Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate earlier this month passed legislation, as part of the omnibus parks bill, to authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the District of Columbia. I first introduced this legislation in the U.S. Senate in 1985 and have reintroduced it in each succeeding Congress. While we have been able to move this legislation through the Senate in two previous Congresses, until now it has failed to pass the House of Representatives. Fortunately, the bill has now also passed in the House of Representatives, thanks to the good work of Congresswoman Morella and Congressman Dixon. Since 1955, when in Montgomery, AL, Dr. King became a national hero and an acknowledged leader in the civil rights struggle, until his tragic death in Memphis, TN, in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., made an extraordinary contribution to the evolving history of our Nation. His courageous stands and unyielding belief in the tenet of nonviolence reawakened our Nation to the injustice and discrimination which continued to exist 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and the enactment of the guarantees of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. Mr. President, Martin Luther King, Jr., dedicated his life to achieving equal treatment and enfranchisement for all Americans through nonviolent means, and a memorial in the Nation's Capital honoring Dr. King's tremendous contributions is long overdue. I want to again extend my thanks to all those who have worked so hard to bring this effort to fruition. Without their tireless efforts over the years, this important legislation would not have been enacted.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to offer my congratulations to the School of Nursing at the University of Maryland Baltimore campus and its dean, Dr. Barbara Heller, as ground breaking begins for a new, state-of-the-art facility designed to provide an exceptional environment for students to obtain a high-technology, interactive nursing education. The 150,000-square-foot building will combine cutting edge technology with the existing topnotch, challenging curriculum. Since its establishment in 1889, the school of nursing in Baltimore has proven to be a nationally recognized leader in the nursing profession, providing high quality, specialized training for nurses across the country. The school ranks consistently among the top 10 schools of nursing in the United States and was recently listed as sixth in the Nation by U.S. News & World Report. The school is a leading supplier of professional nurses for Maryland, with close to 82 percent of its graduates practicing in the State. With the increased demand for well-prepared nurses in health care delivery, I am confident that the school's graduates will provide this exceptional care to Maryland residents, as well as to all of our Nation's citizens. As the first school in the world with a nursing informatics program, as well as the Nation's first program in nursing health policy, the School of Nursing at the University of Maryland Baltimore campus is a leader in providing the innovative knowledge and skills required to practice in an ever-changing profession. The school currently offers concentrations in a variety of fields including oncology, additions, neonatal intensive care, primary care, gerontology, informatics, and community-based care. Mr. President, I was privileged to attend the ground breaking ceremony for this exceptional facility on September 27. I urge my colleagues today to join me once again in recognizing the school of nursing for its dedication to innovative educational programs of the highest caliber, its focus on community service, and its commitment to clinical research. The gifted students who will receive their education in this new facility will prove critical in ensuring that the people of Maryland and across the Nation will receive quality care in our changing health care environment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last week marked the 35th anniversary of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, whose purpose is to reduce threats to the United States through arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament. It is the only agency of its kind in the U.S. Government, or, in fact, the world. This is a bittersweet anniversary for the agency. On the one hand, it just has witnessed the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in New York. ACDA was at the forefront of advocating and negotiating this treaty, which represents an historic achievement by banning all nuclear explosions worldwide. On the other hand, however, arms control efforts have just been dealt a great setback by virtue of the Senate's decision not to take up the Chemical Weapons Convention this year. I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong support for the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] and my concern over the delay in giving advice and consent to its ratification. The Chemical Weapons Convention is an unprecedented international agreement designed to eliminate an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. Unlike earlier protocols which prohibit only the use of chemical weapons, this Convention aims at stopping their production, transfer, and storage by providing incentives to participation, verification of compliance, and penalties for violation. It now has been signed by 160 countries and ratified by 64. The United States is the only G-7 country not to have ratified it. All of our major trading partners have done so. And many of the countries whose adherence is most important will not ratify it if the United States does not. The CWC has been before the Senate for consideration for nearly 3 years now. During that period, Senators from every relevant committee have had ample opportunity to examine the convention and to address the issues that have been raised in connection with it. The Foreign Relations Committee, for example, has held 8 public hearings and 1 closed hearing, with 31 separate witnesses, along with numerous briefings in open and closed session, since the spring of 1994. The Armed Services Committee has held three hearings on the military implications of the treaty, and additional hearings have been held in the Intelligence Committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, and, more recently, the Judiciary Committee. On April 25, 1996, the Foreign Relations Committee reported a bipartisan resolution of ratification, addressing all the major issues that were raised during the course of consideration of the convention. This treaty will not make the threat of chemical weapons automatically disappear from the face of the earth. But it will constrain the proliferation of chemical weapons, it will establish international norms and standards against them, and it will make it harder for rogue regimes and terrorists to gain access to them. It will deter covert chemical weapons programs by making them much more difficult and expensive--legally, morally, and financially--to maintain. There is currently no legal regime prohibiting the development, production, storage, and transfer of chemical weapons, and therefore no legal basis on which to challenge chemical weapons programs. I believe there are three major reasons why this treaty will serve American interests, and why a failure to ratify it could have devastating repercussions. First, the CWC requires others to join us in doing something we already plan to do. As a matter of U.S. policy we have already decided to destroy our current stockpile of chemical weapons. There is a provision in law, first signed by President Reagan, that we eliminate our chemical weapons by the year 2004. We are going to do that regardless of what happens with this treaty, because we think that is a wise thing to do. The leaders of our military services have agreed that we can effectively deter the use of chemical weapons without threatening retaliation in kind. In short, we don't need chemical weapons and we don't want them. The value of this treaty is that it brings along many other countries in agreeing to do the same thing. So rather than taking a unilateral action, we will be establishing a basis for others to take similar action. As Lt. Gen. Wesley Clark, Director of Strategic Plans and Policy in the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the Foreign Relations Committee: The convention's imposition of an internationally recognizable obligation to destroy all chemical weapons essentially places all other CW capable state parties on an equal footing with the United States. Because of the convention's trade restrictions and provisions, proliferators outside the convention will find it increasingly more difficult to acquire the chemical precursors essential to building a chemical weapons stockpile. Similarly, Stanley Weiss, chairman of Business Executives for National Security, wrote in the Washington Times: Without the treaty, the United States can only act unilaterally against nations like China, believed to be assisting Iran to develop chemical weapons. With the CWC in force, those countries who do business with rogue nations run the risk of being cut from nearly every trading nation on the planet. The second major reason this treaty is in our interests is because it will provide us with better information about what other countries are doing in the area of chemical weapons. We know that the verification regime in this treaty is not perfect. There will probably be countries or agencies that will cheat on this agreement, and there are others who may not sign it. But if we are party to the treaty, we will have an opportunity to investigate and inspect potential violations. We will have access to information about what those countries are doing. In fact, Secretary of Defense Perry argued: . . .while we recognize that detecting illicit production of small quantities of CW will be extremely difficult, we also recognize that would be even more difficult without a CWC. In fact, the CWC verification regime, through its declaration, routine inspection, fact-finding, consultation and challenge inspections, should prove effective in providing a wealth of information on possible CW programs that simply would not be available without the convention. Likewise, then-CIA Director James Woolsey noted that ``We will know more about the state of chemical warfare preparations in the world with the treaty than we would know without it.'' The point is that we are going to have to monitor potential violations in either case. Regardless of whether there is a treaty or not, regardless of whether we ratify it or not, our intelligence agencies will need to collect information about chemical weapons production and possession by other countries. But if we participate in the Convention, we will have more avenues to learn about those violations, and we will have an opportunity that we otherwise would not have to conduct challenge inspections. Moreover, any violations that are discovered will be made known to the world and receive universal condemnation. The treaty in effect creates an international mechanism for identifying and exposing violators. As Secretary of State Christopher pointed out to the Foreign Relations Committee, ``By ratifying the Convention, we will add the force and weight of the entire international community to our efforts to assure the destruction of Russian chemical stocks. Our action will also spur other nations such as China to ratify and join the regime.'' An op-ed by Amy Smithson in the Baltimore Sun last year noted that ``the Senate's consent to ratification of the CWC would help open Russian storage sites to international scrutiny, allowing inspectors to inventory and secure these weapons. If the Senate ratifies the treaty, which will ban the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, pressure will increase for Russia to do the same.'' Third, a failure to ratify would put U.S. interests at a distinct disadvantage. If the CWC enters into force without us, then U.S. chemical manufacturers will immediately find themselves under economic sanctions. They will immediately have to obtain end-user certificates for the sale of certain chemicals abroad, and after 3 years they will not be able to export them at all. Indeed, a letter signed by the CEO's of 53 of the largest chemical firms in the country warns as follows: Our industry's status as the world's preferred supplier of chemical products may be jeopardized if the U.S. 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. So the consequences of not approving the treaty will be very considerable both on U.S. industry and for our overall national interests. Unfortunately, this appears to be a situation in which partisan political considerations have played an important role. On this point, I ask that three editorials, from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Baltimore Sun, be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Some of the arguments that have been made against this treaty are very difficult to follow. On the one hand, opponents have argued that it does not allow anytime, anywhere inspections, and thus that some violations might go undetected. But it was the Bush administration that decided, as a matter of protecting U.S. national interests, that we did not want to have anytime, anywhere inspections because that would jeopardize our trade secrets and national security, and possibly violate constitutional rights. So it was the United States, under a Republican administration, that decided not to include unrestricted inspections. On the other hand, opponents contend that the treaty is too intrusive and allows international investigators too much latitude in inspecting U.S. facilities. I find this argument surprising when the chemical manufacturers themselves are strongly supporting this treaty. In the letter that I cited earlier, the CEO's state: Our industry participated in negotiating the agreement and in U.S. and international implementation efforts. The treaty contains substantial protections for confidential business information (CBI). We know, because industry helped to draft the CBI provisions. Chemical companies also helped test the draft CWC reporting system, and we tested the on-site inspection procedures that will help verify compliance with the treaty. In short, our industry has thoroughly examined and tested this Convention. We have concluded that the benefits of the CWC far outweigh the costs. How can it be argued that the inspections regime is too rigorous, and at the very same time that it is not rigorous enough? Both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration, after thorough review, have concluded that the balance obtained in this treaty is fair and reasonable. As former President Bush wrote in a letter to Senators Pell and Lugar in July 1994: The United States worked hard to ensure that the Convention could be effectively verified. At the same time, we sought the means to protect both United States security interests and commercial capabilities. I am convinced that the Convention we signed served both objectives, effectively banning chemical weapons without creating an unnecessary burden on legitimate activities. Mr. President, this is a Convention that was negotiated and signed by Republican administrations and has received broad bipartisan support. We have heard testimony from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the importance of this treaty to U.S. national interests. Gen. John Shalikashvili testified that ``from a military perspective, the Chemical Weapons Convention is clearly in our national interest.'' Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, along with Attorney General Janet Reno, wrote in a recent op-ed for the Washington Post: The case for ratification is compelling on both military and law enforcement grounds. . . . Destroying existing chemical weapons and preventing potential enemies from obtaining them will unmistakably strengthen America's defense, which is why both Presidents Reagan and Bush, together with America's military leaders, have strongly supported the conclusion of such a treaty. . . .By moving forward on the Chemical Weapons Convention, the United States also will greatly improve its law enforcement capabilities for investigating and prosecuting those who plan chemical- weapons attacks. . . . To increase the battlefield safety of our troops and fight terror here and around the globe, the Senate should ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention now. I think it is unfortunate that the treaty has been deferred until next year. Here we had an opportunity to move forward on an agreement that clearly would promote American interests, increase American security, and preserve American leadership. I regret that was not done, and I urge that it be taken up promptly in the next Congress. The articles follow: [From the Washington Post, Sept. 15, 1996] Treaty Turnabout For the better part of a decade Sen. Robert Dole was a part of the legion of Republicans, including Ronald Reagan, George Bush, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell and Richard Lugar, who supported writing a treaty to outlaw poison gas. Last week, on the eve of a Senate vote on ratification, Mr. Dole indicated that he had changed his mind and joined the opposition to the treaty of his former Senate colleagues Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Jon Kyl and others. It is hard to believe the political campaign had nothing to do with the candidate's flip-flop, although Mr. Dole does cite reasons. He suggests he had reservations about the treaty's coverage--the rogue states that are its prime target will surely reject it--and about its enforceability, which under the best of circumstances will not be foolproof. Others who are not running for office have also cited these views, but we think there are strong arguments against them. The treaty does not immediately reach the rogues, but it does create a legal and political framework in which they can be better isolated and pursued. The implicit opposition alternative of a treaty with full coverage simply does not exist. Again, enforcement will not be total under this treaty, but here is a case where the best is the enemy of the good. Enforcement will be better than it is without a treaty, and practice can make it better still. Mr. Dole cites the situation of American chemical companies which, he believes, would suffer under unacceptably intrusive inspection obligations. But the companies themselves have greeted the treaty as a welcome and bearable liberation of their exports from the onus of contributing to rogue chemical stocks. The former majority leader seems unaware that the ``unilateral chemical disarmament'' that he now opposes was begun by President Reagan. The American military does not want a weapon that is irrelevant to deterrence and more dangerous to handle than any conceivable battlefield benefit warrants. The treaty has been pulled, not killed. In other political circumstances, it can be sent back up to the Senate. But meanwhile, the ratifications of other states will bring it into effect. As a result, the American government will be frozen out of the treaty's initial application--this can only warm the poison gas crowd--and the American chemical industry will risk a cutoff of tens of billions of dollars in exports. We don't believe that's in the United States' national interest or Mr. Dole's, for that matter.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Congress has today enacted H.R. 3005, the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives passed legislation intended to promote efficiency in the regulation of mutual funds, better allocation of responsibility between Federal and State securities regulators, and elimination of outdated provisions. While the two bills had much in common, they also differed in certain respects. I commend Senator D'Amato for his leadership of the Conference Committee, which has successfully bridged the differences between the two bills. Credit also goes to Senator Gramm, Senator Dodd, Senator Bennett, and the House Conferees. The final product is a reasonable bill that deserves support. This bill has two major themes: first, improvement of mutual fund regulation, and second, reallocation of responsibility between Federal and State securities regulators. It is appropriate to review the regulation of mutual funds, given the tremendous growth in this segment of the financial services industry. Mutual fund assets now equal insured bank deposits in size. The legislation contains a number of provisions supported by the SEC that are intended to allow mutual funds to operate more flexibly. These provisions include allowing the SEC to require mutual funds to provide shareholders with more current information and to maintain additional records that will be available to the SEC. Given the importance that mutual funds now have as an investment vehicle for millions of American households, it is crucial that information be available for mutual fund shareholders, and these provisions address that need. Both the Senate and House bills contained provisions creating a new exemption for funds open solely to sophisticated investors know as qualified purchasers. In the conference report, the House and Senate reached a compromise on the definition of qualified purchaser. With respect to the role of the States in securities regulation, let me say that State securities regulators play a crucial role in policing our markets. Still, dual regulation need not mean duplicative regulation. The State regulators themselves have convened a task force to recommend how securities regulation can be made more efficient and effective by dividing authority between the Federal and State level. This conference report retains the provision of the Senate bill, that the SEC may preempt State laws only with respect to securities traded on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ, or other exchanges with substantially similar listing standards. The provision in the House bill would have preempted State law for securities not traded on an exchange. The conference report does contain preemption provisions from the House bill that were not present in the Senate bill, addressing secondary trading and regulation of brokerage firms. The House and Senate compromised on the investment adviser provisions of the Senate bill. These would have removed investment advisory firms with $25 million or more under management from State regulation. The conference report provides that investment adviser representatives of such firms will continue to be licensed by the States in which they have places of business. The bill does not prohibit a State from requiring that investment adviser representatives doing business in that State designate a place of business in the State, such as an address for service of process, for purposes of maintaining State licensing authority over such individuals. This is a moderate bill, and appropriately so, for the Federal and State laws governing our securities markets and the participants in those markets are not in need of wholesale changes. All the evidence suggests that the U.S. securities markets are functioning well. Companies continue to raise capital in the U.S. markets in record amounts. In addition to established businesses, new companies have been raising capital in record amounts. Individual investor confidence in the securities markets, measured by direct investment in securities and investment through mutual funds and pension plans, remains high. The U.S. securities markets retain their preeminent position in the world. As passed by the conference, this bill strikes a reasonable balance. It should improve efficiency in the regulation of our securities markets without unduly limiting the authority of the State regulators, thereby exposing investors to sharp practices. The bill received support from Democratic and Republican House and Senate conferees, and was passed by the House unanimously 2 days ago. I am pleased that the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, were able to reach consensus on this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the many accomplishments of an exceptional institution of higher education in my own State of Maryland. This year Montgomery College celebrates its 50th anniversary of providing quality higher and continuing education to the men and women of Montgomery County and the entire State of Maryland. Since it began educating the men and women of Maryland 50 years ago, Montgomery College has experienced remarkable growth. From its modest beginnings with 186 students in borrowed classrooms at a local high school, Montgomery College's enrollment has increased to over 22,000 students who study at three campuses across the county in Germantown, Rockville, and Takoma Park. Over the years, half a million students have benefited from a Montgomery College education, preparing themselves for enrollment in a 4 year college and for direct entry into an increasingly high-technology workplace. The rapid pace of technological development and the increasing complexity of our economy has created a new set of challenges for our Nation's institutions of higher education. Montgomery College has proven to be a national leader in responding to these challenges, developing a new state-of-the-art high technology and science center to be dedicated on October 10, 1996. This innovative project--a joint effort of State and local government--encompasses advanced technologies to further the educational opportunities for Maryland students and improve the economic competitiveness of our State. Mr. President, it is my view that offering students the opportunity for a true education and helping them to develop their potential for success in our sophisticated and complex society are among the most important challenges facing our Nation. Montgomery College has risen to meet these challenges and is to be commended for its ambitious views of the future as well as its open-door admission policy, which makes that future accessible to all the citizens of Montgomery County and of Maryland. Fifty years ago, Montgomery College was viewed as a ``great experiment in higher education.'' It is clear from the accomplishments of the past half century that this experiment has been eminently successful in providing lifelong learning and enhanced opportunities for thousands of Marylanders.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. What is the ruling of the Chair?

Mr. SARBANES. On what basis does the Chair make that ruling?

Mr. SARBANES. Is the Chair ruling that the request for a quorum is not in order?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution to designate October 13, 1996 as National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Day. At a time when we bemoan our Nation's lack of heroes, I contend that we can find them in every firehall across the country. The fire service, career and volunteers alike, confront grave dangers day in and day out in protecting lives and property against the devastation of fire. More than 100 firefighters die in the line of duty during the average year, making firefighting one of the world's most dangerous professions. As a cochairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, it has always been one of my top priorities to ensure that our men and women in the fire service receive the recognition they deserve. While the National Fallen Fighters Memorial Service on the campus of the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, MD provides a deeply moving tribute and strong support for the friends and families of the fallen each year, I contend that as a nation we can always do more to recognize the sacrifice and commitment demonstrated by the fire service. It is for that purpose that I have introduced this legislation. This resolution requests that the President issue a proclamation calling on the Nation as a whole to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities along with all those gathered at the National Fallen Fire Fighters Memorial in Emmitsburg. This Presidential Proclamation would also urge all Federal agencies, entities of each branch of the Federal Government, and interested organizations, groups, and individuals to fly the flag of the United States at half-staff on October 13, 1996, in honor of the individuals who have died as a result of their service as firefighters. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Mr. President, this is the second extension of a treaty that has already been approved by this body on two separate occasions: in 1980 on a vote of 90 to 1, and in 1988 on a vote of 97 to 0. The purpose of this treaty is to stabilize the supply and price levels of natural rubber in the world market. Through a buffer-stock mechanism, the treaty assures that natural rubber will be available to the United States in sufficient supply and at reasonable prices. Mr. President, securing a reliable supply of natural rubber at fair prices is essential for our tire and rubber industry. As a letter from treaty supporters put it, ``you cannot manufacture such products for our varied civilian and military transportation needs--or provide jobs in this vital industry--without natural rubber. Contrary to a common misconception, there is no substitute for this critical industrial input. If future supplies of natural rubber are inadequate, there can be no question that job disruptions and losses would result.'' This treaty is extremely important because 75 percent of the world's natural rubber supply is produced in just three countries--Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia--and the United States is, by far, the world's largest importer of natural rubber. Since natural rubber is a commodity whose production is strictly limited by climate, without this treaty, the United States could be subject to great market volatility. On the one hand, one possible problem could be the formation of cartels that could push the price of rubber way up, almost beyond reach; on the other hand, at the other extreme is a danger that rubber production could become unprofitable, and there would be a disruption in supply. This treaty charts the way between these two extremes. The INRA addresses these issues not by eliminating market pricing and production, but by restraining some of the volatility. INRA's buffer- stock mechanism goes into action only when prices move beyond 15 percent above or below the reference price. That reference price is adjusted annually to reflect long-term market trends. Under the Reagan administration, the U.S. Trade Representative distinguished the rubber agreement from other commodity agreements by stating the following: Experience shows that most arrangements with economic measures have not worked and often result in market disruptions by attempting to support prices at unrealistic levels. In contrast, however, the rubber agreement has been successful in moderating price fluctuations through a market- oriented mechanism that operates consistent with market trends. My colleague from Ohio put out a very important figure in terms of the impact of rapid price fluctuations. Every 1-cent increase in the price of natural rubber is estimated to cost the U.S. tire and rubber industry $22 million on an annualized basis. This agreement is strongly supported not only by U.S. tire and rubber manufacturers, but also by organized labor--the people who work in the tire and rubber manufacturing industry. It has been supported by four successive administrations: Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. We have the benefit of 16 years of experience with this treaty to know that it can and does work. Mr. President, it would be a great mistake if we did not take advantage of this opportunity to give our advice and consent to ratification of the International Natural Rubber Agreement. I urge my colleagues to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, a new chapter commences in the life of the Greek Orthodox Church of America this Saturday with the enthronement in New York of new Archbishop Spyridon at the Holy Trinity Cathedral in New York City. Archbishop Spyridon, the first American- born hierarch to hold this position, assumes this important responsibility at a time when the Orthodox Church in America faces great challenges and opportunities. All Americans of Greek Orthodox faith have great hope that this new spiritual leader will continue the Greek Orthodox Church's positive role in the religious life of our country. In pursuing this mission, the new Archbishop will build on a firm foundation established by his predecessors--Archbishop Iakovos, who did so much to advance Orthodoxy in the Americas, Archbishop Michael, and the late Patriarch Athenagoras, who led the church during its early and difficult period in America. Archbishop Spyridon was born in Warren, OH, the son of Clara and the late Dr. Constantine Papageorge, and spent most of his youth in Tarpon Springs, FL where, as a teenager, he divided his summers between Florida and the Island of Rhodes, the home of his father. The Archbishop graduated high school in Tarpon Springs and then enrolled in the Theological School of Halki near Istanbul, Turkey, where he was graduated with honors. He pursued graduate studies in Switzerland and Germany and is fluent in English, French, Greek, German, and Italian. He eventually was assigned to the permanent delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the World Council of Churches in Geneva, Switzerland, and later served as Secretary of the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate located in Chambesy, Switzerland. In 1976 he was assigned to duties as Dean of the Greek Orthodox community of St. Andrew's in Rome and later assumed added responsibilities as Orthodox Executive Secretary of the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. He was elected a Bishop on November 5, 1985; and in 1991 he became the first person ever elevated to Metropolitan of Venice, Italy. The new Archbishop's responsibility includes serving as the direct representative in the United States of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, the spiritual center of world Orthodox Christianity. His personal and ecclesiastical experience combine a rich grounding in Orthodox spirituality, a meaningful involvement in interfaith- ecumenical activities, and an understanding of the American tradition of religious freedom and separation of church and state. I join with Orthodox throughout our country and all Americans of good faith who wish His Eminence a long life, a productive ministry, and the strength and wisdom to meet the many challenges which await him.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I was pleased to be able to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Mikulski to provide the State of Maryland with the flexibility and additional resources needed to clean up environmental problems associated with acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines. Specifically, my amendment would allow the State of Maryland to set aside the greater of $1 million or 10 percent of the funds received under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 for use in undertaking acid mine drainage abatement and treatment projects. There are over 450 miles of rivers and streams in Maryland which are contaminated by acid mine drainage. Much of the north branch of the Potomac River, from its headwaters near Kempton, MD, to the Jennings Randolph Lake is biologically dead. The Kempton mine alone contributes 3 million gallons of acid mine drainage to the Potomac each day and estimates to clean up this problem run as high as $80 million. Section 402 (g)(6)(B) of SMCRA authorizes States to set aside up to 10 percent of their annual title IV abandoned mine land reclamation allocation into a special interest-bearing account for addressing adverse environmental effects caused by abandoned mine drainage. For a minimum program State like Maryland, which receives only $1.5 million in AML funds a year, 10 percent is clearly insufficient to address our State's acid mine drainage problems. My amendment will not authorize or appropriate any new money to be expended for acid mine drainage. It will provide greater flexibility for Maryland to use its existing AML funds for acid mine drainage abatement as well as health and safety problems and help address the most serious environmental problem facing the western region of my State.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, Southern Maryland is rich in history--a history that has helped make our State and our Nation great. Southern Maryland is also the fastest growing part of the State of Maryland with thousands of jobs coming into the area as a result of the favorable recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. On September 8 in Charles County, the region pauses from the hustle and bustle in the area to mark a milestone in Southern Maryland's history with the 100th anniversary celebration of the Charles County Courthouse in the Town of LaPlata. The Maryland Independent on September 4 included a supplement to its newspaper on the history of the Charles County Courthouse and its initiation through construction and subsequent additions. Mr. President, I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Maryland Independent, Sept. 4, 1996] One Hundred Years of Courthouse History The 1896 courthouse is the last of four structures the county judicial and administrative bodies have occupied in the county's 338 years. In 1674, a building was erected at Moore's Lodge about one mile from La Plata. This building was abandoned in 1728, and the Charles County Court moved to Port Tobacco where the Maryland State Assembly authorized the building of a jail and a new courthouse. Over time, the 1727-30 building became old and inadequate and a new courthouse was occupied by September 1821. It is this building that was destroyed by fire in 1892 in the midst of a bitter controversy over moving the courthouse to La Plata, and in 1896 a brick Victorian Gothic edifice was built on the present site. The front facade was renovated in 1954 as it is seen today. In the middle 1970s, the rear of the building was extended in a typical 18th-century style, completely enclosing the 1896 structure. the first courthouse Charles County, named for Lord Baltimore's son and heir apparent, Charles Calvert, was formally established in 1658. The court sat for the first time on May 25, 1658, and it is believed its first meetings were held at what is now Port Tobacco; however, there is no indication in the earliest records that this was the case. The first two volumes of the court records covering the period 1658-66 mention the exact meeting place only twice: ``At A Counties Court Held at Humpherie Atwikses the 4th of June A 1658,'' and ``The Court is Adiourned until the 12th of March A 1660 & appoynted to bee held at Clement Theobals hows.'' According to the plaque in the 1954 addition to the present courthouse, the first Charles County Courthouse was built in 1658 and it is described as ``One room built of logs, located on the western shore of Port Tobacco Creek.'' Courthouse at Moore's Lodge It was not until 1674 that a permanent location for a courthouse and prison was decided on. In the late fall of 1674, the county entered into a contract with John Allen to purchase Moore's Lodge, a one-acre tract of land on which Allen was then building a house. For a consideration of 20,000 pounds of tobacco, Allen contracted to have both the prison, a simple building, and the courthouse, which was of the cross style, ready for use by May 1675. The clapboard-sheathed, timber-framed structure built in 1674 was located a mile south of La Plata and eventually abandoned in 1728. The courthouse, a one-story, one-room building with two small shed rooms at the rear, a two-story porch tower centered on the front and a brick outside chimney at one end, was initially intended for use as a dwelling. Apparently Allen found himself unable to fulfill his agreement for at the January term, 1677, Thomas Hussey was given 20,000 pounds of tobacco for finishing the courthouse and the two rooms in the shed behind, ``all of this to be done by September court following.'' In 1682, after eight years of service, the courthouse was lengthened by 10 feet to provide for a ``seat of Judicature.'' In September 1692, it was noted that the 1682 addition ``wherein ye seat of judicature is, is very leaky.'' In 1699, 25 years after its initial construction, the courthouse had to be almost entirely rebuilt. Work included extensive repairs to the supporting frame and replacement of the original chimney, exterior sheathing, floors, stairs, doors and windows. The rear shed rooms were removed and a 20- foot square room ``with an Outside Chimney & Closett'' was erected in their place Despite this extensive renovation, the courthouse required further substantial repairs by 1715. About 10 years after the repairs, the building was again ``impaired, ruined and decayed.'' After deciding they had spent more than enough money and effort to keep the building standing, the commissioners petitioned the Assembly to build a new courthouse and prison on a site adjacent to the port settlement known as Chandler Town, then Charles Town and later as Port Tobacco. In 1731, the courthouse at Moore's Lodge was demolished and sold for salvage. Courthouse at Chandler Town--Charles Town--Port Tobacco In 1727, permission was granted to build a new courthouse . . . ``That the Justices of Charles County-court...are hereby authorized . . . to go to such Place commonly known by the name of Chandler-Town, on the East Side of Port-Tobacco Creek . . .'' Once the site had been chosen and the courthouse was under construction, the Assembly passed another act permitting the laying out of land and erecting a town adjacent to the new courthouse and the name was to be changed from Chandler Town to Charles Town. There perhaps has been a settlement at Chandler Town as early as 1686, but by 1727 the buildings were in ruin or gone and titles uncertain. A commission was chosen to select three acres within the town to be surveyed for the new courthouse and to fix a fair price. The survey was completed on Dec. 20, 1727, and the price was 2,000 pounds of tobacco. The commission then contracted with Robert Hanson and Joshua Doyne to build a courthouse and prison, stocks and pillory for 122,000 pounds of tobacco. Since the specifications for the building were lost, there is no information available on the structure other than it was probably brick because of the cost. The date it was completed is confirmed by a note in the court proceedings of Aug. 11, 1730: ``The Court adjourns til tomorrow morning Eight o'clock to meet at the new Court house in Charles Town.'' second courthouse at charles town--port tobacco The 1727-30 building became old and inadequate, and the effort to replace it began with the demand for a new jail. In 1811, an act was passed to permit the Levy Court of Charles County to raise $2,000 for this purpose. Four years later, the commissioners, who had been appointed to build the jail, were authorized to levy an additional $3,000 in the same manner and to devote the entire sum to the building of a new courthouse at Charles Town, and nothing more is mentioned about the jail. The courthouse could not be finished for the amount estimated, and the General Assembly had to be petitioned for a revision upward. in 1818, the Assembly authorized the levying of an additional sum not to exceed $15,000. The new courthouse was occupied by the county in September 1821 and is generally associated with Port Tobacco, since it is the only one of which there is any type of pictorial representation. It was often confused as the first courthouse of the county. Also about this time, public sentiment succeeded in having the name Charles Town changed officially to Port Tobacco. This courthouse continued in service until the fire of Aug. 3, 1892, when it was completely destroyed. The circumstances surrounding the fire are curious. The town of La Plata, three miles north of Port Tobacco, began around 1873. Soon thereafter, the Popes Creek Railroad established a line of communication (railroad and telegraph station) between the village and the rest of the state. As a result it grew, and Port Tobacco declined. Sentiment grew to remove the county seat to La Plata, and a bill was passed in the General Assembly in 1882 for this purpose. The move was defeated by referendum and no further action was attempted until 1890 when a similar bill was introduced. The bill was passed, but was vetoed by the governor. At the next session, a bill was introduced and approved by the governor which provided for a special referendum to be held May 7, 1892, to decide the issue between the two towns. The proposal was defeated by a vote of 995-1,329. During the night of Aug. 3 the courthouse burned. The cause of the fire was undetermined, but fortunately all the records had been carefully removed before the fire. No one was ever prosecuted and no one ever admitted to knowledge of the deed. Whatever the cause, the fire did settle the issue for Port Tobacco. Feelings ran high that it was impractical to rebuild the courthouse at Port Tobacco since it had long since lost its entrance to the sea because of silting and had been bypassed by the railroad. When the question was brought before the General Assembly in 1894, the rivals for the county seat were La Plata and Chapel Point. Subsequently, a special election was held, and at midnight on June 4, 1895, La Plata became the county seat. Provision was also made for a $20,000 bond issue for a new courthouse and jail. first courthouse at la plata The same law empowered the building commissioners to sell the old courthouse and jail lots and to apply the proceeds to the cost of the new buildings. This was done, and Port Tobacco rapidly declined. It was taken in hand again 50 years later by the Society for the Restoration of Port Tobacco with little left but the memory of the public buildings. The courthouse in La Plata was built of red brick in a rather imposing, but unattractive Victorian style. The architect of the building, completed in 1896; was Joseph C. Johnson, and the contractor was James Haislip. They worked under the supervision of a building committee including Dr. James J. Smoot, William Wolfe, J. Hubert Roberts, John H. Mitchell, John W. Waring, Adrian Posey and George W. Gray. The general style of architecture was Romanesque and was finished in pressed brick with slate roofing. It was 90 feet long, 52 feet wide and 30 feet high with a 70-foot tower in the front. There were five offices on the first floor. The county commissioners shared a large office with the school superintendent. The clerk of court's office included a vault for court records and a working area. The county treasurer and register of wills occupied offices on each, side of the main entrance. The state's attorney and sheriff shared a small office in the rear of the building. Each office was equipped with a cuspidor to accommodate the tobacco-chewing occupants and visitors. A large rope hung from the belfry to the second floor landing which was used to ring the courthouse bell. The bell was tolled each day at 10 a.m. by the clerk of the court or a bailiff to announce the beginning of a session. The second floor included a court room in the center to accommodate 250 persons, with a law library to the rear and rooms for the grand and petit juries. There were two restrooms in the basement adjacent to the furnace room. There were four fireplaces in the courthouse, and, though not used, existed until the 1954 addition. The first meeting of the county commissioners in their new quarters in the courthouse was on Jan. 5, 1897, and the first-ever term of the circuit court in the new courthouse began in February 1897. The jail built in the courtyard behind the courthouse was two stories high and made of stone, brick and cement. There were rooms on the first floor for the jailor and cells on the second floor for the prisoners. Its cost was $2,500 and considered fireproof. Criminals condemned to death were hanged from a gallows just outside its walls. Additions to the courthouse at La Plata The first addition to the 1896 courthouse was in 1949. It consisted of two restrooms and an office for the clerk of the court on the first floor. The second floor of this addition provided for an addition to the law library and an office and restroom for the country's newly appointed judge, J. Dudley Digges, who at age 37 was the youngest circuit judge in the state. The addition was made to the rear of the courthouse, and the contractor was Cleveland Herbert of Hughesville. The courthouse changed little inwardly and not at all outwardly until 1954. In 1953, the Greek Revival facade of the building was added as the south addition to the original. The architect was Frederick Tilp (who also designed the county seal), and the contractor was Kahn Engineering Co. of Washington, D.C. Dedicated on Oct. 2, 1954, the renovations had been sponsored by county commissioners William Boone, Bernard Perry and Calvin Compton. The building committee was chaired by Judge John Dudley Digges, with DeSales Mudd, Patrick Mudd, Calvin Compton and J. Hampton Elder as members. The cost was around $300,000. The commissioners to whom the building was turned over were John Sullivan, W. Edward Berry and Lemuel W. Wilmer. The 1954 addition created much needed space for all courthouse occupants. The new front provided offices for the county commissioners in the east wing. The register of wills, trial magistrate and sheriff occupied the west wing. The county treasurer and assessor took over the west wing of the old building along with the state's attorney. The clerk of court's office was extended to include the entire east wing of the old building. The east wing of the second floor of the new front was occupied by the superintendent of schools and the entire staff of the board of education. In addition to the planned office space, rooms were added by means of temporary partitions to make space for probation, county roads superintendent and town commission officials. The new library occupied a wing of the courthouse. Two of the old, high desks used in the last Port Tobacco courthouse were saved, like the records, from the fire. One is in the trial magistrate's office and the other is in the office of the supervisor of assessments. The former jail, occupied for a time by the library and county agent's office, housed the Children's Aid Society and possibly the surveyor's office. In later years, the former local jail became home to the county's parks and recreation department, Economic Development Commission and currently houses a division of the sheriff's office. The first fence around the courthouse yard was a wooden board fence which was replaced by a black pipe fence until 1954 when a brick serpertine wall was erected duplicating the one Thomas Jefferson designed for the University of Virginia at Charlottesville. In 1974, the center section and north addition was completed in Georgian design and added an additional 35,000 square feet to the building. Baltimore architects Wrenn, Lewis and Jencks designed the addition. Renovation was directed by county commissioners James C. Simpson, Michael J. Sprague and Eleanor Carrico. The building committee was chaired by Judge James C. Mitchell with Judge George Bowling, J. Douglas Lowe, John McWilliams, Thomas F. Mudd, and Gertrude Wright assisting. The construction, begun in 1973, was by the Davis Corp. of La Plata, with the cost at $2,038,238. In 1965, plans for the addition were halted when the voters failed to give the county bonding authority to finance the project. During the renovation, court was conducted in the social hall of Christ Church, and the treasurer's office was in the basement of Sacred Heart Catholic Church. In 1988, county government offices moved from the courthouse to the former Milton Somers Middle School building. Now the courthouse includes the circuit and district courts, and offices of the state's attorney, clerk of the circuit court and register of wills.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in closing, I ask my colleagues to join me and the citizens of southern Maryland in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Charles County Courthouse. Steeped in the rich history of southern Maryland, this structure serves as a bridge from the past to the emerging hi-tech area that southern Maryland is rapidly becoming.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield me 1 more minute?

Mr. SARBANES. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have talked about their very deep concerns about various aspects of this legislation, including the estimates that go as high as 1 million more children being thrown into poverty, the very harsh cut in food stamps that is contained in this legislation, the limitation on the time period for receiving food stamps, which will hit workers who have been laid off and their families very hard in the years to come, the extreme cuts in benefits for disabled children and the treatment of legal--not illegal, but legal, and I stress that--legal immigrants coming into the country. These are people who, under our laws, are legitimately in the country, and yet, if they encounter personal disaster financially, we are not going to provide any help to them. All of these factors constitute a valid basis for voting against this bill. I am not going to go back over those issues. They have been discussed at some length by others. There is another matter I wish to discuss, another dimension to this legislation which I think is another strong reason to oppose this legislation which I intend to do. And that dimension is the situation we will confront in times of economic downturn and recession. All of the discussion here is about the limitations and constraints that are being placed upon existing programs in the context of current economic circumstances. Current economic circumstances are a 5.3-percent unemployment rate across the country. But we must consider the question of what is going to happen when we have a downturn in the business cycle. People are discussing this legislation almost as though the business cycle has been repealed and is not going to happen again. This legislation provides block grants to the States. The size of those grants does not vary with such factors as unemployment or the poverty rate, and, therefore, in recessions, States will face rising caseloads and corresponding large gaps in funding for assistance programs. The bill has a contingency fund of $2 billion, but it is completely inadequate--completely inadequate--it fails to address this issue. Let me just give you an example. In our Nation's most recent recession during the Bush administration in the period from 1989 to 1992, the Federal share of welfare spending increased 36 percent--an additional amount of $7.2 billion over the four years--that is, almost four times the contingency fund. There was a 35-percent increase in the number of children in poverty over those years. This was a period when the unemployment rate rose from 5.3 percent to a high of 7.7 percent. What are the States going to do under this legislation when a recession hits and more and more people slip into poverty, people lose their jobs, they are out of work? Under the current system, the Federal Government assures to the States additional money for each of the additional persons who are placed into dire circumstances by a worsening economy. Under this bill, no such support. This bill essentially gives the State a block grant based on 1994 figures, and that's it. Much of the discussion has been about the difficulty of handling the situation under current economic circumstances and the problems are very real and severe. What happens when you get an economic downturn and the number of people showing up in the poverty category on the unemployment rolls is on the increase, rising very substantially? Are the States then going to come up with more money in order to handle this problem? Our experience to date is every time a recession strikes the States come in and say, ``We need help. We're constrained. We can't deal with this recession. Look what this recession has done to our sources of revenue. Our sources of revenue are down. We can't handle the situation.'' That is what they say today when the Federal assistance is automatically adjusted. What are they going to say next year or the year after and the year after that when a recession comes along, when people are added to the unemployment rolls, out of a job, families go into poverty? Where are the resources then going to come from? Under the current system, the Federal Government, since President Roosevelt, assumed an obligation to provide help to the States to help them work through this situation. Now the Federal Government automatically steps in when a recession hits. That will not be the case in the future under this legislation. It is true there is a contingency fund. But as I said, it is totally inadequate for any recession of any consequence, let alone a very deep recession as we experienced under President Reagan in the early 1980's, or just the recession we experienced in the early 1990's during the Bush administration when the unemployment rate went from 5.3 to 7.7 percent. That was its peak, 7.7 percent, contrasted with the Reagan recession where it went just shy of 11 percent unemployment. In the Bush recession in the 1990's, the fact of the matter is that there was about a 40-percent increase in the Federal expenditure on welfare during that recession period. This bill fails to address the consequences of such an economic downturn.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this bill does not do that. The Federal Government is out of it in terms of assuring the States that the full burden of recession will not fall upon them. In the last recession, when the unemployment rate went close to 8 percent, millions of Americans lost their jobs and had a difficult time finding new jobs. What is going to happen in the next recession? Does anyone realistically believe that the States will step in and pick up the burden? Even now with additional Federal assistance the States come in during a recession and say, ``We can't handle our situation because our revenues have been impacted by the recession.'' What is going to happen is you will have literally millions of people affected by the economic downturn and without any support. No additional Federal assistance as now, because of the block grant provision. We will pay dearly for failing to provide a fail-safe mechanism against an economic downturn. The consequences will be such that we will rue this day.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased that the managers of the bill have agreed to accept the amendment which I offered on behalf of myself and Senator Mikulski to continue three important research programs at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. My amendment restores $458,700 to the Regulation of Chilling Injury By Polyamines and Membranes in Apple, Tomato, Squash, and Pepper Program; $240,000 to the production and evaluation of tissue cultured fruit crops; and nondestructive sonic sensing of firmness and/or condition of apples and other agricultural commodities. These programs are critical to growers, to maintaining a nutritious and safe food supply for our consumers, to Beltsville's mission and to the Department's overall research objectives. I want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for their support and help with this amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 640, the Water Resources Development Act of 1995, and the committee amendment, which provide for the development and improvement of our Nation's water resources infrastructure. This legislation authorizes water resource projects of vital importance to our Nation's and our States' economy and maritime industry as well as our environment. I am particularly pleased that the measure includes a number of provisions for which I have fought to ensure the future health of the Port of Baltimore and of the Chesapeake Bay. First, the bill authorizes the Poplar Island beneficial use of dredged material project. This project would take clean dredged materials from the shipping channels leading to the Port of Baltimore and use it to stabilize the shoreline, create habitat, and restore wetlands of one of the Chesapeake Bay's most valuable island ecosystems. Providing adequate and environmentally compatible dredged material disposal capacity for the millions of cubic years of materials which must be dredged from Baltimore's shipping channels, harbors, and anchorages are perhaps the biggest challenge facing our State. This is a creative solution that will not only help alleviate Maryland's shortage of dredge disposal capacity, but provide substantial environmental benefits for the Chesapeake Bay, creating new habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife and reducing the sediment and nutrient problems of the bay. The Poplar Island project would be the first large scale project to beneficially use dredged material and would serve as a national model demonstrating that clean dredged material can be a resource rather than a waste. It has been a top priority of mine, of the State of Maryland, and of the Chesapeake Bay community for many years and I am delighted that this legislation will enable us to move forward with this important project. Second, the legislation directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite its study of the Tolchester Channel S-turn and, if feasible and necessary for safe and efficient navigation, to straighten the channel as part of project maintenance. The Tolchester Channel, a Chesapeake and Delaware Canal approach channel, is a vital link in the Baltimore Port system. The channel has a significant S-turn which requires ships to change course 5 times within 3 miles. With vessels nearly 1,000 feet in length, it is difficult to safely navigate the channel, particularly in poor weather conditions. The Maryland Pilots Association has indicated that two groundings and a greater number of near misses have occurred in the area. This legislation provides a mechanism for the Corps of Engineers to expedite safety-related improvements to the channel. Third, the bill authorizes navigation and safety improvements to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and approach channels. The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is a strategic and cost-effective shortcut from the Port of Baltimore to the North Atlantic, saving up to 12 hours of sailing time for many of the world's largest vessels. Nearly one half of all breakbulk and container tonnage moving through the Port of Baltimore utilizes the canal. Unfortunately current dimensions of the canal and connecting channels present serious constraints for modern container ships--many of which exceed 900 feet in length--seeking to use this shortcut. In January, after an extensive 6-year study, the Philadelphia District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, completed a draft feasibility report and environmental impact statement which recommends deepening the existing channel from 35 feet to 40 feet. The project also includes enlarging the Reedy Point flare, bend widening at Sandy Point, and construction of an emergency anchorage at Howell Point. Subject to a final favorable feasibility report, expected in September of this year, the corps would be able to undertake these improvements and make transit of the canal safer and more efficient, while allowing larger ships to access the port. The Port of Baltimore is one of the great ports of the world and one of Maryland's most important economic assets. The port generates $2 billion in annual economic activity, provides for an estimated 87,000 jobs, and over $500 million a year in State and local tax revenues and customs receipts. These three projects will help assure the continued vitality of the Port of Baltimore into the 21st century. In addition to port development and improvement projects, the measure contains three amendments which will help significantly to enhance Maryland's and the Chesapeake Bay region's environment. It incorporates provisions of S. 934, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program, legislation I introduced together with Senators Warner, Robb, and Mikulski to expand the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist in the environmental restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. The bill authorizes a $10 million pilot program for the corps to design and construct water- related projects in the Chesapeake Bay including projects for sediment and erosion control, wetland creation, fish passage barrier removal, wastewater treatment and related facilities, and other related projects. As the lead Federal agency in water resource management, the corps has a vital role to play in the restoration of the bay and these provisions would greatly enhance the ability of the corps to actively participate in this important endeavor. It also authorizes $18.8 million in funding for environmental restoration of the Anacostia River. The Anacostia River is one of the most degraded rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and in the Nation. In July 1994 the Army Corps of Engineers completed a feasibility study which recommended 13 restoration actions, include 2 wetland restoration projects, 6 stormwater management/wetland projects, and 5 stream restoration projects. In total, these actions will restore 80 acres of wetlands, 5 miles of stream and 33 acres of bottom land habitat within the Anacostia basin. This legislation would enable the Corps of Engineers to undertake these projects and help restore the river and regain what has been lost through years of neglect. Finally, the legislation authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to $600,000 to the State of Maryland for use by the State in constructing an access road to Jennings Randolph Lake. The fiscal 1994 energy and water appropriations bill contained a provision directing the corps to pave the access road on the Maryland side of the Jennings Randolph Lake utilizing the operations and maintenance budget. The Army has indicated that due to varying standards for Federal versus State road construction and the design and planning activity already undertaken by Maryland, the total cost of the road would be significantly lower if built by the State. This provision would enable the corps to transfer to the State of Maryland the funds necessary to complete the final portion of the access road which traverses corps property. I want to compliment the distinguished chairmen of the committee and the subcommittee, Senators Chafee and Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for their leadership in crafting this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. Amendment No. 4445 (Purpose: To improve the bill)

Mr. SARBANES. I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in a colloquy regarding the funding levels authorized in the bill for the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal. At the very outset, I want to commend the chairman for his leadership in crafting this legislation which is of vital importance to our Nation's water resources infrastructure. I am particularly grateful for the committee's favorable consideration of the Poplar Island restoration project and the improvements to the Tolchester Channel and the C&D Canal made possible by this legislation. I note, however, that the project costs for the C&D Canal improvements are unfortunately inaccurate. I would stress that this happened through no fault of the committee staff. The Corps of Engineers draft feasibility study for the project released in January 1996, estimates the total cost of the project at $83,900,000 rather than the $33 million shown in the bill. Of this revised amount, $54,204,000 is Federal and $29,696,000 is non-Federal responsibility. I ask the chairman whether it would be possible to have these numbers corrected in the conference committee.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join in the concerns expressed by Chairman Helms and by the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, about section 1005 of this bill. This section would have the effect of creating a second IMET Program, a new aid program for foreign militaries. IMET, the International Military Education and Training Program, funds tuition for foreign military officers in U.S. professional military training courses, and related activities. It has traditionally been funded through the foreign aid bill. In fact, the foreign operations appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for IMET in fiscal year 1997. It is one of the only programs in the entire foreign aid budget that is slated to get more money in fiscal year 1997 than in fiscal year 1996 or 1995. When the Military-to-Military Contacts Program was established in the Defense Department, the justification was used that this would not-- would not--be another IMET Program. It was to be something entirely separate. It was not going to duplicate IMET activities. For that reason it was spelled out exactly what the new Military-to- Military Contact Program was going to be. In the law, there are listed eight specific activities, such as exchanges of personnel, transportation for contact and liaison teams, seminars and conferences, and distribution of publications, all distinct from the IMET activities. To further ensure that the new Military-to-Military Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program, several conditions were added to ensure coordination and prevent overlap. Because of concerns about the potential for duplication in the two programs, the fiscal year 1995 foreign operations appropriations bill required a report from the Secretary of Defense addressing the future of military training of foreign armed forces. In that report, which was issued with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Defense Department concluded: The IMET Program and the traditional CINC military-to- military activities are distinct efforts contributing to the achievement of common goals. From the beginning, both programs have commanded close coordination between the Defense and State Departments. Coordination between both departments ensures program uniqueness and the effective utilization of scarce resources in support of broad U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. Unfortunately, what the bill now before us would do is eliminate all distinctions between the two programs. It would create, in effect, a second IMET Program under different jurisdiction and separate funding. The Military-to-Military Contacts Program is expected to receive funding of $60 million in each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, out of the Services' operations and maintenance accounts. That is on top of the $40 million already going to IMET. I wish to stress, as have my colleagues, that this authority was not requested by the Defense Department. It is not something they believe is needed. Furthermore, it is opposed by the State Department as well as by the committees of jurisdiction over foreign aid funding. I very much regret that section 1005 has not been stricken from the bill. I make the observation that it plants the seeds for continuing controversy, which I think is something that is highly undesirable. I very strongly urge that it be dropped in conference. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield me the remainder of his time?

Mr. SARBANES. I also want to underscore the long-term commitment made by the majority of USUHS graduates to our armed services. Although USUHS graduates are required to serve 7 years of active duty beyond the time they devote to internships and residencies, the average time they serve is actually 18.5 years. Of the 2,304 USUHS graduates-to-date, more than 94 percent are still serving in the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, or the Public Health Service. Even more incredible is the fact that, even those who have completed their required obligation and could leave for private practice, 85 percent continue to serve our Nation. Mr. President, the continued operation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences remains critical to our ability to provide a continuous, experienced cadre of military physicians to meet our Nation's special needs of military medicine and medical readiness in the future. I appreciate my colleagues' continued support and commitment in this very important matter. Exhibit 1 American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, June 18, 1996. Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sarbanes: The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to request that the Senate oppose Senator Feingold's anticipated amendment to the FY 1997 Department of Defense Authorization bill (S. 1745) which would phase out the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). We urge you to join with your colleagues in the House of Representatives who, on May 15, voted overwhelmingly (343-82) not to close the USUHS. Our Nation's only military medical school is a national asset which contributes greatly to our military preparedness as a cost effective source of physicians for the Uniformed Services. Military physicians require special training to equip them in handling peace and war time situations that are not taught in traditional medical schools. For example, during recent military deployments in Bosnia, Somalia and the Gulf, the effects of modern weapons, the stress of continuous operations, as well as the noise, toxins and other battlefield hazards were adroitly handled by USUHS-trained physicians. The knowledge imparted to these highly-equipped physicians is vastly different from that taught in a civilian medical practice. Many are unaware that the USUHS not only educates its own graduates, it also provides special continuing medical education courses for other physicians. Such education includes courses in combat casualty care, tropical medicine, combat stress, disaster medicine, and medical responses to terrorism--courses not available through civilian medical schools. A 1995 GAO study concluded that the USUHS is cost effective to the federal government by producing medical graduates who consistently meet the special needs of military medicine. This same study acknowledged another telling advantage of USUHS-trained physicians: 43 out of 44 commanders of major military medical units perceived that physicians from the USUHS have a greater overall understanding of the military, greater commitment to the military, better preparation for operational assignments, and better preparation for leadership roles. The AMA believes that the USUHS's mission and goals are consistent with our national interests and should be allowed to continue. It exemplifies the best in the federal government, and should be identified for recognition and support rather than closure. We thank you for your consideration of the truly notable contributions that USUHS makes to our military and ultimately to our Nation. Sincerely, P. John Seward, MD.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for provisions in this legislation which ensure that our Nation's only military medical school, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences [USUHS] will continue its important military medicine training programs into the 21st century. Since it was established in 1972, USUHS has played a vital role in providing top-quality medical care to the men and women of our armed services. The institution has consistently produced first-rate career medical officers who excel in meeting the needs of military medicine and military readiness. USUHS provides a unique curriculum that contributes greatly to our military preparedness by providing knowledge that is vastly different from that taught in a civilian medical practice. This training includes such areas as trauma, mass casualties, combat surgery, medical logistics, nuclear medicine, tropical infectious diseases, and medical responses to terrorism. Over the years, the university's graduates have consistently demonstrated a high level of performance during their various deployments in combat areas and in support missions from Desert Storm to Bosnia and Somalia. This performance based upon their extensive military training has been validated by three Surgeons General, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the American Medical Association and the Military Coalition, the Retired Officers Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services and the American Legion, among others. I ask that letters from these organizations attesting to the critical importance of the university be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.