Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I want to speak about the end of an era for the David Taylor Research Center, and the beginning of a promising future for this facility and many of its workers. On September 25, 1999, the Navy will formally close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division's Annapolis Site, more commonly known as the David Taylor Research Center (DTRC). While the Navy marks the occasion of its departure from this successful and accomplished lab, we must not dwell solely on its past. On this occasion we should also recognize the help and cooperation of Anne Arundel County, the Navy, and relevant businesses in developing a reuse strategy that will enable the lab to continue conducting important maritime research into the 21st century. The Navy has a right to be very proud of the legacy of this lab. I want to touch on a few of its most important contributions throughout our maritime history. From its inception in 1903 by Rear Admiral George Melville, it has served a crucial role in the development of our modern Navy. First established as the US Naval Engineering Experiment Station (EES), it served to fill the need for the testing of Naval equipment and the development of Fleet standards for Naval machinery. During WWI, the EES assisted the Navy with the procurement of naval machinery, crafting guidelines for optimum fuel usage, developing metal corrosion deterrents, and pioneering the first use of sonar. Before its expansion during WWII, the lab's research on sound led to the development of the first sonic depth and range finders. In 1941, Dr. Robert Goddard established a Bureau of Aeronautics at the facility which led to the expansion of five additional Naval Laboratories on the site during WWII. The newly expanded Annapolis lab served to make many critical contributions to WWII Naval Fleet development, ranging from high capacity water stills for submarine use to improvements in Marine Corps landing craft. By 1963, the facility had evolved into one of the Navy's premiere research and development centers, and was renamed the U.S. Marine Engineering Laboratory. During the Vietnam war, the lab provided support to our forces from 1966 until the end of the war. During that time, its projects included boat quieting systems, engine cooling, bunker busting, aluminum boat corrosion abatement, and the development of ferro-cement boats. During the late 1970s, the work of the Annapolis lab was concentrated into two technical departments, Propulsion and Auxiliary Systems, and Materials Engineering. The lab's contributions to today's Navy range from cutting edge superconducting electrical machinery to patented approaches to isolating and silencing machinery on every submarine class. In addition to these and other truly remarkable accomplishments, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division's Annapolis Site has served as the technical training ground for thousands of scientists, machinists, technicians, engineers, and other related lines of employment. It is through their innovation, expertise, and hard work that this facility has been such a critical proving ground for the Navy, and I am proud to say that because of our redevelopment strides, many of these experts will continue their excellent work for the Navy and other customers in Anne Arundel County. As many of these employees will recall, I fought very hard in 1993 when the Navy recommended that this site be shut down. And I fought again in 1995 when the BRAC Commission made the final decision to close the Annapolis Center. I continue to believe that the decision was unwise, unjustified and failed to take into account the critical capabilities of the highly skilled and experienced team of scientists and engineers who have contributed so much to the Navy over the years. After the Navy's decision, many of these dedicated scientists and researchers could have walked away and gone to Philadelphia or found jobs elsewhere. However, through reuse ventures such as those of VECTOR Research these individuals have made the best of the situation and worked to convert this unique facility into a maritime R&D park. As these businesses continue to expand their marine customer base, we can envision the park as a focal point for maritime high technology into the next millennium. In fact, this month has seen a major milestone in the site reuse process. As some of you know, DTRC houses a Deep Ocean Simulation Facility which is world class in nature, and is uniquely designed and equipped to evaluate commercial and military machinery targeted for deep ocean environments. I am delighted to say that on September 15th, operation of this complex was officially transferred from the Navy to a private firm. As a result of efforts such as this one, the Navy will also continue to benefit, since a large fraction of this reservoir of essential capability might otherwise have been dispersed or lost. Anne Arundel County's decision to take this approach for reuse and its coordinated and innovative strategy in this regard, should serve as an example for the nation. With the spirit of cooperation, and innovative reutilization reflected in this effort, I have no doubt that the DTRC will continue to contribute not only to the maritime high technology sector of Anne Arundel County and the State of Maryland, but also to our nation's technological advancement into the 21st Century.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, Senator Bond, and my colleague and close friend from Maryland, the ranking member of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee, Senator Mikulski, for their good work in developing this bill under extremely difficult circumstances. All of us should recognize that due to the steadfastness of these two Senators, many important programs that had otherwise been scheduled for the cutting block, programs that had, indeed, been severely damaged by the House bill, have been largely preserved in the legislation that is before us this afternoon. My colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, working with the strong support of Senator Stevens, the chairman of the full committee, and Senator Byrd, the ranking minority member of the full committee, worked hard to prevent deep House cuts from being carried forward in their bill. So I very much appreciate the efforts by the chairman and the ranking member, for example, to preserve the affordable housing stock and to provide tenant protections in cases where owners insist in opting out of their assisted housing contracts. That is important progress, and I thank them for their hard work. There is always the ``but.'' While recognizing and applauding the work of the subcommittee, I do not want to lose sight of the continuing, pressing affordable housing needs and the efforts that we must continue to make beyond the floor consideration of this legislation today as a Congress and as a nation. Today, in the midst of the longest peacetime economic expansion in our Nation's history, we are faced with the largest number of our citizens facing ``worst case housing needs.'' Let me explain briefly what that phrase means. Families with ``worst case housing needs'' are those who pay over half their income in rent or live in severely substandard housing, housing that fails to meet basic standards of safety and decency. For families paying so much of their income for rent, homelessness is only one bout of unemployment away. For those families, an unexpected medical bill brought on by a sick child or an elderly parent, a broken down car that makes it impossible to get to work, or any modest financial disruption in life's routines that most people could absorb, any of those activities can lead to eviction. Today, there are almost 5.5 million families who live with this sword of Damocles just over their heads. Work in and of itself is not a solution. A recent study indicates that people working for the minimum wage, a full-time working family earning the minimum wage, would have to work in excess of 100 hours a week at the minimum wage in order to pay the rent for a two-bedroom apartment. In other words--and the HUD statistics support this data--the fastest growing segment of the population with worst case needs are families. So there is this big gap between what working at the minimum wage brings in and what it costs on average for a modest apartment. This underscores, in my opinion, the need to increase the stock of affordable housing. It also underscores, of course, the need to address the minimum wage as well. But this legislation before us now deals with housing. We need to increase the stock of affordable housing. The fastest way to do that is by funding additional section 8 rental vouchers. This is very much the issue I hope will be addressed in conference. Last year, we worked together to authorize 100,000 vouchers for fiscal year 2000 in the public housing bill. The budget the President submitted included the 100,000 vouchers in the proposal. In the current year, we funded 50,000 vouchers. I make this point fully understanding the constraints under which Senators Bond and Mikulski worked to bring this bill to the floor today. As I have indicated, they did a good job within those constraints. But it is the responsibility of all of us now to consider how we can move beyond those constraints so we can start to meet the needs of the millions of working families, the millions of poor families, and the elderly that desperately need housing assistance just in order to make ends meet. I very much hope we can start to address this problem in the conference. I encourage both of my colleagues to place this issue of section 8 rental vouchers high on their priority list as they go to conference. Let me add two other brief points. Last year we passed important new public housing legislation, working successfully in a bipartisan way with Senators Mack, Bond, Mikulski, and D'Amato. That new law holds real possibilities for strengthening our public housing stock by giving more flexibility to local housing authorities while at the same time providing important protections for the poor. To make this law work, however, we must provide adequate funding. We need to give the housing authorities adequate operating subsidies to run their programs effectively on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, these housing authorities are public agencies that cannot opt out of the program, as many of their private counterparts do. We must provide them the capital necessary to maintain and upgrade their units so we can begin to build the kind of economically diverse communities we know are healthier for all residents. I very much hope this issue will also be kept in mind as my colleagues go to conference. Finally, I note my concern with the provisions of the bill that eliminate the Community Builders Program entirely this coming February. In fact, many of these employees are the sole HUD workers in various State or local HUD offices. Surely, a more measured approach to addressing these concerns is possible. Eliminating these positions will result either in offices being closed or HUD being forced to shuffle employees around in ways that simply may not be optimal. From all reports, the community builders are doing a good job. They have been well received. I hope we allow them to continue with their efforts. In closing, I again thank my colleagues for their work on this bill. Many improvements were made possible by their resolve and their many efforts even before the bill was marked up, but there is still much to be done. I look forward to working with both of them, and the other members of the Appropriations Committee, as the bill moves to conference in the hope and anticipation that we may be able to move beyond some of the constraints under which they were laboring and to address these issues which I have outlined and, certainly, this very pressing need for affordable housing all across the country. I yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in the coming weeks, the Finance Committee will begin consideration of legislation to reform the Medicare program. While I am not a member of that Committee, I would like to urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to address one of the most widespread problems facing senior citizens today--the lack of prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program. Providing access to prescription medication is essential to ensuring our older Americans receive the health care they need. Today more than ever, medical treatment is focused on the use of drug therapies. Prescription drugs are an effective substitute for more expensive care or surgery, and they are the only method of treatment for many diseases. Medicare beneficiaries are particularly reliant on prescription medication. Nearly 77 percent of seniors take a prescription drug on a regular basis. Consequently, although seniors make up only 14 percent of the country's population, they consume about 30 percent of the prescription drugs sold. However, the Medicare program, the national program established to provide seniors with vital health care services, generally does not cover prescription drug costs. Medicare beneficiaries can obtain some coverage for drugs by joining Medicare HMOs. However, these HMOs are not available in many parts of the country, particularly in the rural areas. As we have learned in Maryland, where 14 of our rural counties will no longer be served by any Medicare HMO as of next year, private companies cannot be relied upon to provide a benefit as crucial to the health of our older Americans as prescription drug coverage. Drug coverage must be added as a core element of our basic Medicare benefits package. Beneficiaries may also purchase drug coverage through a Medigap insurance policy. However, these plans are extremely expensive and generally provide inadequate coverage. In addition, for most Medigap plans, the premiums substantially increase with age. Thus, just as beneficiaries need drug coverage the most and are least able to afford it, this drug coverage is priced out of reach. This cost burden particularly affects women who make up 73 percent of people over age 85. Those with access to employer-sponsored retiree health plans do generally receive adequate drug coverage. However, only about one quarter of Medicare beneficiaries have access to such plans. Thus, although most beneficiaries have access to some assistance, only a lucky few have access to supplemental coverage that offers a substantial drug benefit. Moreover, at least 13 million Medicare beneficiaries have absolutely no prescription drug coverage. To make matters worse, the cost of prescription drugs has been rising dramatically over the past few years. Pharmaceutical companies claim that today's higher drug prices reflect the growing cost of research and development. However, recent increases in drug prices have also resulted in large part from the enormous investment the industry has made in advertising directly to the public. Moreover, recent studies have shown that seniors who buy their own medicine, because they do not belong to HMOs or have additional insurance coverage, are paying twice as much on average as HMOs, insurance companies, Medicaid, Federal health programs, and other bulk purchasers. Medicare beneficiaries are paying more as the pharmaceutical industry is facing increasing pressures from cost- conscious health plans to sell them drugs at cheaper prices. In addition, the industry offers lower prices to veterans' programs and other Federal health programs because the price schedule for these programs is fixed in law. Apparently, pharmaceutical companies are making up the revenues lost in bulk sales by charging exorbitant prices to individual buyers who lack negotiating power. Despite these market pressures and increased research and development costs, the prices being charged to seniors and other individual purchasers are hardly justified when financial reports show drug companies reaping enormous profits. Many seniors live on fixed incomes, and a substantial number of them cannot afford to take the drugs their doctors prescribe. Many try to stretch their medicine out by skipping days or breaking pills in half. Many must choose between paying for food and paying for medicine. In the context of the budget resolution debate, proposals were made to provide for the added cost of including prescription drug coverage in the Medicare program. I voted for an amendment to create a reserve fund of $101 billion over 10 years to cover the cost of Medicare reform including the addition of a prescription drug benefit. This provision was included in the final version of the Senate budget resolution. However, legislation creating the drug benefit still must be enacted before coverage could be extended. Helping senior citizens get the prescription drugs they need should be one of our top priorities this session. Unfortunately, the Majority is more interested in enacting deep and unreasonable tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy. Just before the August recess, Congress passed the Majority's FY 2000 budget reconciliation bill. I voted against this bill because it would spend nearly all of the on-budget surplus projected to accrue over the next ten years and would use none of this projected surplus to protect the Social Security System, to shore up Medicare, or to give senior citizens the prescription drug benefit they so desperately need. I am pleased that the Finance Committee will be focusing on Medicare reform, and I hope that the legislation they develop will establish a prescription drug benefit for our older Americans. Providing seniors with drug coverage is essential to ensuring they receive quality health care. I believe that access to quality health care is a basic human need that in my view must be a fundamental right in a democratic society.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, we have spent a lot of time in the Senate praising the booming American economy and low unemployment rates. I, like the rest of the colleagues, am proud to see our country benefitting from such prosperity, but all Americans are not participating in these benefits. In reality, Americans that live in low income areas, either in cities or rural areas, are not experiencing today's prosperity. This is largely because they do not have the economic infrastructure in their communities to take advantage of it. Poor communities frequently lack local businesses to employ residents and provide services, creating no point of entrance for participation in the larger American economy. It is for these reasons that I am co-sponsoring the Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999 introduced by Senator Kerry. This legislation is part of President Clinton's New market Initiatives Proposal. As my colleagues know, I have already introduced America's Private Investment Companies Act of 1999, or APIC, which is another part of the New Market initiative. The Community Development and Venture Capital Act makes a three pronged effort to infuse capital into distressed communities, and establish small businesses in our nations most needy neighborhoods. First, the bill will use federal money to leverage private funding for venture capital companies with a commitment to community development, referred to as New market Venture Capital Companies (NMVC). This will help to nurture new businesses in poor areas. The companies funding by this bill will function much like the successful SBIC program that the Small Business Administration sponsors, but will focus on businesses in targeted neighborhoods that need more patient, long term capital funding, and added technical assistance to ensure success. Furthermore, the bill will increase the number of community development venture capital funds so that more communities can be served by the program and expand the successful business mentoring program, BusinessLINC, already in place. I have long argued that the best social policy is a job. This legislation, combined with the APIC bill and the New markets Tax Credit introduced by Senator Rockefeller, will be a catalyst to the creation of new businesses and the jobs and economic opportunities they bring in those areas most in need.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, we have spent a lot of time in the Senate praising the booming American economy and low unemployment rates. I, like the rest of the colleagues, am proud to see our country benefitting from such prosperity, but all Americans are not participating in these benefits. In reality, Americans that live in low income areas, either in cities or rural areas, are not experiencing today's prosperity. This is largely because they do not have the economic infrastructure in their communities to take advantage of it. Poor communities frequently lack local businesses to employ residents and provide services, creating no point of entrance for participation in the larger American economy. It is for these reasons that I am co-sponsoring the Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999 introduced by Senator Kerry. This legislation is part of President Clinton's New market Initiatives Proposal. As my colleagues know, I have already introduced America's Private Investment Companies Act of 1999, or APIC, which is another part of the New Market initiative. The Community Development and Venture Capital Act makes a three pronged effort to infuse capital into distressed communities, and establish small businesses in our nations most needy neighborhoods. First, the bill will use federal money to leverage private funding for venture capital companies with a commitment to community development, referred to as New market Venture Capital Companies (NMVC). This will help to nurture new businesses in poor areas. The companies funding by this bill will function much like the successful SBIC program that the Small Business Administration sponsors, but will focus on businesses in targeted neighborhoods that need more patient, long term capital funding, and added technical assistance to ensure success. Furthermore, the bill will increase the number of community development venture capital funds so that more communities can be served by the program and expand the successful business mentoring program, BusinessLINC, already in place. I have long argued that the best social policy is a job. This legislation, combined with the APIC bill and the New markets Tax Credit introduced by Senator Rockefeller, will be a catalyst to the creation of new businesses and the jobs and economic opportunities they bring in those areas most in need.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member. operational expenses at our national parks

Mr. SARBANES. Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd, is it also the intent of the Appropriations Committee that the funds provided for Glen Echo Park in the construction account of the National Park Service represent the first phase of an estimate $18 million restoration effort, whose total costs will be shared equally by the National Park Service, the State of Maryland and Montgomery County?

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator mean that at the moment you are not permitted to find out what the charges are and the nature of the accusations?

Mr. SARBANES. It is a courtesy that is extended to a Member when he places a hold. The leadership can move ahead if the Member is being recalcitrant. Of course, it is up to Members to exercise a hold with some self-restraint. They may get the extra time they need, but, in my judgement, it ought not to be used as a weapon that completely submerges the nomination or the legislation. I interjected because I am very concerned. I have read a number of newspaper reports that seem to suggest that the rules of the Senate are such that any Member can simply place a hold on a nomination and preclude any action. That is not the case. It is a courtesy that has been extended to Members by the leadership, but the leadership can always move ahead if they determine it is an urgent matter. Of course, they try to work it out so Members are willing to have it come up. That is what has happened in this instance. I particularly express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his efforts to try to move this matter forward.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Richard Holbrooke to be the United States representative to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador. Ambassador Holbrooke has rendered superb service to our Nation during the course of his career. His diplomatic experience makes him an ideal choice for this very important position. We need good, strong leadership at the United Nations. We have been without a permanent representative now for an extended period of time. An able, competent, skillful diplomat can make a big difference in terms of serving the national interests of our country. Dick Holbrooke has had an illustrious career. He joined the Foreign Service in 1962. He had assignments in Vietnam, where he worked closely with Ambassador William Porter, Ambassador Maxwell Taylor, and Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge. From the very beginning he was right in the middle of the decisionmaking arena and was recognized for his extraordinary talents. He was the Director of the Peace Corps in Morocco. He then left the Government for a while and was a managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, one of our leading foreign policy think magazines, where he did an outstanding job. In the mid-1970s, he was senior consultant to the President's Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy. This is a man who has committed his entire career to analyzing and enhancing the foreign policy of the United States in the name of serving our national security interests. He held two assistant secretaryships within the Department of State: Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Assistant Secretary for European and Canadian Affairs. He has also served in a very distinguished way as our Ambassador to Germany. I have worked closely with him in his capacity as Presidential Special Envoy to Cyprus, where he has striven mightily to try to move that issue forward. He will do a terrific job at the United Nations. He has done an excellent job in every government position he has held. His commitment and dedication are obvious for all to see. I think the Senator from Delaware was right in saying that there were attacks on Dick Holbrooke's character which were extremely unfortunate and without basis or justification. To his credit, he withstood all of that. A lesser person might have walked away and said: Who needs to put up with this? But he has a driving sense of serving the country and serving the national interest. Dick Holbrooke has addressed difficult, complex foreign policy issues in an extremely incisive and competent way. We need that skill at the United Nations. That is the skill he will bring. I am relieved that the nomination is finally before us for judgment. I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Dick Holbrooke to be our Ambassador to the United Nations. He will serve our Nation and, indeed, the world well in this position. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to put a question to the Senator on the hold because I have been reading newspaper reports that I think have completely misinterpreted how the hold process operates. These reports have alleged that the Senate rules contain a provision that enables any Member of the Senate, in effect, to hold up action either on a nominee or on legislation and sort of that is that. That is not the case.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation to establish ``America's Private Investment Companies,'' or APIC. This legislation is part of President Clinton's ``New Markets Initiative,'' which I am also pleased to be able to support. The New Markets Initiative, of which APIC is a crucial element, is an important response to economic problems that persist in many neighborhoods and communities in our urban and rural areas. These communities have been bypassed by the increased investment, job growth, and income increases that have characterized this unprecedented period of economic expansion. Indeed, the areas that would benefit from the New Markets Initiative are experiencing increased poverty levels, increased isolation, and ongoing joblessness and decay. Yet, research increasingly shows that most of these areas represent good economic opportunities for American business. Michael Porter, a renowned business analyst who has written widely on competitiveness at both the firm and national levels, has written that a . . . major advantage of the inner city as a business location is a large, underserved local market. . . . In fact, inner cities are the largest underserved market in America, with many tens of billions of dollars of unmet consumer and business demand. Another group called Social Compact has done intensive studies of buying power in a number of communities around the country. These studies confirm Porter's earlier work. Social Compact estimated retail spending power in two communities in Chicago. Residents in the first community have median incomes of over $67,000 million whereas the median income in the second community is under $30,000. Yet, on a per acre basis, the lower income community has more than twice the spending power of the wealthier area. Moreover, as labor markets grow tighter and tighter, inner cities have the advantage of an ``available, loyal workforce,'' to again quote Mr. Porter. However, we need a catalyst to encourage business to take advantage of these opportunities. The APIC program provides that push. This bill gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), together with the Small Business Administration (SBA), authority to provide low- cost loans on a matching basis to specially constituted investment companies, called APICs, that raise private equity capital for investment in businesses in low-income areas. Individual APICs will operate in a manner similar to Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs), a very successful program that helps fund start up small business. APIC will target its investment funds to larger businesses that locate in these underserved areas, with particular emphasis on those businesses that create good jobs in those neighborhoods. The APIC program is essentially a private-sector venture in partnership with the public sector. The managers of the individual APICs will make the investment decisions according to the program goals and criteria. They will have their money, and the money of their investors, at risk, making the government's loan much more secure. This program requires a very small federal investment--just $36 million in credit subsidy--to create an estimated $1 billion in debt financing available. This debt will, in turn, generate $500 million in private equity per year, or $7.5 billion over the next five years. APICs would use these funds, for example, to help a business establish a new back-office facility, factory, or distribution plant in a low income area. APICs could invest in the development of multi-tenant shopping centers, or in industrial parks. Combined with the New Market Tax Credit being introduced by my colleagues Senator Rockefeller and Senator Robb, APIC will help create important new economic opportunities in parts of America that have not yet been touched by the economic prosperity most of us enjoy. Mr. President, I ask that letters of support be printed in the Record. The letters follow: New York City Investment Fund, August 2, 1999. Senator Paul Sarbanes, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sarbanes: We are writing in support of a new initiative proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration, known as America's Private Investment Companies Bill. We have provided input into the proposed legislation and believe that this bill could leverage significant new private capital for investment in communities that are not fully participating in our otherwise thriving national economy. We established the New York City Investment Fund in 1996 to stimulate business development and job-generating activities across the five boroughs, with a particular emphasis on low and moderate-income communities. Our investors include many of the city's leading financial institutions, corporations and business leaders, each of whom put up $1 million and committed the resources of their organization to support our work. With $80 million under management, the Fund has already invested some $20 million in projects that will generate more than 4,000 new jobs. Most important, we have mobilized the city's business and financial leadership to become personally involved with our portfolio projects, providing business expertise and strategic alliances that are essential for bringing disadvantaged communities into the economic mainstream. Based on our experience, we can confirm that there is a severe shortage of equity and debt financing for largescale projects in low-income areas. Issues associated with site assemblage, brownfields remediation, high construction costs in urban centers, and low property appraisals in the inner city all contribute to the need for federal incentives to stimulate investment in job-generating development projects targeted to these areas. At the same time, many existing businesses operating in these areas cannot attract conventional financing to modernize or expand. We have seen a number of opportunities where our Fund's resources could have been useful, but only if we could leverage additional risk capital from other sources. The APIC program would be a unique source of capital and partial loan guarantees that our Fund could definitely put to work in the inner city communities of New York for new development and retention/ expansion of businesses that may otherwise disappear. We urge you to move this bill forward, in conjunction with the proposed New Markets Tax Credit proposal, and express our willingness to work with the federal government to carry out the mission of APIC once it is enacted. Sincerely, Henry R. Kravis. Kathryn Wylde.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference agreement on the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 which provides 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 Maryland's environment. First the bill authorizes nearly $28 million for needed improvements to Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels. Many of the existing anchorages and branch channels within Baltimore Harbor were built in the first half of this century and are no longer deep enough, wide enough or long enough to accommodate the vessels now calling on the Port of Baltimore. Many of the larger ships must now anchor some 25 miles south of Baltimore in naturally deep water, resulting in delays and increased costs to the shipping industry. Also, the narrow widths of some of the branch channels result in additional time for the pilots to maneuver safely to and from their docking berths. In June 1998 the Chief of Engineers approved a report which recommended a number of improvements including: (1) widening and deepening Federal anchorages 3 and 4; (2) widening and providing flared corners for state-owned East Dundalk, Seagirt, Connecting and West Dundalk branch Channels; (3) dredging a new branch channel at South Locust Point; and (4) dredging a turning basin at the head of the Fort McHenry Channel. The report identified the project as ``technically sound, economically justified and environmentally and socially acceptable.'' This project has been a top priority of mine, of the Maryland Port Administration and of the shipping 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 Corps of Engineers to make critically needed safety improvements to the Tolchester Channel in the Chesapeake Bay. The Tolchester Channel is a vital link in the Baltimore Port system. It was authorized in the River and Harbor Act of 1958 and aligned to take advantage of the naturally deep water in the Chesapeake Bay, along Maryland's Eastern Shore. This alignment, which is shaped like an ``S,'' has posed a serious navigation problem and safety risks for vessels. Ships must change course five times within three miles, often beginning a new turn, sometimes in the opposite direction, before completing a first turn. With vessels nearly 1,000 feet in length, it is difficult to safely navigate the channel, particularly in poor weather conditions. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Maryland Pilots Association have expressed serious concerns over the safety of the area and have long recommended straightening of the channel due to the grounding and ``near misses'' which have occurred in the area. The cost for straightening the Tolchester ``S-turn'' is estimated at $12.6 million with $1.3 million coming from non-federal sources. This authorization enables the Corps to proceed expeditiously with these improvements and address the serious concerns of those who must navigate the treacherous channel. With $5.8 million already included in the fiscal 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, this provision will ensure that these improvements will be undertaken in the near future. Mr. President, 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 62,000 jobs, and more than $500 million a year in State and local tax revenues and customs receipts. These two 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 a provision which will help significantly to enhance Maryland's environment and quality of life and help achieve the goals and vision of the Potomac American Heritage River designation. It authorizes $15 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to modify the existing flood protection project at Cumberland, Maryland to restore features of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal adversely affected by construction and operation of the project. Mr. President, the C&O Canal is widely regarded as the Nation's finest relic of America's canal building era. It was begun in 1828 as a transportation route between commercial centers in the East and frontier resources of the West. It reached Cumberland in 1850 and continued operating until 1924 when it succumbed to floods and financial failure. In the early 1950's, a section of the Canal and turning basin at its Cumberland terminus was filled in by the Corps of Engineers during construction of a local flood protection project. Portions of the Canal were proclaimed a national monument in 1961 and it was officially established as a national historical park in 1971. Justice Douglas described the park ``* * * not yet marred by the roar of wheels and the sound of horns. * * * The stretch of 185 miles of country from Washington to Cumberland, Maryland, is one of the most fascinating and picturesque in the Nation.'' The National Park Service, as part of its General Management Plan for the Park, has long sought to rebuild and re-water the Canal at its Cumberland terminus. The NPS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, MOA, with the Corps to undertake a study of the feasibility of reconstructing the last 2200 feet of the canal to the terminus, through and adjacent to the Corps' flood protection project. The Corps completed this study in July 1995 and determined that ``it is feasible to re-water the canal successfully; the canal and flood protection levee can co-exist on the site without compromising the flood protection for the City of Cumberland; re-construction and partial operation of the locks is feasible; and, based on the as-built information available, underground utility impacts can be mitigated at reasonable cost to allow construction of the canal and turning basin in basically the same alignment and configuration as the original canal.'' A subsequent Rewatering Design Analysis estimated the total project cost at $15 million. This authorization will enable the Corps to proceed with restoring a 1.1 mile stretch of the C&O Canal and revitalize the area as a major hub for tourism and economic development. The conference agreement also authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake a study for control and management of waterborne debris on the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna River is the largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, draining an area of about 27,500 square miles. It is also one of the most flood prone river basins in the nation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates several reservoirs for flood control and other purposes and there are three large hydroelectric dams on the lower Susquehanna. During high flow events, enormous amounts of debris, including trees, branches and manmade materials, are carried downstream and ultimately into the Chesapeake Bay. Most recently, the flood waters of January 1999 deposited tremendous amounts of debris as far as Anne Arundel County, Maryland, creating hazards to navigation, damaging boats and bulkheads, aggravating flooding and clogging beaches and shorelines. This legislation will enable the Corps of Engineers to evaluate the economic, engineering and environmental feasibility of potential measures to control and manage the amount of waterborne debris as well as determine if new and improved debris removal technologies can be utilized in the Susquehanna. Finally, the conference agreement includes several other provisions which will help address important water resource needs in Maryland and nearby communities including the flood protection project for the District of Columbia, and the studies for the West View Shores Community of Cecil County, Welch Point and Chesapeake City, MD. 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.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation to establish ``America's Private Investment Companies,'' or APIC. This legislation is part of President Clinton's ``New Markets Initiative,'' which I am also pleased to be able to support. The New Markets Initiative, of which APIC is a crucial element, is an important response to economic problems that persist in many neighborhoods and communities in our urban and rural areas. These communities have been bypassed by the increased investment, job growth, and income increases that have characterized this unprecedented period of economic expansion. Indeed, the areas that would benefit from the New Markets Initiative are experiencing increased poverty levels, increased isolation, and ongoing joblessness and decay. Yet, research increasingly shows that most of these areas represent good economic opportunities for American business. Michael Porter, a renowned business analyst who has written widely on competitiveness at both the firm and national levels, has written that a . . . major advantage of the inner city as a business location is a large, underserved local market. . . . In fact, inner cities are the largest underserved market in America, with many tens of billions of dollars of unmet consumer and business demand. Another group called Social Compact has done intensive studies of buying power in a number of communities around the country. These studies confirm Porter's earlier work. Social Compact estimated retail spending power in two communities in Chicago. Residents in the first community have median incomes of over $67,000 million whereas the median income in the second community is under $30,000. Yet, on a per acre basis, the lower income community has more than twice the spending power of the wealthier area. Moreover, as labor markets grow tighter and tighter, inner cities have the advantage of an ``available, loyal workforce,'' to again quote Mr. Porter. However, we need a catalyst to encourage business to take advantage of these opportunities. The APIC program provides that push. This bill gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), together with the Small Business Administration (SBA), authority to provide low- cost loans on a matching basis to specially constituted investment companies, called APICs, that raise private equity capital for investment in businesses in low-income areas. Individual APICs will operate in a manner similar to Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs), a very successful program that helps fund start up small business. APIC will target its investment funds to larger businesses that locate in these underserved areas, with particular emphasis on those businesses that create good jobs in those neighborhoods. The APIC program is essentially a private-sector venture in partnership with the public sector. The managers of the individual APICs will make the investment decisions according to the program goals and criteria. They will have their money, and the money of their investors, at risk, making the government's loan much more secure. This program requires a very small federal investment--just $36 million in credit subsidy--to create an estimated $1 billion in debt financing available. This debt will, in turn, generate $500 million in private equity per year, or $7.5 billion over the next five years. APICs would use these funds, for example, to help a business establish a new back-office facility, factory, or distribution plant in a low income area. APICs could invest in the development of multi-tenant shopping centers, or in industrial parks. Combined with the New Market Tax Credit being introduced by my colleagues Senator Rockefeller and Senator Robb, APIC will help create important new economic opportunities in parts of America that have not yet been touched by the economic prosperity most of us enjoy. Mr. President, I ask that letters of support be printed in the Record. The letters follow: New York City Investment Fund, August 2, 1999. Senator Paul Sarbanes, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sarbanes: We are writing in support of a new initiative proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration, known as America's Private Investment Companies Bill. We have provided input into the proposed legislation and believe that this bill could leverage significant new private capital for investment in communities that are not fully participating in our otherwise thriving national economy. We established the New York City Investment Fund in 1996 to stimulate business development and job-generating activities across the five boroughs, with a particular emphasis on low and moderate-income communities. Our investors include many of the city's leading financial institutions, corporations and business leaders, each of whom put up $1 million and committed the resources of their organization to support our work. With $80 million under management, the Fund has already invested some $20 million in projects that will generate more than 4,000 new jobs. Most important, we have mobilized the city's business and financial leadership to become personally involved with our portfolio projects, providing business expertise and strategic alliances that are essential for bringing disadvantaged communities into the economic mainstream. Based on our experience, we can confirm that there is a severe shortage of equity and debt financing for largescale projects in low-income areas. Issues associated with site assemblage, brownfields remediation, high construction costs in urban centers, and low property appraisals in the inner city all contribute to the need for federal incentives to stimulate investment in job-generating development projects targeted to these areas. At the same time, many existing businesses operating in these areas cannot attract conventional financing to modernize or expand. We have seen a number of opportunities where our Fund's resources could have been useful, but only if we could leverage additional risk capital from other sources. The APIC program would be a unique source of capital and partial loan guarantees that our Fund could definitely put to work in the inner city communities of New York for new development and retention/ expansion of businesses that may otherwise disappear. We urge you to move this bill forward, in conjunction with the proposed New Markets Tax Credit proposal, and express our willingness to work with the federal government to carry out the mission of APIC once it is enacted. Sincerely, Henry R. Kravis. Kathryn Wylde.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, during the week of August 30- September 3 we will celebrate Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety Week. As a strong and vigorous supporter of Federal initiatives to strengthen our safety and environmental laws and protect our workers and citizens, I am pleased to take this opportunity to draw my colleagues' attention to this important occasion and to take a few moments to reflect on and bring greater awareness of workplace and community health and safety issues to the public. Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety Week is sponsored by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. This is the first annual celebration of this event and the goal is to highlight workplace and community health issues. This year's theme, ``Protecting Your Future . . . Today,'' shows the far-reaching nature of occupational and environmental safety's impact on the public. One of the major issues concerning workplace safety is Ergonomics. Ergonomics is the science of fitting the job to the worker. It is the solution to a host of physical problems brought about by over-exertion or repetitive stress. More than 650,000 Americans suffer serious injuries and illnesses due to work-related musculoskeletal disorders each year, accounting for more than 34 percent of all lost-workday injuries and illnesses, and costing employers $15-20 billion annually in direct workers' compensation costs. There is sound scientific evidence linking musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) to work. Last summer, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found ``compelling evidence'' that workplace modifications can reduce the risk of injury. A 1997 review of 600 studies by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health drew similar conclusions. For the average worker, the back takes the brunt of the injuries. About 4 out of 10 injuries involve strains and sprains, most of them back- related. The Department of Labor recently reported that injuries and illnesses for construction laborers, carpenters, welders and cutters increased by a total of 8,000 cases. Additionally, truck drivers suffer more than their share of injuries, including approximately 145,000 work-related injuries or illnesses each year. Although many injuries occur in the workplace, our concern does not end there. OEHS Week's second important emphasis is safety in the community and home. Protecting and improving our environment, our parks and wildlife refuges, and natural resources have been among my highest priorities since I was first elected to the Congress. I have fought for, and helped enact, every major piece of legislation to enhance environmental quality--the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Superfund, to name a few. OEHS Week is designed to heighten awareness about several vital community health concerns including carbon monoxide poisoning, indoor air quality, and noise exposure. In my view, a clean environment is a legacy we leave for future generations. After all, our natural resources--our farmlands and forests, water, air, and our wildlife--are the foundation of our country's present and future well-being and quality of life. We are making progress in the effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay--our nation's largest and most productive estuary. But much more work needs to be done to revitalize this national treasure and I have introduced legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Act to assist in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Additionally, I have introduced a bill to implement pilot projects in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to address problems associated with toxic microorganisms in tidal and non-tidal wetlands and waters. As we approach over 100 years of celebrating Labor Day, it is appropriate that we focus our attention on the safety of workers while in a workplace environment and on their safety and environmental concerns while away from the job site. This 1st annual Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety Week truly represents a spotlight on the total quality of life of working Americans.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I want to underscore the point the distinguished Senator from North Dakota is making. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go with Secretary Glickman and Governor Glendening to visit one of the farms that has been affected by the drought in our State. It is devastating to see. Of course, it is a compound of two things: The low commodity prices, which the Senator is demonstrating with his charts--this is not only wheat but the same thing applies to other basic commodities as well--and the drought, which is crippling certain parts of the country. We talked to this farmer who has been farming ever since he was a young boy. His father was a farmer. His grandfather was a farmer. He doesn't know whether he will be in farming next year because of what has hit them--the combination of the low commodity prices and the drought which is now desperately affecting our country. He is not alone. Farmers across Maryland and indeed, the nation, are finding themselves facing similar circumstances. Nearly one fourth of Maryland's corn crop is in poor to very poor condition. Likewise, 55 percent of pastures and hay fields are in poor or very poor condition. Milk production has decreased because of the high temperatures. And because pastures and field crops are in such bad shape, cattle and dairy farmers are now faced with a dilemma, whether or not to sell their animals or begin feeding them hay which should be utilized over the winter. Maryland has suffered extensive drought damage for three consecutive years. However the drought this year is by far the worst since the depression. Yesterday, the United States Geological Survey reported that we may be in the midst of what could become the worst drought of the 20th century. Rainfall throughout Maryland is currently between 40 and 50 percent below normal. Throughout Maryland, counties are reporting losses as high as 100 percent for certain crops. Most alarmingly, there is no end in sight. But the crisis affecting agriculture is about more than the drought. The dramatic drop in commodity prices, since the enactment of the Freedom to Farm Act, has had its affect on farmers throughout the country and the State of Maryland. The poultry industry, which is Maryland's largest agricultural producer, has witnessed a 45-percent decrease in exports. The situation for farmers is bleak and many are losing their businesses. Mr. President, Maryland depends on agriculture. Agriculture is Maryland's largest industry contributing more than $11 billion annually to our economy. More than 350,000 Marylanders--some 14 percent of our State's workforce--are employed in all aspects of agriculture from farm production of wholesaling and retaining. Forty percent of our State's land is in agriculture--more than 2 million acres. So when our family farmers and the farm economy start hurting--everyone suffers. Our farmers are in trouble and they deserve our assistance. This measure provides that assistance in the form of direct payments and low interest loans. It gives nearly $11 billion in emergency assistance to farmers and ranchers who have been affected by natural disaster and economic crisis. $6 billion of that amount will deliver income assistance to farmers hit hard by the economic disaster. And more than $2.6 billion will be used to address natural disasters such as the drought. Within the disaster funds, nearly $300 million in section 32 and disaster reserve funds has been included to specifically address the Mid- Atlantic drought. Mr. President, the need for this amendment is real. Until we are able to reform the Freedom to Farm Act or manufacture rain, these funds are vital to the preservation of the farm industry throughout the State of Maryland and the United States. In my judgment, it is imperative that we pass this legislation. I very much appreciate the Senator from North Dakota yielding. I want to underscore the crisis nature of the situation to which he is referring. I want to acknowledge the consistent and effective leadership which he has exercised on many of these farm issues. He and others of us expressed concerns and questions at the time the 1996 act was passed. Much of that now seems to have come around to hit us--compounded, of course, by these serious weather circumstances which exist not in all parts of the country but in certain parts of the country. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am again pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Warner, Robb and Akaka, in introducing the Federal Employee Retirement Contributions Act of 1999. This bill makes a technical correction to legislation introduced last week that would return Federal employee retirement contribution rates to their 1998 levels, effective January 1st, 2000. It is my belief that the temporarily increased retirement contributions enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 represent an unfair penalty against Federal workers at a time when budget surpluses are predicted into the next ten years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am again pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Warner, Robb and Akaka, in introducing the Federal Employee Retirement Contributions Act of 1999. This bill makes a technical correction to legislation introduced last week that would return Federal employee retirement contribution rates to their 1998 levels, effective January 1st, 2000. It is my belief that the temporarily increased retirement contributions enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 represent an unfair penalty against Federal workers at a time when budget surpluses are predicted into the next ten years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, what the Republicans are now proposing represents a cut of over $1 trillion below--below what? Current spending levels?

Mr. SARBANES. None whatever?