Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. We had a major hurricane, and I remember voting to send disaster relief to the Senator's State in order to meet that situation. I don't recall it being caught up in these kinds of delays.

Mr. SARBANES. I hope so.

Mr. SARBANES. In personal disaster relief.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator agree with me that all Members of the Senate have an interest in making sure that this disaster relief is provided to the people who have been hit by this extraordinary national disaster, and that there is a constant reference to the Senators from North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota? Of course, they have been most immediately impacted, but it seems to me that every Member of the Senate has an interest in responding to this.

Mr. SARBANES. That is the other question.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as we mark the annual celebration of Small Business Week, I take great pleasure in acknowledging the achievements of the estimated 22.1 million small businesses in this country. Small businesses play an integral role in the American economy, generating half the gross domestic product, and driving America forward in terms of product development, employment, and ingenuity. Small businesses employ more than 50 percent of our private work force and have been credited with the creation of two out of every three jobs. Studies have also shown that they produce more than twice as many significant innovations per employee as large firms. But beyond the statistics, the successes of small businesses continue to prove that the American dream is still a reality. Small businesses provide most American workers with their first jobs. And for each job that a small business creates, one more American has the opportunity to prosper. Small businesses also play a major role in moving our economy forward, creating jobs, generating revenue, and developing new products and services that keep American business on the cutting edge. In my own State of Maryland, we have seen the extraordinary things that can be accomplished when creative entrepreneurs are determined to succeed. I want to share just a few of those stories. The 1997 Maryland Small Business Person of the year is Jamie Clark, who began his Internet service company, ClarkNet, out of a family barn in Ellicott City, MD. Jamie is deaf, and recognized the Internet as a powerful resource, a place where he and other deaf people could conduct business as easily as the hearing. With a $35,000 loan and three volunteers, who were also deaf, Jamie built a company that today employs well over 30 people and had sales totaling $2.5 million last year, up from less than $60,000 when ClarkNet began just 4 years ago. As someone with deep roots in Maryland--Jamie's grandfather was a circuit court judge in Howard County and his father a State senator for 24 years, 4 of those as president of the Senate--Jamie is an active member of the community, serving on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Entrepreneurs Council, the Howard County Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau, and the Baltimore-Washington Venture Group. Maryland's Small Business Exporter of the Year last year, Bruce Lawson of Finksburg, MD, has turned a hobby into a business that is an industry leader. Bruce started his company, Brass Instruments, after helping his father--a retired french horn player in the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra--repair his friends' musical instruments. Appalled at the quality of the horns they were repairing, Bruce started making horns himself. Today, Brass Instruments is the top french horn maker in the world. Another former Maryland Small Business Person of the Year is Dorothy White, of Columbia, MD, who started cleaning houses when her husband fell ill. Dorothy's work was so impressive that her employers began asking her to clean their offices as well. What evolved was Dorothy's multimillion-dollar business, Miracle Services. Like many Maryland businesses, Dorothy's company also has flourished under the 8(a) program, through which she has received numerous Government contracts. The 1995 Regional Small Business Exporter of the Year also hails from Maryland. After immigrating from Poland to Baltimore, Jon Sakowski realized that plastic piping could make all the difference in Poland's plumbing system. When he could not find a Polish buyer who could afford the product, Jon began installing the piping for free in Poland's churches, schools, and hospitals. Then, taking a major financial risk, Jon exported the piping to Poland--without a buyer--and warehoused it himself, selling the piping off piece by piece rather than in bulk. We in Maryland are very proud of individuals like Jamie Clark, Bruce Lawson, Dorothy White, Jon Sakowski and the many other operators of small businesses in our State who, often beginning with very little, have accomplished so much. More than 97.8 percent of Maryland's full- time firms have fewer than 500 employees, and there are an additional 131,000 individuals who are self-employed. The significance of these businesses to Maryland's economy is evident in study after study, such as the Small Business Administration's recent report that Maryland firms with fewer than 20 employees increased employment by 10.4 percent between 1991 and 1995. Minority-owned businesses also have made great strides in recent years. Between 1987 and 1992, Maryland's number of women-owned businesses rose by 48.7 percent, its number of African-American owned firms rose 65 percent and its number of Hispanic-owned firms rose 148.7 percent. Yet despite this progress, much remains to be done. Minority-owned firms in Maryland are selling 30 percent below the national average, and bankruptcies and failures have increased. Given the important economic and social roles played by minority-owned businesses, it is essential that we strengthen our efforts to help these underserved markets succeed. Mr. President, as someone who has benefited personally from the opportunities afforded to small business in this country--I spent my youth working in my parents' Greek restaurant on Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore--I know how important it is to small business owners, employees, and customers that they continue to thrive. Small business success not only translates into jobs and economic growth, it also translates into a sense of pride and self-respect on the part of owners and workers and the heartening affirmation that the American dream is still alive.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, since 1963 when President Kennedy began this important tradition, May has been designated ``Older Americans Month,'' a time set aside each year for our country to honor senior citizens for their many accomplishments and contributions to our Nation. Those of us who have worked diligently in the U.S. Senate to ensure that older Americans are able to live in dignity and independence during their retirement years, look forward to this opportunity to pause and reflect on the contributions of those individuals who have played such a major role in the shaping of our great Nation. We honor them for their hard work and the countless sacrifices they have made throughout their lifetimes, and look forward to their continued contributions to our country's welfare. Today's senior citizens have witnessed more technological advances than any other generation in our Nation's history. Seniors today have lived through economic depressions and recessions, times of war and peace, and incredible advancements in the fields of science, medicine, transportation and communications. It is imperative that we address the needs of these Americans who have devoted so much of their life experience and achievement to the betterment of our society. The celebration of Older Americans Month provides us with the opportunity to highlight the importance of reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. As a vigorous and consistent supporter of measures to benefit senior citizens, I am pleased to be a past cosponsor and strong supporter of this important legislation. First enacted in 1965, the Older Americans Act has evolved from its original mandate to promote independent living among those older citizens with the greatest social and economic need into today's dynamic network of community and home-based services so critical to many of our Nation's seniors. The need for such legislation becomes especially apparent in light of current demographic trends. Senior citizens today comprise more than 12 percent of the country's population. Baby boomers, who represented one- third of all Americans in 1994, will enter the 65-years-and-older category over the next 13-34 years, substantially increasing this segment of our population. In my own State of Maryland, more than 768,400 individuals are over the age of 60, representing 15 percent of Maryland's total population. By the year 2020, that percentage is expected to increase to just over 23 percent. These demographic transformations pose significant challenges and opportunities and the Older Americans Act provides an excellent framework from which to address these challenges as we move into the next century. It is not enough to just honor our senior citizens. We must continue to enact meaningful legislation which will help meet the needs of this valuable and constantly expanding segment of our society. The theme of this year's celebration is ``Caregiving: Compassion in Action.'' In my view, it is most appropriate that--as the percentage of the population over age 65 continues to grow--we take this opportunity to focus on how we, as a society, will care for our seniors. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us all to be prepared to both understand and address the needs of our seniors as they become an increasingly larger segment of American society. Many of us are already addressing this serious need. The Administration on Aging estimates that each day, as many as five million senior citizens in the United States are recipients of care from more than 22 million informal caregivers. As programs such as Medicare and Medicaid continue to feel the pressures of the current Federal budget process, the noble and compassionate work of these dedicated individuals is particularly critical. Mr. President, I have always believed strongly in the potential of this significant and growing population to contribute to the development of policies that effect all Americans. Our Nation's seniors are an ever-growing resource that deserves our attention, our gratitude, and our heart-felt respect. As observance of Older American Month comes to a close, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in implementing public policies which affirm the contributions of older Americans to our society and ensure that they continue to thrive with dignity.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. Mr. President, in 1993, just 4 years ago, in order to reduce the deficit, the Congress, by a narrow margin, enacted a budget resolution which curtailed programs and increased taxes. The increase in taxes primarily impacted those at the upper end of the income scale. This combination of spending restraint and revenue increases represents a logical way of dealing with the deficit issue. When you are trying to reduce and then eliminate the deficit, the logical way to do it is to restrain spending and to seek additional revenues. That combination, presumably, will result in lowering your deficits. This approach has worked in a most impressive way. A flourishing economy has brought unemployment below 5 percent for the first time in 24 years. This chart shows the unemployment rate going back to 1971. As you can see, with one exception, the unemployment rate now is the lowest it has been in this period. Back here, in 1973, is when it just dipped below 5 percent. It has now gone below 5 percent again. While unemployment is at a 24-year low, inflation is at a 31-year low, as is shown by this next chart, which shows the inflation rate from 1966 to 1996. I do not know what better proof one can offer of a strong economy than the low unemployment rate and the low inflation rate we are now experiencing. As a consequence of this flourishing economy, the deficit has declined on a steady basis since fiscal year 1992. In fiscal year 1992, the deficit was at $290 billion. And it has come down in each succeeding year, to $255 billion in 1993, $203 billion in 1994, $164 billion in 1995, and to $107 billion in the last fiscal year, the year that ended this past September 30. It is now expected to be below $70 billion for the current fiscal year. In other words, we will have gone from a $290 billion deficit in 1992 on a straight downward trend, and we are expecting a deficit under $70 billion for the fiscal year in which we now find ourselves. As a percent of the gross domestic product, the deficit has declined in a most impressive way, from 4.9 percent in 1992 to 1.4 percent for the fiscal year that ended this past September 30. As you can see from this next chart, it declined from 4.9 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent in 1993 to 3.1 percent in 1994 to 2.3 percent in 1995 to 1.4 percent in the fiscal year ending September 30, and it is now anticipated that the deficit as a percent of gross domestic product will be less than 1 percent for the current fiscal year, the lowest percentage since 1974. So you have the best unemployment rate in 24 years, the lowest inflation in 31 years, the lowest deficit as a percent of GDP in 23 years. By way of comparison, the Maastricht Agreement of the European Community, which established what are regarded as tough requirements for the member nations, has as its goal the bringing of deficits down to under 3 percent of GDP--3 percent. We, at the end of this year, will be down to less than 1 percent. In fact, just comparing the United States with the other major industrial countries, we see from this chart that our deficit as a share of GDP is 1.4 percent. Japan is at 3.1 percent, Germany at 3.5 percent, Canada at 4.2 percent, France at 5 percent, the United Kingdom at 5.1 percent, and Italy at 7.2 percent. Now, by any measure, this is a most impressive economic performance, and certainly a very impressive deficit reduction performance. Given this performance, one would think that the wise policy would be to stay the course and finish the job. I mean, this is a spectacular course that I have outlined here that we have been following. So one would assume that the wise policy would be to stay the course and finish the job. Instead, the budget resolution before us combines spending restraint with tax cuts--I repeat, spending restraint with tax cuts. Obviously, spending restraint, as in 1993, works in the direction of deficit reduction. As I said at the outset, that is logical. You are trying to bring the deficit down. Spending restraint works in the direction of deficit reduction. But tax cuts work against deficit reduction. And the tax cuts contained in this budget agreement will grow over time in a way that may well jeopardize the goal of reaching and staying--and staying--in budget balance. The capital gains, inheritance, and IRA tax cuts, all of which are provided for in the tax portion of this budget agreement, carry with them the potential for substantial increases in future years. In fact, this budget agreement recognizes such a trend line by providing for $85 billion net tax cuts in the first 5 years, 1998 to 2002, and almost double that, a net tax cut of $165 billion, in the next 5 years, 2003 to 2007. No agreements were made as to the following decade. But obviously, if we are concerned about the future strength and viability of the economy, it is important to look to the out years, to have some sense of where these trend lines may be taking us. The budget agreement itself, in the tables accompanying the text of the agreement, projects that in the 10th year of the agreement--in other words, at the end of the period when we are to have a total of $250 billion in tax cuts--the tax cuts would be $42 billion. Now this represents a rising trend line with respect to the tax cuts. In fact, the projections are that the tax cuts will increase by $5 billion in each of the last 2 years of the 10-year agreement on which this resolution is based, that is from 2005 to 2006, and from 2006 to 2007. If you are at $42 billion in the 10th year, then one can anticipate two scenarios for the following decade, from 2008 to 2017. If in fact the cost of the taxes stayed at $42 billion a year for each of those years, in other words, plateaued--a most unlikely assumption given the trend line--you would then project $420 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. If, however, the cuts continued to increase according to the trend line established through the first 10 years, in other words, increasing by $5 billion a year through 2017, you would have tax cuts of $700 billion in the following decade. So we have a situation here where it is almost certain that the tax cuts that are part of this agreement will carry with them a rising trend that will, in effect, undercut the deficit reduction effort. And I ask, is it not imprudent, indeed irresponsible to commit to such tax cuts before we have actually achieved budget balance and before we have a more accurate and realistic view of whether it can be sustained? We are talking about responsibility here. Yet we are undertaking in this resolution to commit to tax cuts before we have actually achieved budget balance and furthermore before we have a realistic and accurate view of whether budget balance can then be sustained. I believe that the tax-reduction side of the budget agreement carries with it the potential for undermining the deficit-reduction effort. Furthermore, the combination of program curtailment on the one hand and tax reduction on the other represents an inequitable allocation of the burdens of deficit reduction. The impact of a reduction in programs will be felt by ordinary working people primarily. The tax reductions, by contrast, will primarily benefit those at the top end of the income and wealth scale. Consider that 75 percent of the benefits of the capital gains tax can be expected to go to those making over $100,000 a year, the top 5 percent of the population. The inheritance tax cut would benefit an even smaller percentage of the population. Yet this resolution that is before us imposes additional burdens on working people through program reductions. In fact, the projections are that domestic discretionary programs will be 10 percent below--10 percent below--the current service level, namely, the level adjusted for inflation, in the year 2002. At the same time that we have a 10-percent cut in programs, substantial tax reductions will be given to those at the apex of the income and wealth pyramid. This is not fair or equitable. A budget agreement should undertake equitable deficit reduction, namely, apportioning the burdens in a way that it is reasonably spread across the entire society, as was done in 1993, when ordinary working people made their contribution through program reductions and those at the top end of the income scale made their contribution through tax increases. But in this instance, we have working people bearing a burden through program reduction, but we can anticipate tax reductions which markedly benefit those at the upper end of the income and wealth scale, and impose no burden on these individuals. Thus, this budget fails the equity test. A budget agreement should also lead to lasting, long-term deficit reduction. As I have indicated, I am most apprehensive about this agreement because I foresee that we will not be able, even if we were to reach balance in 2002--and there is some serious doubt about that under this agreement--to sustain that balance in the subsequent decades. Thus, this agreement also fails the long-term deficit reduction test. In short, this budget agreement does not have either of the two essential attributes of a budget: equitable deficit reduction and lasting, long-term deficit reduction. Because of that, I do not support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it was my intention to offer a statement about the bill.

Mr. SARBANES. Do they grow lumber in New Mexico?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I think the chart the Senator has just put up is a very dramatic chart in demonstrating what has happened here. As I understand it, this chart shows the number of judges confirmed during a second Senate session in Presidential election years. We all know that what happens in a Presidential election year is that there is a slowdown because the party that does not have the White House thinks it may get the White House and then it will be able to effect the appointment of judges. I ask the Senator from Vermont, as I understand his chart, this shows that in 1996, last year, with a Democratic President and a Republican- controlled Senate, there was this incredible slowdown in the number of judges confirmed, which has continued into 1997. But in 1996, no court of appeals judges were confirmed and only 17 district judges. Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. The able Senator from Vermont is very perceptive because he anticipated the next point I want to go to, which is to contrast what happened last year with what happened in the last year of the Bush Presidency, 1992, an election year. The Senate majority was then in Democratic hands, and yet we confirmed 11 judges for the court of appeals nominated--nominated--by President Bush and 55 judges for the district court nominated by President Bush, for a total of 66 judges. Last year, a comparable situation, except it was reversed. We had a Democratic President making the nominations; the Republicans controlled the Senate; 17 judges, a total of 17 judges. No court of appeals judges, 17 district judges compared with 66 judges in the last year of President Bush's term. In fact, the last year of President Reagan's term, again with a Democratic Senate, we confirmed 7 court of appeals judges and 35 district court judges.

Mr. SARBANES. In 1984. The Senator is absolutely correct. Mr. President, this is an extraordinary slowdown in the confirmation of judges. Then, of course, what happens is none--only two have been confirmed this year thus far. So in the last virtually year and a half, 19 judges. I just submit to you this game ought to stop. We ought not to be playing with the Federal courts in this way. If people have a legitimate objection to a particular nominee, they ought to voice that objection and vote against them and try to persuade their colleagues to vote against them. But this is crippling the courts. The Chief Justice of the United States has been driven to the unusual posture of registering his complaint about it. I am frank to say to you, I think that Members of this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, have a responsibility to ensure that the Federal court system can work in a reasonable fashion. It is not going to work in a reasonable fashion if you slow up the confirmation of judges to this extent. It has not been done before. I mean, this breaks with all previous patterns and previous precedents. I just submit that we are not going to maintain public confidence in the judicial system, and we ought not to politicize the judicial process the way it is being done. So I want to commend strongly the senior Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for bringing this issue once again to our attention. It is beginning to cripple the Federal courts. There is no question about it. As my colleague from California pointed out, it is terribly unfair to some very able and dedicated people who have been nominated and then their life simply placed on hold in terms of their normal activities. It is a marked departure from any sense of comity that has heretofore prevailed in this body and a marked departure from the respect that has traditionally been shown to the Federal court system. I very much hope that we can begin to address this situation, begin to hold hearings, report the people out, confirm them when they come before the Senate. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his forceful leadership on this issue.

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to recognize James R. Thomas Jr., a civil engineer from Salisbury, MD, which I am proud to say is my hometown. Jim, who commands universal respect as a leader in both his profession and his community, will be installed on May 14 as president of the American Consulting Engineers Council. As managing partner of the Salisbury engineering and architectural firm, George, Miles & Buhr, Jim's reputation as a dynamic and capable, yet modest, leader precedes him as he assumes the helm of the Nation's largest professional association focusing on the business interests of consulting engineers. ACEC is comprised of 52 State and regional member organizations and represents 5,500 independent firms, which employ almost 200,000 professionals nationwide. No stranger to ACEC, Jim served as a national director, then vice president, prior to his selection last year as president-elect. He has advanced steadily through the ranks of the organization, first with the Consulting Engineers Council of Maryland [CEC/MD], where he served in all the leadership posts, from secretary to president. His strong commitment to these professional organizations is clearly evident. Jim has spent the last 28 years at George, Miles & Buhr, the largest civil engineering firm on the Delmarva Peninsula. The firm, which employs about 50 people, specializes in water and wastewater treatment systems and devotes 80 percent of its time to engineering projects. In 1993, George, Miles & Buhr received Engineering Excellence Awards from both ACEC and CEC/MD for its design of a biological nutrient removal demonstration plant at the Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant in Baltimore. In addition to his professional achievements, Jim is a most dedicated and effective public servant. His pro bono work on a crisis center for battered spouses earned him the honor of Rotarian of the Year in 1995. He is currently a director of the Salisbury Area Chamber of Commerce. In addition, Jim has served as president of the board at Trinity United Methodist Church and as a member of the boards of the Peninsula Regional Medical Center, the United Way of the Lower Eastern Shore, and the Salisbury-Wicomico Economic Development Corp. He has also been a long-time supporter of the Holly Center Foundation for the severely retarded. As a parent and strong supporter of the public school system, Jim has served as president of the PTA's of both Fruitland Elementary and Bennett Middle Schools, where he and his wife, Kaye, sent their three children Andy, Tricia, and Betsy. For his efforts, the Maryland PTA gave Jim the Gold Seal Award. Jim also has been honored by the Governor's Salute to Excellence. Both the United Way of the Lower Eastern Shore and the Holly Center Foundation have named him Volunteer of the Year. These honors are only a sampling of the many he has received in a lifetime of stellar community service. A native of Cambridge, MD, and a graduate of the University of Maryland, College Park, where he earned his B.S. in civil engineering, the Salisbury community is truly fortunate to have claimed Jim Thomas for its own. As ACEC's next president, Jim follows in the footsteps of another Marylander, Andrew J. Parker Jr., who was ACEC president from 1990-91. Likening the ACEC position to that of CEO of a large corporation-- without the pay--Parker praised the leadership abilities of his Salisbury colleague last week. Mr. President, in a newspaper interview, Jim Thomas said that his activism in ACEC is rooted in a desire ``to give something back'' to the profession. Clearly, he has already done so and, now, as president of the ACEC, he will have a further opportunity to make a contribution. It is gratifying to see him accorded this national recognition. I wish him continued success in this, and all of his future endeavors.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing on behalf of myself, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Torricelli, legislation to create a National Military Museum Foundation. The purpose of this legislation is to encourage and facilitate private sector support in the effort to preserve, interpret, and display the important role the military has played in the history of our Nation. This legislation is, in my judgment, crucial at this particular moment in history, when we are on the verge of jeopardizing two centuries worth of military artifacts and negating the possibility of such collections in the future. It has been the long-standing tradition of the U.S. Department of War and its successor, the Department of Defense, to preserve our historic military artifacts. Since the days of the revolution to the conflict in Bosnia, Americans have been proud of the role that our military has had in safeguarding our democracy, and we have tried to ensure that future generations will know that role. Over the years we have accumulated a priceless collection of military artifacts from every period of American history and every technological era. The collection includes flags, uniforms, weapons, paintings, and historic records as well as full-size tanks, ships, and aircraft which document history and provide provenance for our Nation and armed services. In recent years, however, the dedicated individuals who identify, interpret, catalog, and showcase those artifacts have found themselves shortchanged and shorthanded. With financial resources diminishing, not only are we cheating ourselves out of the military treasures currently warehoused out of public sight, but we are in danger of lacking the funds to update our collections with new items. ``A morsel of genuine history,'' wrote Thomas Jefferson to John Adams in 1817, ``is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' Mr. President, today, significant pieces of our military history are being lost, shoved into basements, or subject to decay. With each year also comes less funding, and our artifacts are multiplying at a pace that exceeds the capabilities of those who are trying to preserve them. Since 1990 alone, the services have closed 21 military museums and at least 8 more are expected to close in the next few years. We cannot let this proceed any further. Military museums are vital to documenting our history, educating our citizenry, and advancing our technology. More than 81 museums in 31 States and the District of Columbia daily instill Americans from veterans to new recruits to elementary school students with a sense of the sacred responsibility that military servicemen bear to defend the values that have made this country great. Military museums teach our servicemen the history of their units, enhancing their understanding both of the team of which they are a part and the significance of the service they have pledged to perform. And when a museum makes history come alive to young children, those children learn for themselves what this country stands for and the sacrifices that have been made to preserve the freedoms we often take for granted. Many of our servicemen have learned their military history through these artifacts rather than textbooks, and many of our technological advances have come as a direct result of these artifacts. The ship models and ordinances at U.S. Naval Academy Museum in Annapolis, MD, for example, have been used by the Academy's Departments of Gunnery and Seamanship. It has also been reported that a study of an existing missile system, preserved in an Army museum, saved the Strategic Defense Initiative $25 million in research and analysis costs. These museums serve as laboratories where engineers can learn from the lessons of the past without going through the same trial and error process as their predecessors. Yet without adequate funding, these benefits will be lost forever. According to a 1994 study conducted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation entitled, ``Defense Department Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,'' the Department of Defense's management of these resources has been mediocre, with the cause attributed to inadequate staffing and funding. More than 80 percent of the museums studied said their survival relies heavily on outside funding. When asked about their greatest needs, the response was nearly always staff and money. And those museums that reported sufficient staffing from volunteers nevertheless said that the dearth of funds for restoration and construction paralyzed them from fully utilizing the available labor. According to the study, money is so tight that brochures and pamphlets are often unaffordable, leaving visitors with no explanations about the objects they have come to see. A young child might be duly impressed by the sight of a stern-faced general, but the historical lesson is greatly diminished if the child is not told the significance of the event portrayed or why the general looked so grim that day. Perhaps most distressing, the study reported ``substantial collections of rare or unique historical military vehicles and equipment that are unmaintained and largely unprotected due to lack of funds and available expertise.'' In addition, the museums were found to be struggling so much with the care of items already in house, that they were unable to accept new ones. With a new class of military artifacts from the Vietnam and gulf wars soon to be retired, one wonders whether those artifacts will be preserved. If we do not take action to save what we have and acquire what we don't, future generations will see these pockets of negligence as blank pages in the living history books that these museums truly are. Only a Foundation can address these problems. The alternate solution--to press the services to devote more money to these institutions--is implausible in this budgetary climate. The Secretary of Defense must place his highest priority on the readiness of our forces. Closely allied to that priority is the effort to improve the quality of life for our citizens on active duty. And, as aging equipment faces obsolescence, the Secretary has indicated that the future will bring an increased emphasis on replacing weapons systems. By all realistic assumptions, the amount of funds appropriated for museums is likely to continue downward. My bill recognizes the growing need for a reliable source of funding aside from Federal appropriations. A National Military Museum Foundation would provide an accessible venue for individuals, corporations, or other private sources to support the preservation of our priceless military artifacts and records. A National Military Museum Foundation could also play an important role in surveying those artifacts that we know to exist. Currently, there is no museum oversight or coordination of museum activities on the DOD level. A wide-ranging Foundation survey would therefore not only eliminate duplication, but would most likely discover gaps in our collections that must filled before it is too late. Under the proposed legislation, the Secretary of Defense would appoint the Foundation's Board of Directors and provide basic administrative support. To launch the Foundation, the legislation authorizes an initial appropriation of $1 million. It is anticipated that the Foundation would be self sufficient after the first year. This is a small price to pay to save some of our most precious treasures. This legislation is modeled on legislation that established similar foundations, such as the National Park Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, both of which have succeeded in raising private-sector support for conservation programs. My bill is not intended to supplant existing Federal funding or other foundation efforts that may be underway, but rather to supplement those efforts. The premise for establishing a national foundation is, in part, to elevate the level of fundraising beyond the local level, supplementing those efforts by seeking donations from potentially large donors. I also want to emphasize the inclusiveness of the Foundation, which will represent all the branches of our armed services. Mr. President, statistics reveal that foundations established without the mandate of a Federal statute and the backing of an established agency seldom succeed. With ever-diminishing Federal funds, we cannot expect the Department to put our military museums ahead of national security. Truly, an outside source committed to sustaining our museums is imperative. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing on behalf of myself, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Torricelli, legislation to create a National Military Museum Foundation. The purpose of this legislation is to encourage and facilitate private sector support in the effort to preserve, interpret, and display the important role the military has played in the history of our Nation. This legislation is, in my judgment, crucial at this particular moment in history, when we are on the verge of jeopardizing two centuries worth of military artifacts and negating the possibility of such collections in the future. It has been the long-standing tradition of the U.S. Department of War and its successor, the Department of Defense, to preserve our historic military artifacts. Since the days of the revolution to the conflict in Bosnia, Americans have been proud of the role that our military has had in safeguarding our democracy, and we have tried to ensure that future generations will know that role. Over the years we have accumulated a priceless collection of military artifacts from every period of American history and every technological era. The collection includes flags, uniforms, weapons, paintings, and historic records as well as full-size tanks, ships, and aircraft which document history and provide provenance for our Nation and armed services. In recent years, however, the dedicated individuals who identify, interpret, catalog, and showcase those artifacts have found themselves shortchanged and shorthanded. With financial resources diminishing, not only are we cheating ourselves out of the military treasures currently warehoused out of public sight, but we are in danger of lacking the funds to update our collections with new items. ``A morsel of genuine history,'' wrote Thomas Jefferson to John Adams in 1817, ``is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' Mr. President, today, significant pieces of our military history are being lost, shoved into basements, or subject to decay. With each year also comes less funding, and our artifacts are multiplying at a pace that exceeds the capabilities of those who are trying to preserve them. Since 1990 alone, the services have closed 21 military museums and at least 8 more are expected to close in the next few years. We cannot let this proceed any further. Military museums are vital to documenting our history, educating our citizenry, and advancing our technology. More than 81 museums in 31 States and the District of Columbia daily instill Americans from veterans to new recruits to elementary school students with a sense of the sacred responsibility that military servicemen bear to defend the values that have made this country great. Military museums teach our servicemen the history of their units, enhancing their understanding both of the team of which they are a part and the significance of the service they have pledged to perform. And when a museum makes history come alive to young children, those children learn for themselves what this country stands for and the sacrifices that have been made to preserve the freedoms we often take for granted. Many of our servicemen have learned their military history through these artifacts rather than textbooks, and many of our technological advances have come as a direct result of these artifacts. The ship models and ordinances at U.S. Naval Academy Museum in Annapolis, MD, for example, have been used by the Academy's Departments of Gunnery and Seamanship. It has also been reported that a study of an existing missile system, preserved in an Army museum, saved the Strategic Defense Initiative $25 million in research and analysis costs. These museums serve as laboratories where engineers can learn from the lessons of the past without going through the same trial and error process as their predecessors. Yet without adequate funding, these benefits will be lost forever. According to a 1994 study conducted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation entitled, ``Defense Department Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,'' the Department of Defense's management of these resources has been mediocre, with the cause attributed to inadequate staffing and funding. More than 80 percent of the museums studied said their survival relies heavily on outside funding. When asked about their greatest needs, the response was nearly always staff and money. And those museums that reported sufficient staffing from volunteers nevertheless said that the dearth of funds for restoration and construction paralyzed them from fully utilizing the available labor. According to the study, money is so tight that brochures and pamphlets are often unaffordable, leaving visitors with no explanations about the objects they have come to see. A young child might be duly impressed by the sight of a stern-faced general, but the historical lesson is greatly diminished if the child is not told the significance of the event portrayed or why the general looked so grim that day. Perhaps most distressing, the study reported ``substantial collections of rare or unique historical military vehicles and equipment that are unmaintained and largely unprotected due to lack of funds and available expertise.'' In addition, the museums were found to be struggling so much with the care of items already in house, that they were unable to accept new ones. With a new class of military artifacts from the Vietnam and gulf wars soon to be retired, one wonders whether those artifacts will be preserved. If we do not take action to save what we have and acquire what we don't, future generations will see these pockets of negligence as blank pages in the living history books that these museums truly are. Only a Foundation can address these problems. The alternate solution--to press the services to devote more money to these institutions--is implausible in this budgetary climate. The Secretary of Defense must place his highest priority on the readiness of our forces. Closely allied to that priority is the effort to improve the quality of life for our citizens on active duty. And, as aging equipment faces obsolescence, the Secretary has indicated that the future will bring an increased emphasis on replacing weapons systems. By all realistic assumptions, the amount of funds appropriated for museums is likely to continue downward. My bill recognizes the growing need for a reliable source of funding aside from Federal appropriations. A National Military Museum Foundation would provide an accessible venue for individuals, corporations, or other private sources to support the preservation of our priceless military artifacts and records. A National Military Museum Foundation could also play an important role in surveying those artifacts that we know to exist. Currently, there is no museum oversight or coordination of museum activities on the DOD level. A wide-ranging Foundation survey would therefore not only eliminate duplication, but would most likely discover gaps in our collections that must filled before it is too late. Under the proposed legislation, the Secretary of Defense would appoint the Foundation's Board of Directors and provide basic administrative support. To launch the Foundation, the legislation authorizes an initial appropriation of $1 million. It is anticipated that the Foundation would be self sufficient after the first year. This is a small price to pay to save some of our most precious treasures. This legislation is modeled on legislation that established similar foundations, such as the National Park Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, both of which have succeeded in raising private-sector support for conservation programs. My bill is not intended to supplant existing Federal funding or other foundation efforts that may be underway, but rather to supplement those efforts. The premise for establishing a national foundation is, in part, to elevate the level of fundraising beyond the local level, supplementing those efforts by seeking donations from potentially large donors. I also want to emphasize the inclusiveness of the Foundation, which will represent all the branches of our armed services. Mr. President, statistics reveal that foundations established without the mandate of a Federal statute and the backing of an established agency seldom succeed. With ever-diminishing Federal funds, we cannot expect the Department to put our military museums ahead of national security. Truly, an outside source committed to sustaining our museums is imperative. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I strongly support the Senior Citizens Home Equity Protection Act and commend Chairman D'Amato and Secretary Cuomo for identifying this problem and moving so quickly to develop a solution. The act will give HUD the tools it needs to put an end to the unethical practice of charging senior homeowners what has amounted to millions of dollars for information which HUD provides for free on the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program. The Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program enables seniors, who have built up equity in their home, to borrow that equity to meet medical costs, make repairs on their homes, or meet their daily living expenses. Working with participating lenders, FHA insures this loan, smoothing the way to complete the transaction. Homeowners receive payments from lenders on a monthly basis, in a lump sum, or as a line of credit. The size of the loan depends on the owner's age, the interest rate, and home's value, but the average size of the loan is $42,465. Lenders recover their loan plus interest from the sale of the home when the owner dies or moves. Typically, the seniors that use this program depend largely on social security, perhaps supplemented by a very modest pension. For them, this program provides an invaluable service. The initial demonstration program was authorized in the 1987 Home and Community Development Act, which I supported. Many of the roughly 20,000 reverse mortgages made to date have been made to low- and moderate-income seniors who have been able to build up equity in their homes over the years but now live on fixed, restricted incomes. This program enables them to turn a valuable but nonliquid asset into cash payments to supplement their resources. Clearly this is an important program that contributes significantly to the quality of life for our senior citizens. It is unthinkable that this important Federal program and the people it is intended to serve are being exploited by certain estate planning agencies who charge seniors 6-10 percent off the top of this loan--which, on the average $42,000 loan, can amount to over $4,000. This is tantamount to taking away the equity that seniors worked so hard to put into their homes over the years. In fact, HUD reports that some of these operators pressure seniors into taking out their equity in lump sums, just so the estate planner can collect their fee up front. A little over 77 percent of householders age 65 and older are homeowners--or 15.7 million senior Americans. The companies involved in this practice claimed to have done close to a thousand of these deals and have the potential to do much more harm if this is not addressed. As a nation we have long encouraged and recognized the value of home ownership--the stability it creates in communities, the asset it becomes to the owner, and the security it provides over time. I have long supported programs that increase home ownership among low- and moderate-income people, such as the Home Investment Partnership Program and affordable housing goals for Government sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie Mae. It is the low- and moderate-income senior homeowners to whom the reverse mortgage program is so important. In Maryland, we are making a special effort to increase the home ownership rates in low-income communities because there is no better way to start climbing the ladder of economic opportunity. A few weeks ago, HouseBaltimore, a partnership between the city of Baltimore, the Baltimore Empowerment Zone, and Fannie Mae announced that they have increased the number of low- and moderate-income homeowners in the city of Baltimore by 6,000 over the last 3 years. Earlier this month, the city of Baltimore was awarded a home ownership zone grant of over $5 million. The zone will create 322 new home ownership opportunities, 242 newly constructed units, and 80 rehabilitated units. These so-called estate planners undermine these efforts by taking a portion of this valuable asset away from senior Americans. Again, I want to thank Senator D'Amato and my colleagues on the Banking Committee for their responsiveness and willingness to undertake this effort, enabling HUD to take swift action and stop this practice. We need to continue to ensure all of our citizens live in decent, safe homes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in commemorating the 82nd anniversary of the Armenian genocide, the first such tragedy to occur in the twentieth century. Today, as we renew our commitment to the rights and freedoms of all humanity, we also celebrate the reemergence of an independent Armenia. It is a tribute to the indomitable spirit of the Armenian people that, after centuries of oppression, they have persevered and re- established a free and independent nation--a nation as determined as its citizens. 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. Truly, the spirit of the nation reflects the spirit of its people. Despite these hardships, the young republic has made economic progress. As the first of the former Soviet republics to record economic growth, Armenia has kept inflation under control and made great advances toward privatization. Now, it is incumbent upon nations like the United States to continue our policy of engagement and assistance, as Armenia continues its efforts toward establishing a democratic society. The United States has also benefitted from a strong Armenian presence. With their firm resolve and dedication to democracy, the more than one million Armenian Americans have made significant contributions to the cultural, political and economic life of this nation. At the same time, by preserving their Armenian faith and traditions, they have achieved a balance that enriches our diverse and vital American culture. The tragic events of 1915-1923 contain in them some important moral lessons. We now realize that a quick and decisive response by the international community might have prevented the persecution and death of more than 1.5 million Armenians. Unfortunately, the world's indifference to their plight not only sealed the futures of the Armenian victims, but paved the way for similar tragedies in the years that followed. It is imperative, Mr. President, that no nation or individual ever forgets the injustices suffered by the Armenians in 1915. Only by striving for human rights and civil liberties for all people can the promises of human dignity be achieved. In that regard, the highest honor we can accord the heroic Armenian people is to continue the struggle for freedom wherever we are, be it America, Armenia, or anywhere else across the globe. By pursuing that mission, hopefully we can prevent such tragedies from happening again.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the able Senator from Delaware, and I commend him for his extraordinary leadership with respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention. I know personally of the time and effort he has devoted to this cause. We are all in his debt. Mr. President, it is now less than a week before a landmark treaty-- one which the United States led the world in negotiating--goes into effect internationally. The Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by President Bush on January 13, 1993, has now been ratified by 74 countries. The eyes of the world are upon the United States as we decide whether or not to join them. It would be a major mistake if this treaty were to go into effect without us. Worse yet, if we fail to ratify, we could be jeopardizing our best chance to eliminate the chemical weapons that some day would be used against us. This is a treaty that was advanced, negotiated, and signed by Republican Presidents, with the encouragement, in 1989, of some 75 U.S. Senators. What a mistake it would be if the Senate were to forfeit this opportunity to protect American security, promote American interests and preserve American leadership. If we fail to ratify the CWC, we will have done just that. If the Senate does not approve this historic treaty, our economic and security interests will suffer. Despite widespread and continuing bipartisan support for this treaty, despite support from some of our Nation's outstanding military leaders--such as General Shalikashvili and former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, Admiral Crowe, General Vessey, and General Jones--some of my colleagues argue that this convention does not serve our security interests. The Chemical Weapons Convention is an unprecedented international agreement designed to eliminate an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. Unlike earlier protocols that prohibit only the use of chemical weapons, this convention aims at stopping their production, transfer, and storage by providing incentives for participation, verification of compliance, and penalties for violation. The United States is the only major industrialized country not to have ratified it yet. Our participation is critical to its ultimate success. This convention will not make the threat of chemical weapons automatically disappear from the face of the Earth. But it will constrain their proliferation and make it harder for rogue regimes and terrorists to gain access to them. By increasing the legal, moral, and financial costs of acquiring chemical weapons, it will deter covert chemical weapons programs and increase the likelihood they will be discovered. There are three major reasons why this treaty will serve American interests and why a failure to ratify it could have severe repercussions. First, the convention requires other nations to do something we already plan to do--destroy chemical arsenals. Under a law first signed by President Reagan, the United States will eliminate our current stockpile of chemical weapons by the year 2004, independent of what happens in this treaty. Our own military thinks that is a wise thing to do, even on a unilateral basis. The convention will simply ensure that others do the same. In other words, this is not a debate over eliminating our own chemical weapons. We are already programmed to do so. This is a question of whether we can establish a regime that will require other countries to destroy their chemical weapons and stop building new ones. That is why Admiral Zumwalt had stated, militarily, this treaty will make us stronger. It is not enough, however, to ask other nations to ratify the treaty. We must do so ourselves. Today, we have an opportunity to lead the world in abolishing these terrible weapons, rather than providing others with an excuse not to do so. If we do not adopt this treaty, or if we add crippling amendments, we will have single-handedly undermined the hope of ridding the world of this deadly scourge and of reducing the threat to our own citizens. The second major reason to ratify this treaty is that it will provide us with better information about what other countries are doing in the realm of chemical weapons. We know the verification regime is not perfect. The verification regime is never perfect in any treaty. There may be states that try to cheat on this agreement and others that refuse to sign it. But if we are party to the treaty, we will have an opportunity to investigate and sanction potential violations. We will take part in the organization established to monitor implementation, and we will help enforce its rules and procedures. As former CIA Director James Woolsey noted, ``We will know more about the state of chemical warfare preparations in the world with the treaty than we would know without it.'' Moreover, once we ratify the treaty we will be in a better position to do something about noncompliance. The CWC throws the force of world public opinion behind the identification and exposure of violators. Any violations that are discovered will be made widely known and receive universal condemnation. We will be able to punish violators through multilateral action, rather than going it alone, or trying to convince the world that our suspicions are correct without revealing our intelligence sources. As former Secretary of State Christopher explained, ``By ratifying the Convention, we will add the force and weight of the entire international community to our efforts.'' The third reason we must ratify this treaty is that a failure to do so will put U.S. chemical manufacturers at a serious competitive disadvantage. Once the CWC enters into force--which will happen next Tuesday, with or without U.S. participation--chemical manufacturers in countries that have not ratified will find themselves faced with international economic sanctions. These companies will be required to obtain end-user certificates for the sale of certain chemicals abroad, and after 3 years, they will not be able to export those chemicals at all. The United States will be treated on a par with rogue states, who will no longer be trusted to conduct normal, commercial trade in chemicals. These dismal scenarios were certainly on the minds of the chief executives of 53 of the Nation's largest chemical firms last August, when they expressed their concern in a joint statement, warning: ``Our industry's status as the world's preferred supplier of chemical products may be jeopardized if the United States does not ratify the Convention. If the Senate does not vote in favor of the CWC, we stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in overseas sales, putting at risk thousands of good-paying American jobs.'' American chemical companies have indicated a willingness to comply with inspections under the treaty because they are not conducting illegal activity, and because they helped to design the treaty's inspection regime so that it would not threaten legitimate business secrets or compromise proprietary information. Earlier this year, President Bush reaffirmed his support for ratification, telling reporters the treaty should transcend partisanship. ``I think it is vitally important for the United States to be out front, not to be dragged, kicking, and screaming to the finish line on that question. We do not need chemical weapons, and we ought to get out front and make clear that we are opposed to others having them.'' The CWC has been before the Senate for consideration for nearly 4 years now, providing ample opportunity for examination. Last year, after exhaustive hearings and review, it was reported favorably by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but not brought to a vote on the floor of the Senate. Over the past few weeks a new series of hearings has been held, in open and in closed session, and all perspectives have been thoroughly aired. The administration has worked in good faith to negotiate a new resolution of ratification that addresses the earlier concerns and more, including 28 agreed conditions, declarations, statements, and understandings. The remaining five conditions that have been proposed will undercut and place in jeopardy the effectiveness of this treaty, and I urge my colleagues to reject them. The conditions to which the administration has already agreed will resolve every legitimate concern that has been raised. I would urge my colleagues not to vote for pending amendments that would require renegotiation, delay, or abrogation of the CWC. If we don't take this opportunity to begin abolishing these terrible weapons, we will rue the day and have only ourselves to blame.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing--along with a number of my colleagues--two measures to continue and enhance efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Joining me in sponsoring one or both of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Santorum, Robb, and Mikulski. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the world's great natural resources. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the fin fish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 2,700 plant and animal species. It is a major resting area for migratory birds and waterfowl along the Atlantic flyway, including many endangered and threatened species. As our Nation's largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay is also key to the ecological and economic health of the mid-Atlantic region. The bay is a treasured asset for all our citizens, particularly for the nearly 15 million of us who live within the six State watershed. It is a one- of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by 9 million people, including many Members of this body. The bay is also a major commercial waterway and shipping center for the region and much of the eastern United States. And it provides thousands of jobs for the people in this region. Certainly, we in Maryland regard the bay as a defining element in our State's history, and as a key to Maryland's quality of life. Most people are aware of these and other dimensions of the bay. Certainly, our Nation's scientists are aware, and have consistently regarded the bay's protection and enhancement as an extremely important national objective. When the bay began to experience serious unprecedented declines in water quality and living resources in recent decades, people in the region, including those in my State, suffered as well. We lost thousands of jobs in the fishing industry and much of the wilderness that defined the watershed. We began to appreciate for the first time the profound impact that human activity could have on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Untreated sewage, deforestation, toxic chemicals, farm runoff, and increased development resulted in a degradation of water quality and destruction of wildlife and its habitat. Fortunately, over the last two decades we have also come to understand that humans can have a positive influence on the environment, and that we can, if we choose, assist nature to repair much of the damage which has been done. We now treat sewage before it enters our waters, and even have a successful waste treatment pilot project here in Washington that utilizes state-of-the-art biological methods to significantly reduce nutrients entering the bay. We banned toxic chemicals that were killing the wildlife, initiated programs to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the bay's tributaries, and we have taken aggressive steps to successfully restore the striped bass and other species. We have undertaken the Nation's largest habitat restoration project on Poplar Island in the upper bay, and enacted legislation protecting the estuary from economically and ecologically harmful aquatic nuisance species. The States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania deserve much of the credit for undertaking many of the actions that have put the bay and its watershed on the road to recovery. All three States have had major cleanup programs and have made significant commitments in terms of resources. The cleanup has remained an important priority item supported by Governors, State legislatures and the public. And a number of private organizations--the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay come to mind--have done stellar work in this area. But the Federal Government has played a critical catalyzing role in helping to bring about these successes. Without the Federal Clean Water Act, the Federal ban on DDT, and EPA's watershed-wide coordination of bay restoration and cleanup activities, we would not have been able to bring about the concerted effort, the real partnership, that is succeeding in improving bay water quality and in bringing back many fish and wildlife species that were on the verge of extinction. The Chesapeake Bay is getting cleaner, but we cannot affort to be complacent. Ever increasing population and commercial stresses are imposed upon the bay. So we must not relax if we hope to maintain, and build upon, our past successes. The first measure I am introducing today is designed to build upon our National Government's past role in the Chesapeake Bay Program, the highly successful Federal-State-local partnership to which I made reference, that so ably coordinates and directs efforts to restore the bay. This legislation carries forward and enhances the role of the Environmetnal Protection Agency as the lead Federal agency committed to cleaning up the bay. It redoubles efforts to ensure wide compliance with Chesapeake Bay agreement goals, including habitat restoration and toxics reduction. And it establishes a mechanism for EPA to further assist communities with local watershed restoration and protection projects in the bay and its tributaries. This is an especially important component of this measure. Let me spend a moment to explain why. The initial stages of the bay cleanup focused on the mainstem bay. But it became increasingly clear that many of the bay's problems originate in the rivers and streams which flow into the bay. It also became obvious that we must expand efforts within these waters if we hope to achieve nutrient reductions and other improvements in the overall bay watershed. The bay partners recognized this urgent need with 1992 and subsequent amendments to the Chesapeake Bay agreement that committed the bay partners to develop and implement tributary-specific strategies throughout the watershed, and the States are making tremendous progress in this regard. It is clear that one of the most cost-effective ways to protect the rivers and streams in the watershed is to help, encourage and promote stewardship among citizens and others who have a direct stake in a specific local situation. After all, stewardship starts with the individual citizens who live in the watershed. And that is what this measure encourages by providing EPA with mechanisms to stimulate such local efforts. The second measure I am introducing today would connect natural, historic, cultural, and recreational resources to create an innovative Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network throughout the mainstem bay and its tributaries. The vast bay watershed contains many distinctive treasures that combine to tell a unique story about the evolvement of human settlement and culture within the area. Each region within the watershed is dotted with historic seaports, Federal and State parks, and other natural, cultural, or recreational sites. Many residents of the bay are familiar with the rich resources within their particular region. Similarly, countless visitors to a particular segment of the watershed are exposed to selective sites, but receive only a limited if any introduction to similar resources throughout the entire bay. They learn little about the bay's collective cultural and natural history, and perhaps little about comprehensive bay cleanup efforts. What we currently lack--and what this measure provides--is a mechanism that links these many valuable resources and sites throughout the watershed into a unified network of jewels of the Chesapeake. This shared linkage and identity can improve access to the bay. It can further educate residents and visitors about this treasured resource. It can boost the already substantial economic activity generated by tourism and recreation within the watershed, and it can entice additional residents within the watershed to play more active roles in the bay restoration effort. This measure would accomplish these worthy goals in several ways. First, it authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to identify and protect resources throughout the watershed, to identify these individual jewels as Chesapeake Bay gateways, and to link them with trails, tour roads, scenic byways and other sites. Second, it directs the Secretary to develop and establish Chesapeake Bay Watertrails, consisting of important water routes, and connects these watertrails with gateways sites and other land resources to create a Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. This network will guide residents and visitors alike along important water routes and the many land based resources within the watershed. Third, this legislation authorizes the Secretary to provide technical and financial assistance to State and local partners for conserving and restoring these important resources throughout the watershed. The Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort, and Federal-State efforts to protect related resources and to promote economic activity, have been major bipartisan undertakings in this body. The bay has been strongly supported by virtually all Members of the Senate, as evidenced by enactment of three of the five related measures introduced last session. I urge my colleagues to continue the momentum by supporting this legislation and contributing to the improvement and enhancement of one of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1997 and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Act of 1997 be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that copies of letters from the Governor, State of Maryland, from the Chesapeake Bay Commission, from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and from the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this week from April 13 to 19 we are celebrating the 39th anniversary of National Library Week. As a strong and vigorous supporter of Federal initiatives to strengthen and protect libraries, I am pleased to take this opportunity to draw my colleagues' attention to this important occasion and to take a few moments to reflect on the significance of libraries to our Nation. When the free public library came into its own in this country in the 19th century, it was, from the beginning, a unique institution because of its commitment to the same principle of free and open exchange of ideas as the Constitution itself. Libraries have always been an integral part of all that our country embodies: Freedom of information, an educated citizenry, and an open and enlightened society. They are the only public agencies in which the services rendered are intended for, and available to, every segment of our society. It has been my longstanding view that libraries play an indispensable role in our communities. From modest beginnings in the mid-19th century, today's libraries provide well-stocked reference centers and wide-ranging loan services based on a system of branches, often further supplemented by travelling libraries serving outlying districts. Libraries promote the reading of books among adults, adolescents, and children and provide the access and resources to allow citizens to obtain reliable information on a vast array of topics. Libraries gain even further significance in this age of rapid technological advancement where they are called upon to provide not only books and periodicals, but many other valuable resources as well. In today's society, libraries provide audio-visual materials, computer services, facilities for community lectures and performances, tapes, records, videocassettes, and works of art for exhibit and loan to the public. In addition, special facilities libraries provide services for older Americans, people with disabilities, and hospitalized citizens. Of course, libraries are not merely passive repositories of materials. They are engines of learning--the place where a spark is often struck for disadvantaged citizens who for whatever reason have not had exposure to the vast stores of knowledge available. I have the greatest respect for those individuals who are members of the library community and work so hard to ensure that our citizens and communities continue to enjoy the tremendous rewards available through our library system. My own State of Maryland has 24 public library systems providing a full range of library services to all Maryland citizens and a long tradition of open and unrestricted sharing of resources. This policy has been enhanced by the State Library Network which provides interlibrary loans to the State's public, academic, special libraries, and school library media centers. The network receives strong support from the State Library Resource Center at the Enoch Pratt Free Library, the Regional Library Resource Centers in western, southern, and Eastern Shore counties, and a statewide data base of holdings of over 140 libraries. The result of this unique joint State-county resource sharing is an extraordinary level of library services available to the citizens of Maryland. Marylanders have responded to this outstanding service by borrowing more public library materials per person than citizens of almost any other State, with 67 percent of the State's population registered as library patrons. I have had a close working relationship with members of the Maryland Library Association and others involved in the library community throughout the State, and I am very pleased to join with them and citizens throughout the Nation in this week's celebration of National Library Week. I look forward to a continued close association with those who enable libraries to provide the unique and vital services available to all Americans.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to improve the pay system used for Federal firefighters. This bill has three broad purposes: First, to improve pay equality with municipal and other public section firefighters; second, to enhance recruitment and retention of firefighters in order to maintain the highest quality Federal fire service; and third, to encourage Federal firefighters to pursue career advancement and training opportunities. Fire protection is clearly a major concern at Federal facilities and on Federal lands throughout the Nation. From fighting wildland fires in our national parks and forests to protecting military families from fires in their base housing, Federal firefighters play a vital role in preserving lives and property. One only needs to recall the terrible tragedies in Colorado two summers ago to understand the vital importance of our Federal firefighters. The Department of Agriculture, the Coast Guard, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Veterans Affairs are among the Federal agencies which rely on Federal fire fighters to protect their vast holdings of land and structures. Just like their municipal counterparts, these firefighters are the first line of defense against threats to life and property. Mr. President, the current system used to pay our Federal firefighters is at best confusing and at worst unfair. These men and women work longer hours than any other public sector firefighters--yet are paid substantially less. The current pay system, which consists of three tiers, is overly complex and, more importantly, is hurting Federal efforts to attract and retain top-quality employees. Currently, most Federal firefighters work an average 72-hour week under exceptionally demanding conditions. The typical workweek consists of a one-day-off schedule which results in three 24-hours shifts during the remainder of each week. Despite this unusual schedule, firefighters are paid under a modified version of the same General Schedule pay system used for full-time, 40-hour-per-week Federal workers. The result of the pay modification is that Federal firefighters make less per hour than any other Federal employee at their same grade level. For example: a firefighter who is a GS-5, Step 5 makes $7.21 per hour while other employees at the same grade and step earn $10.34 per hour. Some have tried to justify this by noting that part of a firefighter's day is downtime. However, I must note that all firefighters have substantial duties beyond those at the site of a fire. Adding to this discrepancy is the fact that the average municipal firefighter makes $12.87 per hour. Mr. President, this has caused the Federal fire service to become a training ground for young men and women who then leave for higher pay elsewhere in the public sector. Continually training new employees is, as my colleagues know, very expensive for any employer. The Office of Personnel Management is well aware of these problems. In fact, section 102 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 [FEPCA], title V of Public Law 101-509, authorizes the establishment of special pay systems for certain Federal occupations. The origin of this provision was a recognition that the current pay classification system did not account for the unique and distinctive employment conditions of Federal protective occupations including the Federal fire service. In May 1991, I wrote to OPM urging the establishment of a separate pay scale for firefighters under the authority provided for in FEPCA. Subsequently, OPM established an Advisory Committee on Law Enforcement and Protective Occupations consisting of agency personnel and representatives from Federal fire and law enforcement organizations. Beginning in August of 1991, representatives from the Federal fire community began working with OPM and other administration officials to identify and address the problems of paying Federal firefighters under the General Schedule. The committee completed its work in June of 1992 and in December of that year issued a staff report setting forth recommendations to correct the most serious problems with the current pay system. Mr. President, I regret that since the release of the OPM recommendations, there has been no effort to implement any of the proposals of the advisory task force. In fact, OPM has communicated quite clearly that it has no plans to pursue any solution to the serious pay deficiencies that have been so widely identified and acknowledged. It would not be necessary to introduce this legislation today had OPM taken the corrective action that, in my view, is so clearly warranted. However, I have determined that legislation appears to be the only vehicle to achieve the necessary changes in the pay system for Federal firefighters. Mr. President, the Firefighter Pay Fairness Act would improve Federal firefighter pay in several important and straightforward ways. Perhaps most importantly, the bill draws from existing provisions in title V to calculate a true hourly rate for firefighters. This would alleviate the current problem of firefighters being paid considerably less than other General Schedule employees at the same GS level. It would also account for the varying length in the tour of duty for Federal firefighters stationed at different locations. In addition, the bill would use this hourly rate to ensure that firefighters receive true time and one-half overtime for hours worked over 106 in a bi-weekly pay period. This is designed to correct the problem, under the current system, where the overtime rate is calculated based on an hourly rate considerably less than base pay. The Firefighter Pay Fairness Act would also extend these pay provisions to so-called wildland firefighters when they are engaged in firefighting duties. Currently, wildland firefighters are often not compensated for all the time spent responding to a fire event. This legislation would ensure that these protectors of our parks and forests would be paid fairly for ensuring the safety of these invaluable national resources. It also ensures that firefighters promoted to supervisory positions would be paid at a rate of pay at least equal to what they received before the promotion. This would address a situation, under the current pay system, which discourages employees from accepting promotions because of the significant loss of pay which often accompanies a move to a supervisory position. Similarly, the bill would encourage employees to get the necessary training in hazardous materials, emergency medicine, and other critical areas by ensuring they do not receive a pay cut while engaged in these training activities. Mr. President, this legislation is based upon a bill I authorized in the 103d Congress. A bipartisan group of more than 150 Members cosponsored the measure in the Senate and the House last year. The legislation I am introducing today reflects several modifications that were suggested to the bill following substantial discussions with various Members. However, it is identical to the so-called compromise measure that has been discussed with the authorizing as well as the appropriations committees in previous years and received widespread support. To reduce initial costs and allow oversight of the effectiveness of the legislation, the bill I am introducing today would implement the new pay system and other provisions beginning October 1, 1997. However, the new rate of pay would be phased in over a 4-year period ending October 1, 2002. Mr. President, I consulted many of the affected groups in developing my legislation. I am very pleased that this bill has been endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Association of Government Employees, and the National Federation of Federal Employees. As I have said before, Mr. President, fairness is the key word. There is no reason why Federal firefighters should be paid dramatically less that their municipal counterparts. As a cochairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I want to urge all members of the caucus and, indeed, all Members of the Senate to join in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Greek people on the 176th anniversary of the beginning of their struggle for independence. Since regaining their freedom and reaffirming their commitment to democratic principles, the Greek people have built a modern-day republic that is a strong and positive presence in the Balkans and eastern Mediterranean. As the only member of the European Union from the region, Greece has played a stabilizing role in the area and helped advance its neighbors' progress toward political and economic security. Greece's own efforts to continue the modernization of its economy and its steadfast defense of democratic governance are critical to the promotion of democracy and stability in neighboring lands. On March 25, Greece will commemorate the beginning of its quest for independence from four centuries of Ottoman rule. After nearly 10 years of struggle against tremendous odds, the Greek people secured liberty for their homeland and reaffirmed the individual freedoms that are at the heart of their tradition. From the beginning of their revolution, the Greeks had the support-- both material and emotional--from a people who had only recently gained freedom for themselves; the Americans. And since then, our two nations have remained firmly united by shared beliefs in democratic principles and mutual understanding of the sacrifices entailed in establishing a republic. As a nation whose founders were ardent students of the classics, America has drawn its political convictions from the ancient Greek ideals of liberty and citizenship. And just as we looked to the Greeks for inspiration, Greek patriots looked to the American Revolution for strength in the face of their own adversity. Since their liberation, the Greek people have never taken their liberty for granted. In both World Wars, Greece never wavered from its commitment to the United States and the other allied nations to resist the forces of totalitarianism. Faced with a Communist uprising after World War II, Greece received support from President Truman and the American people, who helped the Greeks rebuild their war-ravaged nation. Along with our shared values and traditions, Greece and America share a bond by virtue of those individuals who have remained devoted to the ideals of both countries. The Greek-American community, which maintains an especially close relationship with Greece, also consistently makes significant contributions to American culture, business, and history. Truly, it is a community that enriches our life at home while strengthening our ties abroad. At this time last year, First Lady Hillary Clinton was in Greece. Her visit was followed by a meeting here in Washington between Greek Prime Minister Kostandinos Simitis and President Clinton, which laid the foundation for even stronger Greek-American relations in the future, and the broadening of existing ties into new arenas. This year, I was proud to cosponsor Senate Resolution 56, designating March 25, 1997, as ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy,'' and I was gratified to see it approved by the Senate last week. Emotionally and philosophically, Greece has remained near the hearts and minds of Americans since this Nation was founded. President James Monroe aptly summarized these feelings in 1822, observing: ``The mention of Greece fills the mind with the most exalted sentiments and arouses in our bosom the best feelings of which our nature is susceptible.'' Mr. President, more than inspiration, Greece today has a very important and tangible role to play in the democratic progress of its own region. I have no doubt that Greece is up to the task.