Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Sarbanes pertaining to the introduction of S. 934, S. 935, S. 936, S. 937, and S. 938 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing, along with a number of my colleagues, a package of five bills directed to continuing and enhancing the efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Joining me in sponsoring elements of this package are my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, and my two distinguished Virginia colleagues, Senators Warner and Robb. Mr. President, the Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and the key to the ecological and economic health of the mid-Atlantic region. The bay, in fact, is one of the world's great natural resources. We tend to take it for granted, since it is right here at hand, so to speak, and I know many Members of this body have enjoyed the Chesapeake Bay. The bay provides thousands of jobs for the people in this region. It is a world-class fishery that produces a significant portion of the country's fin fish and shellfish catch. It is a major commercial waterway and shipping center for the region and for much of the eastern United States. And it is an unparalleled recreational center for almost 10 million people. The Chesapeake Bay also provides vital habitat for living resources. Over 2,700 plant and animal species live in the bay. It provides a major resting area for migratory birds and waterfowl along the Atlantic flyway, including many endangered and threatened species. I could go on and on about this dimension of the bay, but most people are aware of it. Certainly, our Nation's scientists are aware of it and have consistently regarded the protection and the enhancement of the quality of the Chesapeake Bay as an extremely important national objective. It is a treasured asset for those of us in Maryland--in fact, for all those who live around the bay in the other States, our neighboring State of Virginia, and the States to the north of us. Much of the water that comes into the bay comes from the Susquehanna River which originates in New York State. The Chesapeake Bay is a defining element in Maryland history and a key to the quality of Maryland life throughout our history. When the bay began to experience serious unprecedented declines in water quality and living resources in recent decades, the people in my State suffered as well. We lost thousands of jobs in the fishing industry. We lost 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 a destruction of wildlife and its habitat. Now, 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. We ban toxic chemicals that were killing the wildlife, we have initiated programs to reduce nonpoint source pollution, and we have taken aggressive steps to restore depleted fisheries. 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. They have made significant commitments in terms of resources. It is an important priority item on the agendas of the bay States. Successive administrations--Governors have been strongly committed, State legislatures, the public. There are a number of private organizations-- the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, for example--which do extraordinarily good work in this area. But there has been an involvement of the Federal Government as well in helping to bring about the recent successes. It has been an essential and critical involvement. Without the Federal Clean Water Act, the Federal ban on DDT, and EPA's watershed-wide coordination of Chesapeake 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 the water quality of the bay and is succeeding in bringing back many of the fish and wildlife species that were on their way to simply being a memory. So there has been an important role that has been played by the National Government in serving as a catalyst to bring together the State and local effort and the private sector effort. An extraordinary partnership has been built that is much greater than the sum of its parts. There is a dynamic element that has resulted, as a consequence, that has enabled us to gain a significant momentum in raising the quality of the Chesapeake Bay to the benefit of everyone. The Chesapeake Bay is getting cleaner, but we cannot afford to be complacent. There are tremendous stresses imposed upon the bay. This is a fast-growing area of the country, with increased population. The commercial stresses intensify. So we need to address the continuing needs of the bay restoration effort. The hard work, investment, and commitment, at all levels, which has brought gains over the last two decades, must not be allowed to relax. The measures I am introducing today are 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. The proposed legislation reauthorizes the bay program and expands the responsibilities of the Federal agencies with a stake in the future of the bay so as to address continuing trouble spots in the watershed. Difficulties identified by the Chesapeake Bay community include loss of wetlands and forests, soil erosion, toxics, nuisance species, and shellfish disease. Let me just outline briefly how these various measures seek to accomplish this. First among this package of five bills is legislation that carries forward and enhances the role of the Environmental Protection Agency as the lead Federal agency committed to cleaning up the bay. It establishes a mechanism for interagency coordination and cooperation in the Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. The proposal also calls on EPA to initiate new programs to conduct watershed-wide research, programs to restore essential habitat, and programs to reduce toxics in the watershed. Another bill in this package directs the Coast Guard to develop guidelines for ships entering U.S. waters, to limit the opportunity for the introduction of potentially harmful nonindigenous species through ballast water releases. In other words, the bay is a ship artery. It is a commercial waterway. The Port of Baltimore is one of our Nation's leading ports. Ships coming into the Chesapeake Bay often release ballast water. The concern is that in the course of doing so they will release into the bay species that are nonindigenous to the bay. In other words, species that had been taken on elsewhere in the world and then would be released into the bay to its detriment. In fact, this legislation builds on the program undertaken in the Great Lakes where nonindigenous species, such as the zebra mussel, are already causing millions of dollars in damage. We want to avoid such a situation developing in the Chesapeake Bay, and this provision giving the Coast Guard a role to play with respect to the release of ballast water is important in that regard. Third, the package of legislation continues NOAA's role as the Federal agency responsible for providing key marine research in the Chesapeake Bay. It directs NOAA to continue to undertake research on and to develop solutions for the diseases that have ravaged oyster fisheries throughout the United States and, in particular, in the Chesapeake Bay. We have been very hard hit by these diseases that have virtually decimated the oyster industry. NOAA is the agency to carry forward this key marine research. Fourth, the package of legislation calls on the Army Corps of Engineers to provide assistance to State and local governments in the design and construction of water-related infrastructure, and to assist in developing resource protection projects. Let me just give an example of the projects I am talking about. The beneficial use of dredge material which offers a win-win situation. We have to dredge the bay channels for shipping purposes. There is a problem with the disposal of the spoil from that dredging. We now realize that if we move it to eroding islands, we can rebuild the islands. In other words, you have a disposal site so that you dispose of it in a way that is beneficial to the environment by renewing habitat. We also are interested in the corps addressing sediment and erosion control questions, the protection of eroding shoreline, and the protection of essential public works such as waste water treatment and water supply facilities. The final piece of legislation in this package directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture, acting through the Natural Resources Conservation Service and through the Forest Service, to encourage the planting of streamside forests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and in other conservation priority areas. In other words, we encourage the planting of forest buffers, which then help to limit the pollution of water resources by reducing the entry of nonpoint pollutants into streams, and by stabilizing stream banks. It is a very important and worthwhile program. By planting these buffer zones of trees we are able to stabilize the stream bank, and also filter out pollutants which otherwise would go into the bodies of water. Mr. President, it is the hope of the cosponsors that most of these measures will ultimately be incorporated into larger pieces of legislation that are due to be reauthorized or considered this year. However, if such legislation is not considered or should become stalled in the legislative process--the larger legislation covers a whole range of issues--it is our intention to try to move forward with this legislation separately. The Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort has been a major bipartisan undertaking in this body. It has consistently, over the years, been strongly supported by virtually all Members of the Senate. I strongly urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this legislation and contributing to the improvement and the enhancement of one of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills and a section-by-section analysis of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of our colleagues the Greek Folk Festival sponsored by St. Nicholas' Greek Orthodox Church this upcoming weekend. While this celebration is obviously enjoyed by parishioners of St. Nicholas, the entire community also relishes this wonderful festival. St. Nicholas is led by Father Manuel J. Burdusi, a man whom many applaud as a pastor who has developed a strong community within St. Nicholas, including a dynamic youth fellowship. I would also like to bring to the attention of my colleagues that this festival contributes greatly to the preservation and enhancement of the historic culture of the Greek-American community. The Greek Folk Festival includes educational and cultural activities, live music and dancing, authentic Greek food and pastries, and most importantly, wholesome family entertainment. I would like to highlight an excellent article in today's Evening Sun newspaper by Jacques Kelly, highlighting the magnificent people that make this festival a superb event that is acclaimed year after year. Mr. President, I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Baltimore Evening Sun, June 8, 1995] Priest helps Highlandtown keep the faith (By Jacques Kelly) It seems that everybody in this part of East Baltimore knows ``the priest.'' He is the Rev. Manual J. Burdusi, the 33-year-old pastor of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox church, the spiritual home of many Highlandtown families. Father Manual, as he is called, is the former altar boy who came back to his home parish wearing a cleric's black robes. He grew, up on Bonsal Street near Francis Scott Key Medical Center. His church is in the 500 block of S. Ponca St. He is one of the pivotal personalities here. Part of the reason so many East Baltimore Greeks know Father Manual is that they watched him grow up. As a 10-year-old, he assisted at the Divine Liturgy. Then he joined the choir. After his studies at Hellenic College and the Holy Cross School of Theology in Brookline, Mass., he returned to Baltimore. He was ordained in 1989 and named the church's pastor four years ago. ``I have always felt comfortable on the path that led me to the priesthood. It felt like home'' Father Manuel said. He also kept things in the family by marrying a woman named Malama (Molly), who also sang in the choir. They have a son named Nicholas, the saint's name commemorated in the church. One of the hardest things is to bury a person you've known so well in this neighborhood,'' he said one day this week. The loss of a family member in this close-knit community is strictly observed. Many widows wear black after a husband dies. Families have memorial prayer services in the church 40 days after a death. This is often repeated six months later, then after a year, and on the third anniversary. At funerals, the custom is to have the deceased in an open casket. Close family members kiss the corpse on the cheek. Others may kiss the hand or forehead or a religious icon. ``The formal process of mourning is therapeutic. It helps with dealing with grief. It forces the family back into the life of the church,'' Father Manuel said. The life of the church is often the life of this neighborhood. Witness the tremendous activity for this weekend's Greek Folk Festival sponsored by the church. From tomorrow through Sunday, Ponca Street will explode with people, music, food and dancing. It has become one of the city's most popular summer events. Family ties, church and tradition all mix within this tight community. Blocks of rowhouses branch off Eastern Avenue in this part of Highlandtown known to some as The Hill, to others Greek Town. Many immigrants from the Greek islands settled here in the 1960s and 1970s. With them came their own grocery stores, bakeries, places to sip strong coffee and talk, and restaurants. Father Manuel's family, for example, came from an island that was controlled by Italy for some years. His surname, Burdusi, reflects this. His parish has its origins in a little school established here in the late 1940s. It was torn down and the present church built in 1956. Today, it has 1,200 families on its mailing list. Of these, some 700 are active. ``At times it is so busy, it feels like more,'' the pastor said. ``When it gets very rushed I have to ask my wife, ``Did we pay the bills this month?'' Father Manuel wears a beeper and is on call at all times. ``I don't want anybody to say they couldn't get a call into a priest,'' he said. It is not uncommon for his parishioners to walk to Sunday services. Some 575 of his families reside in the 21224 Zip Code. Another 120 live in Rosedale and 100 more in Dundalk. The parish has a large and vigorous youth organization that its pastor feels is the cornerstone of the community. Throughout the festival, Father Manuel will be giving church tours--4 p.m. and 7 p.m. on Friday, 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday--during which he will explain the rich collection of Christian art here. Just this past Easter, the church unveiled a vibrant mural of Mary, the mother of Jesus, the Christ child and saints Basil, Gregory, Nicholas and John Chrysostom. Father Manuel also answers questions about the elaborate religious ceremonies here. When recently asked, for example, how much incense is used on a typical Sunday, the priest thought for a moment and quietly replied, ``Ten tablespoons.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator D'Amato in cosponsoring the Credit Union Reform and Enhancement Act. Earlier this year Capital Corporate Federal Credit Union of Lanham, MD failed, the largest credit union failure in U.S. history. Cap Corp, as it was known, had invested nearly 70 percent of its $1.5 billion in assets in a form of derivative instrument called fixed-rate collateralized mortgage obligations, CMO's. These highly interest rate sensitive instruments experienced significant losses in value as interest rates rose in 1994. The losses became so severe that the National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] took over Cap Corp's operation by placing it into conservatorship on January 31, and ultimately placed it into liquidation. On April 13, NCUA announced that the remaining assets, liabilities, and field of membership of Cap Corp had Union of Harrisburg, PA. Before its acquisition, Cap Corp had experienced investment losses of $61 million, all of which were absorbed by Cap Corp's capital. As a result, the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund itself did not incur losses as a result of Cap Corp's failure. The failure of Cap Corp raised serious questions about the adequacy of the regulation of corporate credit unions. A corporate credit union is a specialized form of credit union which accepts deposits only from other credit unions rather than individuals. There are currently 44 corporate credit unions. Corporate credit unions were created in the 1970's principally to serve as a source of liquidity for their member credit unions during periods when deposits were low. Over the years, however, they also evolved into sources of investment and payment services for their member credit unions. Concern about the corporate credit union system had led the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, Norman D'Amours, to appoint early last year a corporate credit union study committee made up of five independent financial experts to conduct a thorough review of the regulation of corporate credit unions. That report, which was released on July 26, 1994, provided a careful and critical evaluation of the investment behavior and risk-taking of the corporate credit union system. Among the findings of the report were: Corporate credit unions are assuming more risk in their investment practices and in their portfolios than in the past. Corporate credit unions are becoming more complex and will continue to become increasingly complex in the future. Primary capital levels in the corporate credit unions are, on average, inadequate given the investment activities of corporate credit unions. Credit analysis procedures in the corporate credit unions have not kept pace with the increased volume of funds flowing into the system. Corporate credit unions use derivative instruments to hedge interest rate risk and create synthetic securities for other corporates and natural person credit unions. The General Accounting Office [GAO] in an extensive 1991 report on the credit union industry, had raised particular concerns about the status of corporate credit unions. The 1991 report stated: Changes are needed to augment NCUA's currently incomplete regulatory and supervisory authority over all corporates and provide for more carefully defined asset and liability powers and higher capital requirements. Prompted by the failure of Cap Corp, the Senate Banking Committee held hearings on February 28 and March 8 on the regulation of corporate credit unions. In testimony presented to the committee, both NCUA Chairman D'Amours and Comptroller General Charles Bowsher confirmed the findings of the reports on corporate credit unions previously sponsored by their agencies. Chairman D'Amours announced at the hearings that NCUA was in the process of developing a new set of regulations that would raise capital requirements, tighten investment authority, and raise management standards for corporate credit unions. The stated objective was to return corporate credit unions to their original mission of serving as liquidity centers and safe havens for their members' funds. NCUA had previously established a new Office of Corporate Credit Unions, hired additional corporate examiner staff, and expanded training for corporate examiners. NCUA issued the new regulations on April 13 and they were published in the Federal Register on April 26. The 60-day comment period ends on June 26 and NCUA hopes to issue the final regulations by the end of July. Although the new regulations address many of the problems relating to corporate credit unions identified by NCUA and GAO, there are a small number of matters that require legislative action. The bill introduced by Senator D'Amato and myself would make those changes, some of which would apply to natural person credit unions as well as corporate credit unions. Both NCUA and GAO have endorsed the bill. First, the bill would permit federally insured credit unions to make deposits only in other federally insured credit unions. The effect of this provision would be to require the five corporate credit unions which currently are not federally insured to obtain Federal insurance. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that deposits of federally insured credit unions are not put at risk by placing them in non- federally insured credit unions. This change was recommended by the GAO's 1991 report on credit unions. Second, the bill would prohibit a State-chartered, federally insured credit union from exercising asset powers of a type or in an amount not permissible for a federally chartered credit union unless the NCUA determines that the exercise of the asset power would pose no significant risk to the credit union insurance fund. The bill provides that if a State chartered, federally insured credit union was utilizing an asset power pursuant to State law prior to May 1, 1995, it may continue utilizing that power. This authority is comparable to the authority the FDIC has to constrain the asset powers of State chartered, federally insured thrifts and banks. In fact, it is less restrictive than the constraint placed on State chartered banks and thrifts, which imposes a flat prohibition on State chartered banks and thrifts. This provision would be prospective in purpose, to prevent future problems from developing in credit unions. The GAO recommended this change in its 1991 report on the credit union industry. Third, the bill would authorize NCUA to serve as liquidating agent or conservator of State chartered, federally insured credit unions after prior consultation with the appropriate State credit union supervisory authority. Under current law, the NCUA has the authority to place a State chartered, federally insured credit union into conservatorship, but must obtain written approval from the State supervisor. If State approval is not obtained in 30 days, NCUA may proceed to place the credit union into conservatorship only by unanimous vote of the NCUA board. Conservatorship means NCUA takes over the management of the credit union. NCUA currently has no authority to liquidate a State chartered, federally insured credit union. This provision of the bill would give the NCUA conservatorship and liquidation authority comparable to the authority the FDIC has over State and federally chartered banks and thrifts. The FDIC has only an obligation to consult with the State supervisor before placing a State chartered bank or thrift into conservatorship or liquidation. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that NCUA can act in an expeditious manner if a federally insured, State chartered credit union gets into difficulty. Delay in acting decisively in such cases can result in larger losses to the deposit insurance fund. The bill would also make two other changes of a technical nature to the Federal Credit Union Act. It makes explicit NCUA's authority to provide limits on loans and investments by a corporate credit union to a single obligor, and to provide minimum capital standards for corporate credit unions. The bill would provide NCUA such statutory authority. In addition, the bill would amend the Federal Credit Union Act to replace the term ``central credit union'' with the term ``corporate credit union.'' The purpose of this change is to avoid any confusion between the 44 corporate credit unions and the single U.S. Central Credit Union. Mr. President, I believe this is a carefully crafted piece of legislation that will bring greater safety and soundness to our credit union system, and I am therefore pleased to be an original cosponsor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues celebrations that are underway to commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the Town of Willards, Maryland. Willards, a town with a total population of 900 persons, was founded on the basis of a quarrel. Ebenezer G. Davis was the first inhabitant and store proprietor of what is known today as Willards after moving to the area after a dispute with his brother. Mr. Davis made a vow to Willard Thompson, a railroad General Manager, that he would name the town after him if Mr. Thompson would build a railroad depot in the town. That first railroad depot is now the local Post Office for the Town of Willards. Officially named in October of 1895, The Town of Willards' boundary was comprised of a half-mile radius circle, encompassing at the center the popular corner of Hearn and Canal Streets. While Willards was first incorporated in 1906, and again in 1927, the first elected government would not be legislated until 1971. By the 1970's many businesses had been located in the town including the Shirt Factory, erected in 1905, and the Farmers Bank that would follow in 1945. Civic organizations such as the Volunteer Fire Department, established in 1927, and the 1948 creation of the local Lions Club, would all lend their support to community development. Willards is a model of community spirit and cooperation. The activities being sponsored to commemorate this auspicious occasion exemplify the deep devotion of Willards residents to their community. The spirit and enthusiasm of Willards citizens have proven to be the foundation of its success. These anniversary celebrations provide the opportunity to review the dedication that has supported Willards throughout its history and helped it to develop into one of Wicomico County's most treasured communities. We in Maryland are fortunate to have an area as community-oriented as Willards. I join the citizens of Wicomico County in sharing their pride in Willards' past and optimism for continued success in the years to come.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep regret that the amendment offered by Senators Roth and Lieberman seeking to protect one of the last pristine wilderness areas of this Nation, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR], was defeated. In 1980, the 96th Congress approved the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act. This important law, which set aside over a million acres of Federal land for national parks, wildlife refuges, and other conservation areas, prohibited oil and gas development in 1.5 million acres of ANWR's coastal plain, leaving the fate of this land in the hands of future Congresses. Since 1980, the Congress has vigorously and consistently expressed its opposition to oil and gas leasing in the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge. This area on the coastal plain of ANWR, often referred to as the ``American Serengeti,'' is home to about 165 different species of animals. It is the calving ground for the Porcupine Caribou herd, the denning area for the Beaufort Sea polar bear population, and the nesting habitat for a variety of waterfowl and shorebirds, including snow geese, tundra swans and black brant. There is little doubt that extensive development of this sensitive wilderness area would have a negative impact on the vast wildlife resources located there. A 1987 report prepared by the Department of the Interior and submitted to the Congress stated that oil development in ANWR would result in long-term changes in the wilderness environment, wildlife habitat, and Native subsistence hunting opportunities. In my view, it is critical that we as a nation do not allow the destruction of one of our last remaining unprotected ecosystems. The Republican budget proposal recommends that the Federal Government lease 8 percent of ANWR for oil and gas development. While this backdoor assault on the Arctic Refuge claims to affect only a small portion of the wilderness area, oil development activity will affect the entire coastal plain. In addition, the expectations for oil and gas finds are excessive. The 1987 Interior Department report found there to be only a one in five chance of finding an economically viable oil field on the coastal plain. Wilderness areas constitute only 2 percent of all land in the United States. If we fail to protect the integrity of the Arctic Refuge now, its wealth of natural beauty and treasures will be lost to future generations. This is too precious a resource to squander. amendment no. 1166

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the budget resolution we are debating today assumes that Federal grants for sewage treatment construction and safe drinking water infrastructure would be phased out over the next 3 years. If approved, this proposal would end the Federal Government's 20-year commitment to assist cities and towns in cleaning up our Nation's waters. My amendment would restore these funds--funds which are absolutely vital to State and local Government's efforts to meet water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. Since 1972--when we passed into law the Clean Water Act--Congress has provided grants to States to help local governments meet water quality standards. These Federal dollars are used to capitalize what are known as State revolving funds or loan programs. Under these revolving funds, States provide low-interest construction loans to cities and towns to construct and improve wastewater treatment facilities. These grants have been a centerpiece in our efforts to reduce point source water pollution--the pollution that comes from sewer pipes and industrial wastewater pipes. They have also been instrumental in once again making many of the rivers, lakes, and estuaries in this country fishable and swimmable. In my home State of Maryland, these moneys, together with millions of dollars in State funds, have been a key to efforts to improve water quality and restore living resources in the Chesapeake Bay--the largest estuary in the United States and Maryland's most valuable resource. We still have a long way to go, however, before the water quality of the bay is sufficient to sustain viable populations of many fish, shellfish, and bird species. Maryland has been counting on its State revolving fund as one of its primary mechanisms for reaching the water quality goals that it and the other Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories made for the bay. In Maryland, the State revolving fund is used to upgrade treatment facilities, correct failing septic systems, retrofit urban areas with stormwater management facilities, and restore degraded stream systems impacted from stormwater runoff from developed and agricultural areas. All of these improvements have a direct impact on the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its living resources. This budget resolution eliminates grants to State revolving funds. it phases them out over the next 3 years, leaving State and local governments on their own to come up with the funds for adequate wastewater infrastructure and setting back our efforts to clean up the approximately 40 percent of the Nation's water bodies that are still impaired. Even the rewrite of the Clean Water Act that passed the House last week--which in my judgment would gut some of the most important clean water programs provided for in current law--continues funding for sewage treatment State revolving funds through the year 2000. The burden this budget proposal places on State and local governments is staggering. EPA estimates that over $137 billion are still needed to achieve waste treatment objectives nationwide. The State of Maryland estimates that its water infrastructure needs over the next 5 years are nearly 10 times the proposed funding level in the budget resolution. This proposed cut would also adversely impact the labor market, eliminating approximately 100,000 construction related jobs over 5 years, and an additional 200,000 jobs over the next 20 years. It would also jeopardize U.S. commitments to the environmental provisions of bilateral agreements that call for investment in water infrastructure in the United States-Mexico border area. Mr. President, water pollution is an interstate problem that demands a Federal response. Water from six States flows into the Chesapeake Bay. Even if Maryland had the resources to complete construction of all needed wastewater infrastructure, the Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts will only be successful if similar investments are made in the five other States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Without Federal assistance, however, it is unlikely that the upstream States will make a substantial investment in the water quality of the bay. The Congress understood the interstate dynamic of pollution in 1972 when a bipartisan majority passed the Clean Water Act and began funding waste treatment infrastructure. We seem to have forgotten this lesson. This budget resolution also phases out on the same schedule all Federal funding for grants to assist local governments in improving drinking water quality. Municipalities need significant resources to comply with drinking water standards to prevent the serious adverse health effects that can and do occur from drinking water contamination. In 1993--just 2 years ago--100 people died and over 400,000 fell ill from a bacteria outbreak in the public water supply in Milwaukee, WI. The Congress appropriated money last year for the very first time to prevent problems like this from happening in the future. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that we appropriated these funds to save the lives of Americans; to prevent illness and disease. This is not pork. This is not a make-work public work project. It is an investment in the health of Americans and in a clean environment. Mr. President, balancing the budget should not, and need not, come at the expense of human health or a clean environment. The amendment I offer today is deficit neutral and will restore water infrastructure grants, including money for the clean water, and drinking water State revolving loan funds for the next 7 years at 1995 levels. I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment to continue this country's investment in clean water and safe drinking water. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Maryland Department of the Environment be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, celebrations to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the establishment of the city of Laurel, MD, are being held throughout this year. The mayor of Laurel, Frank Casula, along with the entire community, have planned several significant events to commemorate this milestone. First known as the ``Commissioners of Laurel,'' the citizens of Laurel established their home as recognized by the laws of Maryland in 1870. Yet, even before then, the people of Prince Georges County were living off the land now known as Laurel. The first grist mill that was erected in Laurel would be the outset of community development; many industries, storefronts, offices and homes would eventually appear along that particular stretch along the Patuxent River. Creating what is now known as Laurel's Main Street, the mill built by Nicolas Snowden in 1811, had laid the foundation for a thriving community. By 1888, Laurel was the largest town in Prince Georges County and had become the focal point along the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad between Baltimore and Washington, DC. In 1879, the Laurel Leader, one of the oldest newspapers in the State of Maryland, was founded. The Leader continues to serve not only Laurel and Prince Georges County, but also the bordering counties of Howard, Montgomery, and Anne Arundel. Laurel was also a pioneering community in education. The first public high school in Prince Georges County is located in Laurel. Laurel Elementary School was also the first public school in the county to have a cafeteria to serve its students. Laurel is a model of community spirit and cooperation. The activities being sponsored to commemorate this auspicious occasion exemplify the deep devotion of Laurel's residents to their community. The spirit and enthusiasm of Laurel's citizens have been the foundation of its success. These celebrations provide the opportunity to renew the dedication that has supported Laurel throughout its history and helped it to develop from a railroad stop to one of Prince Georges County's most attractive communities. We in Maryland are fortunate to have an area as community-oriented as Laurel. I join the citizens of Prince Georges County in sharing their pride in Laurel's past and optimism for continued success in the years to come.

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I will be very brief. That this resolution is more sensitive toward the Federal employees than the House-passed resolution is correct. I think we have done better than the House. I offered the amendment on the retirement provision because I feel strongly we ought not to change the rules on people who have given long service and planned this retirement. But the overall package in the Senate resolution is better than what the House has done, and I am hopeful that we can do even better in the conference. But I offered this particular proposal because I am very concerned about people having the retirement rules changed on them along the way in their working career.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the amendment which I will be sending to the desk at the proper time on behalf of myself, Senator Mikulski, Senator Warner, Senator Robb, and Senator Bingaman goes directly at a provision that is in the budget resolution which is going to change the calculation of retirement benefits for Federal employees from the employee's highest 3-year average to the highest 5-year average. This I think is a breach of the contract with the Federal employees. I think it is clearly unfair to them. The amendment honoring our contract with Federal employees is paid for by closing the billionaires' tax loophole that allows very wealthy people to escape paying taxes by renouncing their American citizenship. Mr. President, I regret that Federal employees are constantly being used as whipping boys in the course of these budget deliberations. Behind the phrase Federal worker are individual men and women who every day go in and try to do a dedicated job and render a service to the American people. They perform critical and important functions each and every day with a great deal of dedication and a great deal of devotion, and in my judgment they are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Federal employees have already in the various deficit reduction programs made very significant sacrifices. We are talking about men and women who have worked hard in service to their country. They have earned their benefits, and the rules ought not to be changed on them as they are approaching retirement. The existing provision, the 3-year provision, has been in effect for more than a quarter of a century. People have calculated their retirement and their ability to meet their financial obligations based on the current system, and we ought not to come along at the very end and change the rules on them, by shifting the basis on which their retirement is being calculated. The truth is that Federal workers give dedicated service to their country and have earned their benefits. They made a choice to serve their country with an understanding of what that service entailed and what they could expect in return. To change the rules breaches the contract with these employees. This is an issue of fairness and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important amendment. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SARBANES. That that amendment be up near the top, the front of the list, since we have had the debate recently.

Mr. SARBANES. Not for debate. We have had debate on some amendments. I have an amendment that we had a debate on. I was here to sort of send it to the desk and get a vote on it. We have had debate on that amendment which just recently occurred.

Mr. SARBANES. The question was there are some amendments that have been debated, and some amendments that have not been debated. The ones that have not been debated, I take it the managers will make a statement about them. I was wondering whether the ones that have been debated by the sponsors of them could be called up.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to put a question to the two leaders. Some of the amendments have been debated. Will they be called up first, the ones on which there has been debate?

Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to express my strong opposition to the Budget Committee's proposal to eliminate Federal mass transit operating subsidies. The report that accompanies the Senate Budget Resolution calls for eliminating mass transit operating subsidies. Simply stated, these cuts will have significant consequences for our Nation's communities by leading to increased fares, reductions in services, and losses in ridership. As a result, working people will find it more difficult and costly to get to their jobs, roadways will become more congested, and environmental quality will decline. Public transportation is a critical element of our economy. In 1990, 8.8 billion American took transit trips; 7.5 million people ride public transportation every weekday. Of these trips 54.4 percent are trips to work. An additional 20 percent of the trips taken by transit riders are to get to school or to access medical services. Trips to work are especially important uses of transit systems in large urban areas; use of bus service by elderly households to get medical attention is the largest component of rides in smaller communities and rural areas. A high proportion of transit riders are low-income persons or minorities, 27.5 percent of the transit ridership has incomes below $15,000 compared to 16.9 percent in the general population. African- American and Hispanic riders as a percentage of total ridership are more than two times the percentage of African-American and Hispanic individuals in the general population. However, the importance of transit for working people is underscored by statistics showing that 55 percent of the riders have incomes between $15,000 and $50,000. For most transit systems, operating revenues are a combination of fares and federal and state money. Assuming no increases in state contributions, fares would, on average, have to increase 50 percent to make up for the loss of revenue. Cuts in operating subsidies will also have disparate impacts on smaller communities. Federal operating subsidies make up 21 percent of total operating revenues for transit systems in communities below 200,000 people compared to 13 percent on average for all transit systems. Fares would nearly have to double for these smaller systems. This assumes no cutbacks in services and no loss in ridership as a result of the fare increases. Many individuals faced either with increased fares or decreased service will either have to give up their employment or use their cars to get to work. According to an article by Neal R. Pierce in the National Journal on April 15 of this year, one study already puts the cost of traffic congestion at $100 billion a year in lost productivity. Fewer transit riders and more drivers will exacerbate this problem. More cars on the road and increased congestion will worsen air quality in metropolitan areas where environmental quality is already strained. I realize, Mr. President, that the Budget Resolution itself does not cut transit operating subsidies. Decisions with respect to the appropriate level of funding for operating subsidies are left up to the Appropriations Committee. However, I felt it was important to raise a voice in opposition to the recommendation in the Budget Committee's report at this time and to urge my colleagues to begin to focus on the many cost to our citizens that would occur if the Budget Committee's proposed cuts in transit operating subsidies were carried out.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Budget Committee's proposals with respect to the Community Block Grant [CDBG] program. The Budget Committee's report that accompanies the budget resolution recommends a 50 percent cut in the CDBG Program and calls for targeting CDBG funds to the most needy areas. I strongly oppose those. CDBG funds are a critical component of this Nation's efforts to revitalize its low- and moderate-income communities. CDBG is already well-targeted to distressed communities, and, more importantly, CDBG is well-targeted to low-income neighborhoods within those communities that receive the block grants. CDBG has been a major element of our Nation's housing and community development strategy for over 20 years. CDBG was signed into law in 1974 by then President Gerald Ford. It is surprising to me that the Republican budget-cutters have targeted this program for inordinate cuts, because CDBG is an excellent example of the policy approaches that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle espouse. CDBG is a block grant. The program distributes its funds on a formula basis to State and local governments, and provides jurisdictions with flexibility on the use of the funds within broad national objectives. CDBG embodies the principle of developing responsibility and decision- making to local governments. It allows local governments to tailor specific solutions to meet their specific community development needs. The need for these resources is vast. Too many of our Nation's communities still suffer. Vacant housing, closed plants, and empty shops are the visible manifestations of neighborhoods with persistent unemployment, broken families, and high crime rates. We know that revitalizing distressed communities requires a multi-faceted approach: successful strategies are using community-based organizations to deliver programs that simultaneously attack the physical blight while addressing the social service needs of the residents. With its built-in flexibility, CDBG allows local governments to implement comprehensive strategies that may, for example, combine the rehabilitation of the commercial strip, with the small business start-up loans, with the job training for local residents and the child care. The Budget Committee's notion of targeting CDBG should also be considered carefully. CDBG is already well-targeted. The formula for the program does a good job of distributing CDBG funds by need: 50 percent of the program funds go to the 20 percent most distressed cities based on a distress ranking created by HUD. Only 5 percent of the funds go to the least distressed cities. Moreover, program data shows that 90 percent of the CDBG funds go to benefit low- and moderate-income households consistent with the national purpose of the program. In the past, proponents of targeting have proposed three types of approaches. Some have proposed to cut off formula grant funds to smaller communities, forcing these communities to compete for funds through the state-administered program. Others have proposed to eliminate grants to wealthier communities. And, still others would tighten the criteria HUD uses to measure program benefits. CDBG currently provides a direct formula grant to more than 900 urban counties, communities with populations above 50,000 people, and consortia of smaller communities. Allowing these communities to receive annual, reliable formula grants is extremely important from the perspective of the local jurisdiction's need to plan for the use of the funds and to pursue long-term strategies. In some wealthier jurisdictions, CDBG rules often provide the impetus for community development activities in low-income neighborhoods that would not otherwise occur--especially if the communities were entirely responsible for serving their poorer neighborhoods out of own-source revenues. CDBG's fundamental national objective of serving low- and moderate-income neighborhoods argues for a continued distribution of CDBG funds to all jurisdictions with these needs. Finally, it would be ironic if, by calling for targeting, the Budget Committee were proposing to tighten the criteria that govern how communities use the funds. Tighter targeting criteria would take away local discretion and flexibility, and, therefore, run counter to the philosophy of those who promote block grants. Moreover, forcing grantees to spend more of their funds to benefit poorer neighborhoods is not a rationale for a 50-percent cut in program funds. Indeed, the resource needs of our poorest communities are so vast, that if the program objective was based on only strict targeting to very poor neighborhoods, this would make the case for increased funding. I would argue that given the limited resources, preserving the current program targeting is desirable. States, counties, and cities may find that an optimal economic development strategy would be to use small amounts of CDBG assistance to leverage private investment in areas with other existing features attractive to investors. Grantees who have been losing population, may want to focus community development activities on stabilizing mixed income neighborhoods or in pursuing strategies to lure moderate-income households into low-income neighborhoods. These are local decisions and appropriate community development strategies. I oppose the Republicans proposed cut of 50 percent in CDBG Program funds because CDBG is making a difference in thousands of American communities. A recent evaluation of the CDBG Program by the Urban Institute concludes that ``. . . the program has made an important contribution to city community development, including demonstrated successes in achieving local neighborhood stabilization and revitalization objectives. It's fair to say that in almost every city, neighborhoods would have been worse off had the program never existed, and certainly, cities would not have embarked on the housing and redevelopment programs that now comprise a core function of municipal government. Further, CDBG-funded programs clearly benefit those for whom the program was intended--low- and moderate-income persons and neighborhoods--and does so by a substantially greater degree than the minimum required under law.'' [[Page S7371]] Mr. President, CDBG has a proven track record. Our Nation's communities continue to need our support. opposition to transit cuts

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg, to restore critical funding to the Medicare Program. In order to provide a significant tax cut to the very wealthy, Senate Republicans have proposed a budget resolution which includes draconian cuts in many important programs, including a substantial cut in Medicare. In my view, drastic cuts on the spending side, in order to create room for a tax cut, are not appropriate and do not reflect the priorities of this Senator. I oppose the Senate Republican budget proposal and feel very strongly that the resolution before us directly threatens the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors citizens. Over half the people who receive Medicare are older Americans with incomes below $15,000 a year. The Republican budget with its deep Medicare cuts lay the basis for tax cuts for the very wealthy. This is the situation before us. The proposed Senate Republican budget resolution would cut Medicare by $256 billion over the next 7 years. I know it is asserted that the actual dollar amounts for Medicare will not drop, but rather will increase gradually over the next 7 years. However, if the proposed dollar increases are not proportional to increases in Medicare enrollees and increases in the costs of medical care, the end result is massive cost shifting and cuts in services for beneficiaries. Mr. President, in my view, it is essential that we recognize that Medicare is not a system unto itself. The Medicare Program is, instead, a large component of our Nation's health care system and it is illogical to assume that isolated cuts in Medicare will not adversely effect all Americans. First and foremost, these ill-conceived cuts would harm our senior citizens. The Health Care Finance Administration [HCFA] estimates that Medicare payments account for 45 percent of health care spending by our Nation's elderly. Under the GOP budget plan, out-of-pocket costs to seniors are expected to increase by an average of $900 per person per year by the year 2002. Over a 7-year period, the typical beneficiary would pay an estimated $3,200 in additional out-of-pocket costs. While this might not sound like much to some, these numbers become more significant when you factor in statistics which indicate that 60 percent of program spending was incurred on behalf of those with incomes less than twice the poverty level, and 83 percent of program spending was on behalf of those with annual incomes of less than $25,000. Clearly, when we talk about Medicare recipients, we are not talking about our Nation's wealthiest citizens. Many seniors live on fixed incomes. In fact, a large number of Medicare recipients depend on Social Security benefits for much of their income. According to HCFA, about 60 percent of the elderly rely on Social Security benefits for 50 percent or more of their income and 32 percent of the elderly rely on Social Security for 80 percent or more of their income. It is also estimated that as many as 2 million seniors can expect to see the value of their Social Security COLA's decline as increased Medicare costs consume 40 to 50 percent of Social Security COLA's by 2002. Requiring these individuals to pay more for their health care will directly undercut their standard of living. In my view, it is simply unacceptable to create a situation where more and more seniors will see their resources stretched to the degree that they will have to choose between food and health care. As a result of the proposed cuts in the Republican budget resolution, seniors may also end up paying more for the services they currently receive. The number of Medicare recipients is expected to increase over the next several decades just as the baby boomer generation reaches retirement age. The Republican budget proposal fails to account for this projected growth. Therefore, in order to make ends meet, hospitals and other health care centers will have to shift costs to other payers or cut valuable services which are supported, in part, by Medicare reimbursements. According to the American Hospital Association, costly but crucial services like trauma care units, burn units and intensive care units would have to be closed in many hospitals. Teaching hospitals, which receive a higher rate of reimbursement for Medicare patients than nonteaching hospitals, will suffer losses in revenue certain to impact the fiscal integrity of these institutions. Reductions in funding to such institutions will result in less support for services, research, and education. Such consequences impact us all and illustrate clearly the danger of arbitrarily cutting this critical program. In addition, businesses and working Americans could see increased health care costs and higher premiums as health care providers and institutions shift a larger portion of costs to the nonelderly in an attempt to cover rising medical costs and provide quality services with limited resources. Communities could also see increases in State and local taxes in order to assist financially strapped hospitals and health care providers. Mr. President, the Medicare Program does not operate in a vacuum. Cuts of the magnitude being proposed by the Republicans will impact us all. I am not suggesting that the Medicare system does not need to be reformed. What I am suggesting is that there is a right way and a wrong way to make changes in the system and how we go about doing so provides a clear picture of what kind of society we are going to be. In his 1941 message to Congress, Franklin Roosevelt articulated a second bill of rights which established a basic standard of security and prosperity for all Americans. Among these rights is ``the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.'' The proposed Republican budget resolution seriously threatens this basic standard and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Rockefeller-Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield to me for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. So there is a very important question of priorities that is at issue here, and the same is true with respect to each of the measures being taken in order to bring about this drastic reduction. It is one thing to deal with a matter in a reasonable way, it is another thing to deal with it in an extreme way. I submit that much of what is in the budget resolution is extreme, and it is particularly extreme when it is seen that the purpose of it is to create this pot of money to be committed to tax cuts which, as I said, in the House-passed bill overwhelmingly committed to the people at the upper end of the income scale. In order to achieve this, our senior citizens receiving Medicare are being subjected to incredible cuts, and our young people seeking an education are going to find that their opportunities are being frustrated and may be perhaps even denied to them. So that is an issue that is put and it is put very clearly by the resolution that is before us and by the amendments which have been proposed to the resolution. I have supported those amendments because I think they represent a better balance in terms of what our national priorities are.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, has enough not happened over the last few weeks that this abysmal practice of beating up on Federal employees ought to come to an end? ``Oh, it is just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution,'' the sponsor says. Nevertheless, it would represent a judgment of the Senate that we are going to cut the Federal work force another 11 percent over and above, I repeat, over and above the 272,000 reduction in force that has already been programmed; over and above that reduction in force. At some point I hope people will reach the conclusion that Federal employees have a reasonable role and place in the workings of our system and they ought to be treated with a measure of dignity. Why, once again, are we landing with both feet on the men and women who render dedicated service to the country? They are already taking a very heavy hit in this budget resolution. In fact, over the period of this budget resolution Federal employees will, in effect, give up $85 billion of pay adjustments that are provided for by law in terms of assuring them comparability with the private sector. Yet here some come, late at night, with this amendment. There is no study that backs these figures. They say, ``We assume the Department of Commerce is going to be done away with.'' Even the people advocating the elimination of the Department of Commerce are not advocating the elimination of all of the programs carried out by the Department of Commerce. When questioned, they in effect say, ``This program is going to go here, this program is going to go there. Yes, this activity should continue.'' So most of those activities have to go on. They are important to the economy of our country. Now we are going to say to the Federal employees: Over 11 percent of you are going to go by the board, over and above the reduction of 272,000 which has already been programmed and which is well underway. In fact, now well over 100,000 of those positions have been phased out in the course of the reduction that is taking place, and the rest are projected to accrue by the end of the century. This amendment says to people who have already been through turmoil, who have already had all of the worry and the anxiety connected with these reductions, ``Well, now there are an additional 200,000--well over 10 percent of those of you that are left--who are on your way out.'' What do you think that does for the morale of the work force? What do you think that does for the health of their families? What do you think that does to having a first-rate Federal service? We have a national interest in having a first-rate Federal service. You do not want a second-rate Federal service. But, if you continue in effect to assault people, keep them in this state of agitation and anxiety and fear and apprehension, you are well on your way to bringing about a second-rate service. People have other opportunities. Good people have other opportunities and will leave to take them. Good people will not come in because they do not want to live in this environment. This is not a rational, sensible proposal. It is not a proposal that is grounded on some thorough analysis working up from a real examination of activities. It arbitrarily imposes this upon the work force.'' We have had far too much of that. For years the Federal employees have been a favorite target. Take it out on the Federal employees. Call them ``bureaucrats'' with a sneer. Deprecate the work that they do. How long is this going to go on? Are my colleagues finally going to begin to say these are dedicated people, the vast number of them. They render important service. Many are highly trained and highly skilled. They are proud of the work they do. They give a good performance. They carry out very important and essential functions. Yet, many constantly berate them, denigrate their work, treat them not even as second-class but third-class citizens. Now they come along and make these proposals. Proposals that have not been worked out carefully. They propose to go ahead and slap the Federal employees once again, or twice again. After all, they are a favorite target, even though they are making, and have made, extraordinary sacrifices throughout this deficit reduction process. Literally tens and tens of billions of dollars for the deficit reduction process have come out of the Federal employees. Now the offeror of this amendment comes along and says, despite the downsizing of 272,000 which is now on track to be carried through by the end of the century, let us add another 200,000 to it; over an additional 10 percent of the work force. At some point enough is enough, and this ought to be the point. We ought to stop this practice of berating the Federal employees and stop now. Some say, ``Well, it is only a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.'' I simply say to them, that the message that is sent to the Federal employees, and the message sent to the public at large about the Federal employees, is every bit as strong in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution which the Senator from Delaware has introduced as it would be in a piece of binding legislation. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, it is time to stop this abysmal practice. These employees have sacrificed a lot. They ought not to be held under this sword of Damocles hanging over them, and be kept in this state of turmoil and apprehension. We ought to have some sensitivity for the situation in which they find themselves, and reject the constant assault that is made upon hard working, dedicated men and women in the Federal service. They deserve to be treated with some measure of dignity. This resolution does not do that. I hope it will be defeated. Several Senators addressed the Chair.