said the New York Times, with ``shutting down Vietnam's first outbreak,'' and he was the first to alert the international medical community to the danger. Within weeks of his first intervention with a patient, however, he was infected. His heroic efforts cost him his life. Dr. Urbani's medical specialty was worms--nematodes, trematodes, hookworms and other parasites, which are, in the words of his WHO colleague, Dr. Kevin Palmer, ``a really basic problem for every child in the tropics.'' He knew how much damage these parasites do, and also how relatively little it would take to eliminate this scourge: a 3-cent pill given twice yearly to schoolchildren. His own efforts fell squarely within the broader campaign to create ``healthy environments for children.'' At the time of his death he was working to secure the cooperation of school systems throughout southeastern Asia. An eloquent account of Dr. Urbani's career in medicine and his tragic, too-early death appears in the today's edition of the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent to have the entire story, ``Disease's Pioneer Is Mourned as a Victim,'' printed in the Congressional Record.