Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Not the amendment; I will address the amendment. I want to talk about the bill and the proposal in the Banking Committee first. I think both of those propositions, the proposal in the committee and the bill, went too far, and I think the Senator is prepared to concede they went too far because they would have wiped out existing regulations--not just proposed regulations--existing regulations addressed to significant cash transactions that we think are tied to the money laundering issue. I don't think the Senator disagrees with that.

Mr. SARBANES. I understand that and I indicated earlier that had been done. I only have two observations about that. Yesterday, the Comptroller of the Currency in testimony on the House side stated that they intended to withdraw the proposals ``promptly.'' Now, perhaps the Senator feels that through his communications with the regulators heretofore and the letters he sent--and I have sent a letter, and others have sent letters--we weren't able to get sufficient credit for having brought about this change--so we need to come out here and try to get this amendment passed so that we really show that we are the ones who did it and not the regulators who were affected, acting in a reasonable manner after reviewing all of the comments that have been received not only from the public but from Members of the Congress, as well. Second, I do have some concern about your amendment because it addresses not only the proposed regulations, but, as I understand, it precludes them coming forward with any similar regulations that might be greatly narrowed so they get at the money laundering issue. I don't assert that I am an expert on the money laundering issue and that is why the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, is putting a statement in the Record addressing the money laundering question, and the importance of that question and how we try to get at it. I think this problem was well on its way to being solved. I understand the other side is searching desperately for amendments to offer in order to try to block this amendment process on educational issues. It is my perception that is why this matter came before us today, in an effort to keep out of the amendment process on the Ed-Flex bill, important amendments, which a number of our colleagues wish to offer. But the Senator and I share a common view that the regulations went too far, and we have expressed that opinion. I think the initial proposals the Senator from Colorado made went too far in the other direction--and were overly broad. I think this proposal has been narrowed down, but I think it still contains within it one remaining problem, which I indicated, and that is whether it precludes any opportunity to do something that would be more effective on the money laundering issue, without creating any of the privacy problems or the overregulation problems that both of us and others have perceived as being contained in the proposed regulations. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, January 12, 1999. Hon. Donna Tanoue, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington,

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. Just briefly the other question, I have been watching what has been going on. I am not on a committee with direct jurisdiction here, but I was prompted to speak by the fact that in this game of delay and blockage we are now dragging in outside amendments. The chairman says he wants these other amendments considered in the context of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Am I mistaken in my impression that the Secretary of Education, who I think is supportive of Ed-Flex measures, advanced the position that those Ed- Flex measures should be considered in the context of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I think the extremes to which the other side will go to try to frustrate considering bona fide educational issues on this education bill was demonstrated by the fact that the vote we just had was on tabling a motion on an amendment involving the ``Know Your Customer'' proposed regulations that were put out by the Federal banking regulators. I wrote to the regulators, pointing out the problems with these proposed regulations and urging them to carefully consider these problems before proceeding or implementing them. The regulators have received a flood of comments highly critical of the proposed regulations and, in fact, the comment period, which ends on March 8, is not yet over. At least two regulators have already indicated, in advance of the comment period ending, that they expect not to adopt the proposed regulations as final regulations in view of the overwhelming number of comments they have received and the complexity of the issue. Many of my colleagues have, as I have done, written to them pointing out the difficulties connected with these regulations and the possible breaches of customers' personal financial privacy. On the other hand, since there is a law enforcement issue involved here with respect to money laundering, we need to be very careful what we do. I am concerned because the amendment not only addresses the proposed regulations but also precludes any other regulations being put forward by the agencies that would be similar to these. Conceivably, the agencies could develop more narrow regulations that focus on the money laundering issue, in an effort to curb criminal activity, that would not carry with it the heavy burdens of regulation on the banks and the potential intrusion into the financial privacy of ordinary, law-abiding citizens, which none of us wants to do. In fact, I have introduced a bill on the financial privacy issue, broader legislation than we are talking about here. I have been joined in that by Senators Dodd, Bryan, Edwards, Leahy, and Hollings. That is S. 187. I invite other colleagues to join on that legislation, S. 187, because I think financial privacy is an extremely important issue and one that we need to address. We need to assure safeguards to our consumers that their financial privacy is not to be intruded upon without their knowledge and an opportunity to object. But to reach out, as happened this morning, and try to drag in a subject matter unrelated to education and not directly connected with this bill, as part of a constant process that has been going on over the last few days to block out important educational amendments that would raise significant issues which need to be addressed, it seems to me, is going too far. Let me, on these regulations, quickly point out that the regulators have received over 130,000 public comments about the regulations, demonstrating a great deal of concern about the privacy of personal financial information. The regulators have already indicated they recognize the problems with the proposed regulations. Some have testified or written to the Congress indicating they expect withdrawal or substantial if not total revision. We are addressing the problem in the normal course under which proposed regulations are addressed, the problem which this amendment addresses. In fact, of course, this amendment moves in and, in effect, seeks to shortcut or terminate the regular process which would be to let the comment period run and then the regulators take the comments into account. We have already had an indication from the regulators that they have seen enough now so that when they take the public comments into account, the concerns that Members have expressed, myself included, will be addressed. The potential problem with the amendment is that it may foreclose any possibility of addressing the legitimate concerns of the law enforcement community directed towards money laundering. My very able colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has been working on that issue. I simply rise to point out some of the complexity of this issue with which we are dealing, and to focus on the current situation in which we find ourselves--I gather there is not the ingenuity or wit to devise education-related amendments to try to block this process, as has been going on. So now we are going to reach out, wherever we can, and find non-education-related amendments, to bring them in to try to close out the amendment tree. I am prompted to speak on that because this question of privacy is an issue to which we have addressed some attention. As I said, there is a comprehensive bill which has been introduced by a number of us which I am very hopeful we will be able to have hearings on and act on. I think the ``Know Your Customer'' proposed regulations is a very important issue to be addressed. But I find it interesting that here we are on a Friday morning and, instead of dealing with education, we have brought in this issue out of the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. I think the regulators were about to address this issue to everyone's satisfaction, but the issue has been addressed in the amendment, possibly in such a broad fashion that it will prevent the formulation of regulations specifically designed to get at money laundering, which the law enforcement community has indicated is a significant concern of theirs. That is an issue to which Senator Levin has addressed considerable attention. I say to the distinguished chairman, to the extent he views these comments as not relevant or germane to his legislation, they were prompted by the fact that an amendment was proposed which itself is not relevant or germane to the bill before us and has nothing to do with education. My own preference, obviously, is to get on with the education amendments. I hope these discussions that are going to take place will make it possible for significant and important education amendments to be offered to this legislation. We are out here with an important piece of education legislation whose basic concept I support. But I do not think we should be precluded from offering other important initiatives with respect to education which, I think, if brought before the body, would command broad support in this institution. I think it would be very important in helping to deal with the Nation's educational challenges.

Mr. SARBANES. I desire to speak about the extremes to which the other side will go to frustrate the opportunity to consider significant educational initiatives on this bill by now bringing into consideration subject matter completely extraneous to education and the jurisdiction of the committee; namely, the amendment that is now pending dealing with a banking issue. I want to speak on that subject for a few minutes. I think it is highly relevant to the situation in which we find ourselves.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring a distinguished public servant and a highly respected Member of the United States Congress, Morris K. Udall, who died on December 12, 1998. Mo Udall was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election held on May 2, 1961, succeeding his brother, Stewart, who had resigned from the House to serve as Secretary of the Interior in the Kennedy Administration. He served the citizens of Arizona and his nation with great distinction until his resignation on May 4, 1991. I was elected to the House of Representatives on November 3, 1970 and am proud to have served in the House with Mo Udall during the 92nd, 93rd and 94th Congresses. Mr. President, Mo Udall was one of the most productive and creative legislators of his time. He chaired the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs from 1977 to 1991 and used this position very effectively to move numerous important environmental measures through the Congress. The National Wildlife Federation named Mo Udall its Legislator of the Year in 1974 and in 1980 Congress passed his Alaska Lands Act, which doubled the size of our national park system and tripled the size of the national wilderness sytem. His accomplishments in this critical area reflect a Westerner's deep love and respect for the land. Mo Udall's intelligence, sense of humor and civility endeared him to his colleagues and to the citizens of Arizona's District 2 whom he served so well. He was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention in 1980 and was paid a special tribute by the Democratic Party during the 1992 national convention. When Mo Udall retired in 1991, Washington Post reporter, David Broder, had this to say: The legacy he left is imposing and enduring, it ranges from strip mining and Alaska wilderness legislation to the reform of archaic committee and floor procedures that congressional barons had used to conceal their arbitrary power. For a whole generation of congressmen, Udall became a mentor and a model, he was special and precious to many of us. Mr. President, Mo Udall was special. He provided a positive and unifying force in the U.S. Congress which has been sorely missed. He was a good friend and respected colleague in the public service, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him and to extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to his family.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Blind Persons Earnings Equity Act, a bill that will open up a world of opportunities for blind persons and greatly improve their lives. Currently, the blind are discouraged from working by an overly restrictive provision in the Social Security Act that limits the amount of income they may earn for themselves. The Blind Persons Earnings Equity Act would raise that earnings restriction and lessen the burden of at least one of the many obstacles to employment faced by the blind today. Blindness has profoundly adverse social and economic consequences, and Social Security benefits are needed to offset the disadvantages suffered by the blind. However, these same laws that are meant to help, must be revised when it becomes clear they are hindering blind persons from joining the workforce and discouraging them from becoming fully engaged in society. Instead of encouraging the blind to develop job skills and become productive members of their communities, the law addressed by this bill penalizes them. Once their earnings rise above an amount that is barely sufficient to cover the most basic living expenses, their Social Security benefits are cut completely. No wonder it is estimated that over seventy percent of the employable blind population is either unemployed or underemployed. This statistic, however, does not represent an unwillingness to work. On the contrary, the blind want to work and take great pride in developing the necessary skills that enable them to contribute to society. I had the honor of knowing personally a great American leader who just happened to be blind. His name was Dr. Kenneth Jernigan and for over 25 years he led the organized blind movement in the United States. As President for the National Federation of the Blind, he moved the national headquarters to Baltimore where I had the opportunity to meet him. Sadly, Dr. Jernigan passed away last year. Dr. Jernigan may have been blind in the physical sense, Mr. President, but he was a man of vision nonetheless. In his leadership of the National Federation of the Blind, he taught all of us to understand that eyesight and insight are not related to each other in any way. Although he did not have eyesight, his insight on life, learning, and leading has no equal. Dr. Jernigan devoted his life to empowering the blind and encouraging them to be active members of society. He fought to improve their access to information, education, jobs, and public facilities. The overly restrictive earnings cap in the Social Security Act represents precisely the kind of unfair law and barrier to employment that Dr. Jernigan battled throughout his life. He knew first hand about the devastating impact that restrictions such as this could have on the aspirations and hope of blind persons already struggling to overcome tremendous challenges. Congress itself has recognized the overly restrictive nature of this earnings cap. In 1996, we raised the cap for senior citizens with passage of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. However, the earnings limitation for blind individuals was left unchanged. Up until that point, for almost twenty years, the same earnings cap had applied to both senior citizens and blind persons under the Social Security Act. With passage of the 1996 Freedom to Work Act, seniors were encouraged to remain active and continue working, but the disincentive to work was unfortunately left in place for the blind. Consequently, by 2002, seniors will be permitted to earn up to $30,000, but blind people who earn over $14,800 (less than half as much) will lose their benefits. There is no justification for raising the earnings cap for one group and not the other. Why should we distinguish between two groups that for over twenty years were treated even-handedly under the law? What has changed to cause us to discriminate between the two and encourage one to work while greatly limiting the opportunities of the other? By reestablishing parity in the treatment of blind persons and senior citizens under the Social Security Act, this legislation will restore fairness to this law and will remedy a policy that has kept the blind locked out of rewarding, self-fulfilling employment. Although a small number of blind persons may become newly eligible for benefits as a result of this change, their number will be a mere fraction of the thousands who do not work because of the disincentive imposed by this earnings limit. By enabling these beneficiaries to work, the overall net effect of this bill will be to increase payments to the Social Security trust funds and bring additional revenue to the Federal Treasury as well. I urge my colleagues to support this necessary legislation that will ensure the blind are treated fairly under the law and will empower thousands of blind beneficiaries to become more engaged in society through productive employment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last Thursday's Baltimore Sun reported that Pfiesteria, a sometimes toxic microorganism, has been found in five more Maryland rivers. The article explained that new research is proving what scientists have suspected since serious outbreaks of toxic Pfiesteria first occurred in 1997--namely that Pfiesteria exists in a wide area. While the organism isn't always toxic, the fact that it has been found in a wide area coupled with the fact that it has proved injurious in the past, strongly supports the assertion that Pfiesteria poses a potential threat to the economic well-being of thousands of businesses in the fishing, recreation, and tourism industries along the east coast. In 1997, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina suffered from several separate incidents that involved fish behaving in an erratic manner, a large number of fish with lesions, and fish kills. State and outside scientists concluded that Pfiesteria was the most likely cause of the problem. In Maryland, the fishing industry alone, lost millions of dollars in revenue. In 1998, the magnitude of reported Pfiesteria outbreaks was considerably less, however, we cannot become complacent. The report in the Baltimore Sun confirms that the 1997 Pfiesteria outbreaks may not have been a one-time phenomenon. We must begin to safeguard the economy, both regional and national, from the impacts of Pfiesteria. Today, I am joined by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, and my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards in introducing a bill, entitled the Toxic Microorganism Abatement Pilot Project Act, which would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to begin developing tools and techniques to abate the flow of nutrients into our waters and thereby prevent or at least minimize the effects of future toxic Pfiesteria outbreaks. In 1997, the Administration directed that an interagency research and monitoring strategy be developed in response to the outbreaks of Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. Several Federal agencies participated in the development of this strategy including the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control, and the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Funding to implement the plan was included in the fiscal 1998 and 1999 budgets. Unfortunately, the key federal agency with expertise in habitat maintenance, water resources and engineering principles--the Army Corps of Engineers--was not included in the interagency task force and the agency's unique qualifications were not integrated into the strategic plan. While research into the exact causes of toxic Pfiesteria blooms is imperative, it is just as important that we take early, aggressive, and concrete steps to prevent such blooms if we can. This bill is designed to ensure that all available expertise is brought to bear in combating these biotoxins. The legislation would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an evaluation and to engage in pilot projects to develop tools and techniques for combating Pfiesteria and other toxic microorganisms. At the end of each pilot project, the Army Corps of Engineers will be required to submit a report to Congress that describes the project, its success, and the general applicability of the methods used in the project. Because of its expertise in construction and watershed management, the Army Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in responding to the threats posed by toxic microorganisms. This legislation provides the funding and authority for the agency to do so. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a copy of the Baltimore Sun article be inserted in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with a number of my colleagues, a bill to continue and enhance the efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Joining me in sponsoring this bill are my colleagues from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Senators Mikulski, Warner, Robb, and Santorum. 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 because 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 and is an important component in the national economy. The Bay is a major commercial waterway and shipping center for the region and for much of the eastern United States. It supports a world-class fishery that produces a significant portion of the country's fin fish and shellfish catch. The Bay and its waters also maintain an enormous tourism and recreation industry. The Chesapeake Bay is a complex system. It draws its life-sustaining waters from a watershed that covers more than 64,000 square miles and parts of six states. The Bay's relationship to the people, industries, and communities in those six states and beyond is also complex and multifaceted. I could continue talking about these aspects of the Bay, but my fellow Senators are aware of the Bay's importance and have consistently regarded the protection and enhancement of the quality of the Chesapeake Bay as an important national objective. Through the concerted efforts of public and private organizations, we have learned to understand the complexities of the Bay and we have learned what it takes to maintain the system that sustains us. The Chesapeake Bay Program is an extraordinary example of how local, State, regional, and Federal agencies can work with citizens and private organizations to manage complicated, vital, natural resources. Indeed, the Chesapeake Bay Program serves as a model across the country and around the world. When the Bay began to experience serious unprecedented declines in water quality and living resources in the 1970s, the people in my state suffered. 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. We began to recognize that untreated sewage, deforestation, toxic chemicals, agricultural runoff, and increased development were causing a degradation of water quality, the loss of wildlife, and elimination of vital habitat. We also began to recognize that these negative impacts were only part of a cycle that could eventually impact other economic and human health interests. Fortunately, over the last two decades we have come to understand that humans can also have a positive effect on the environment. We have learned that we can, if we are committed, help repair natural systems so that they continue to provide economic opportunities and enhance the quality of life for future generations. We now treat sewage before it enters our waters. We banned toxic chemicals that were killing 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. Governors have been strongly committed, as have State legislatures and the public. There are a number of private organizations--the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, for example--which do extraordinary good work in this area. But there has been invaluable involvement by the Federal Government as well. The cooperation and attention of Federal agencies has been essential. 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 improving the water quality of the Bay and is succeeding in bringing back many of the fish and wildlife species. The Chesapeake Bay is getting cleaner, but we cannot afford to be complacent. There are still tremendous stresses on the Bay. This is a fast-growing area of the country, with an ever increasing population, development, and continuous changes in land use. We need to remain vigilant in continuing to address the needs of the Bay restoration effort. The hard work, investment, and commitment, at all levels, which has brought gains over the last three decades, must not be allowed to lapse or falter. The measure I am introducing today reauthorizes the Bay program and builds upon the Federal Government's past role in the Chesapeake Bay Program and the highly successful Federal-State-local partnership to which I made reference. The bill also establishes simple agency disclosure and budget coordination mechanisms to help ensure that information about Federal Bay-related grants and projects are readily available to the scientific community and the public. As I mentioned before, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a model of efficient and effective coordination. Still, there is always room for improvement as experience informs and enlightens our judgments. While coordination between the various levels of government has been exemplary, coordination among Federal agencies can be strengthened. This legislation begins to develop a better coordination mechanism to help ensure that all Federal agency programs are accounted for. In addition, this bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a ``Small Watershed Grants Program'' for the Chesapeake Bay region. These grants will help organizations and local governments launch a variety of locally-designed and locally-implemented projects to restore relatively small pieces of the larger Chesapeake Bay watershed. By empowering local agencies and community groups to identify and solve local problems, this grant program will promote stewardship across the region and improve the whole by strengthening the parts. This bill was carefully crafted with the advise, counsel, and assistance of many hard working organizations in the Chesapeake Bay region, including the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and various offices within the state governments of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Mr. President, it is the hope of the cosponsors that this bill will ultimately be incorporated into a larger piece of legislation that is 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 wide 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 treasued natural resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last Thursday's Baltimore Sun reported that Pfiesteria, a sometimes toxic microorganism, has been found in five more Maryland rivers. The article explained that new research is proving what scientists have suspected since serious outbreaks of toxic Pfiesteria first occurred in 1997--namely that Pfiesteria exists in a wide area. While the organism isn't always toxic, the fact that it has been found in a wide area coupled with the fact that it has proved injurious in the past, strongly supports the assertion that Pfiesteria poses a potential threat to the economic well-being of thousands of businesses in the fishing, recreation, and tourism industries along the east coast. In 1997, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina suffered from several separate incidents that involved fish behaving in an erratic manner, a large number of fish with lesions, and fish kills. State and outside scientists concluded that Pfiesteria was the most likely cause of the problem. In Maryland, the fishing industry alone, lost millions of dollars in revenue. In 1998, the magnitude of reported Pfiesteria outbreaks was considerably less, however, we cannot become complacent. The report in the Baltimore Sun confirms that the 1997 Pfiesteria outbreaks may not have been a one-time phenomenon. We must begin to safeguard the economy, both regional and national, from the impacts of Pfiesteria. Today, I am joined by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, and my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards in introducing a bill, entitled the Toxic Microorganism Abatement Pilot Project Act, which would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to begin developing tools and techniques to abate the flow of nutrients into our waters and thereby prevent or at least minimize the effects of future toxic Pfiesteria outbreaks. In 1997, the Administration directed that an interagency research and monitoring strategy be developed in response to the outbreaks of Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. Several Federal agencies participated in the development of this strategy including the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control, and the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Funding to implement the plan was included in the fiscal 1998 and 1999 budgets. Unfortunately, the key federal agency with expertise in habitat maintenance, water resources and engineering principles--the Army Corps of Engineers--was not included in the interagency task force and the agency's unique qualifications were not integrated into the strategic plan. While research into the exact causes of toxic Pfiesteria blooms is imperative, it is just as important that we take early, aggressive, and concrete steps to prevent such blooms if we can. This bill is designed to ensure that all available expertise is brought to bear in combating these biotoxins. The legislation would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an evaluation and to engage in pilot projects to develop tools and techniques for combating Pfiesteria and other toxic microorganisms. At the end of each pilot project, the Army Corps of Engineers will be required to submit a report to Congress that describes the project, its success, and the general applicability of the methods used in the project. Because of its expertise in construction and watershed management, the Army Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in responding to the threats posed by toxic microorganisms. This legislation provides the funding and authority for the agency to do so. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a copy of the Baltimore Sun article be inserted in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with a number of my colleagues, a bill to continue and enhance the efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Joining me in sponsoring this bill are my colleagues from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Senators Mikulski, Warner, Robb, and Santorum. 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 because 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 and is an important component in the national economy. The Bay is a major commercial waterway and shipping center for the region and for much of the eastern United States. It supports a world-class fishery that produces a significant portion of the country's fin fish and shellfish catch. The Bay and its waters also maintain an enormous tourism and recreation industry. The Chesapeake Bay is a complex system. It draws its life-sustaining waters from a watershed that covers more than 64,000 square miles and parts of six states. The Bay's relationship to the people, industries, and communities in those six states and beyond is also complex and multifaceted. I could continue talking about these aspects of the Bay, but my fellow Senators are aware of the Bay's importance and have consistently regarded the protection and enhancement of the quality of the Chesapeake Bay as an important national objective. Through the concerted efforts of public and private organizations, we have learned to understand the complexities of the Bay and we have learned what it takes to maintain the system that sustains us. The Chesapeake Bay Program is an extraordinary example of how local, State, regional, and Federal agencies can work with citizens and private organizations to manage complicated, vital, natural resources. Indeed, the Chesapeake Bay Program serves as a model across the country and around the world. When the Bay began to experience serious unprecedented declines in water quality and living resources in the 1970s, the people in my state suffered. 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. We began to recognize that untreated sewage, deforestation, toxic chemicals, agricultural runoff, and increased development were causing a degradation of water quality, the loss of wildlife, and elimination of vital habitat. We also began to recognize that these negative impacts were only part of a cycle that could eventually impact other economic and human health interests. Fortunately, over the last two decades we have come to understand that humans can also have a positive effect on the environment. We have learned that we can, if we are committed, help repair natural systems so that they continue to provide economic opportunities and enhance the quality of life for future generations. We now treat sewage before it enters our waters. We banned toxic chemicals that were killing 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. Governors have been strongly committed, as have State legislatures and the public. There are a number of private organizations--the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, for example--which do extraordinary good work in this area. But there has been invaluable involvement by the Federal Government as well. The cooperation and attention of Federal agencies has been essential. 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 improving the water quality of the Bay and is succeeding in bringing back many of the fish and wildlife species. The Chesapeake Bay is getting cleaner, but we cannot afford to be complacent. There are still tremendous stresses on the Bay. This is a fast-growing area of the country, with an ever increasing population, development, and continuous changes in land use. We need to remain vigilant in continuing to address the needs of the Bay restoration effort. The hard work, investment, and commitment, at all levels, which has brought gains over the last three decades, must not be allowed to lapse or falter. The measure I am introducing today reauthorizes the Bay program and builds upon the Federal Government's past role in the Chesapeake Bay Program and the highly successful Federal-State-local partnership to which I made reference. The bill also establishes simple agency disclosure and budget coordination mechanisms to help ensure that information about Federal Bay-related grants and projects are readily available to the scientific community and the public. As I mentioned before, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a model of efficient and effective coordination. Still, there is always room for improvement as experience informs and enlightens our judgments. While coordination between the various levels of government has been exemplary, coordination among Federal agencies can be strengthened. This legislation begins to develop a better coordination mechanism to help ensure that all Federal agency programs are accounted for. In addition, this bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a ``Small Watershed Grants Program'' for the Chesapeake Bay region. These grants will help organizations and local governments launch a variety of locally-designed and locally-implemented projects to restore relatively small pieces of the larger Chesapeake Bay watershed. By empowering local agencies and community groups to identify and solve local problems, this grant program will promote stewardship across the region and improve the whole by strengthening the parts. This bill was carefully crafted with the advise, counsel, and assistance of many hard working organizations in the Chesapeake Bay region, including the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and various offices within the state governments of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Mr. President, it is the hope of the cosponsors that this bill will ultimately be incorporated into a larger piece of legislation that is 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 wide 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 treasued natural resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, every February, since Dr. Carter G. Woodson first initiated the idea in 1926, Americans have celebrated the contributions of African-Americans to our history, literature, arts, sciences, politics and every other facet of American life. What was in the beginning only a week-long event, has blossomed into a month-long celebration. This year's theme, as selected by the Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History (ASALH), is ``The Legacy of African- American Leadership for the Present and the Future.'' This theme captures one of the primary objectives of Dr. Woodson in creating this annual celebration. Dr. Woodson believed that you must look back in order to look forward. He dedicated his entire life to the research and documentation of African-American history, and his efforts were intended to educate and inspire contemporaneous and future generations of Americans. In keeping with this theme and Dr. Woodson's vision, I rise today to share with my colleagues of the Senate and the American people a few of the legacies of outstanding African-Americans from Maryland. While this is not an exhaustive listing, it exemplifies the legacy of African- Americans in the areas of science, engineering, abolitionism, literature, religion, theater, education, civil rights, law, business, athletics, diplomacy and politics. I believe you will find--as I have found--their stories and accomplishments inspiring, and it is my fervent hope that today's African-American youth will find in these men and women role models to inspire their own efforts as we move into the 21st Century. Benjamin Banneker (1731-1806) of Ellicott's Mill, Maryland is credited with building the first clock in America in 1753. He was an inventor, scientist and surveyor who played an important role in the layout and design of our nation's capital city. Harriet Tubman (1820-1913) of Dorchester County, Maryland escaped from slavery and was responsible for assisting more than 300 slaves reach freedom in the north through the underground railway. Francis E.W. Harper (1825-1911) of Baltimore, Maryland was the first African-American writer to have a published short story. She also had her poetry and other verse published, including a novel in 1892. Billie Holiday (1915-1959) of Baltimore, Maryland is to this day regarded as one the greatest jazz vocalists in history, and as one of America's premier artists of the 20th Century. Zora Neale Hurston (1891-1960) of Baltimore, Maryland was a distinguished author, folklorist and anthropologist. Charles Randolph Uncles (1859-1933) of Baltimore, Maryland became the first African-American priest ordained in the United States on December 19, 1891, beginning a line of American ministers that has included Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Eubie Blake (1883-1983) of Baltimore, Maryland was a popular ragtime pianist and composer who first learned to play the piano at age six and went on to break color barriers on Broadway and theaters across the nation. Mary Church Terrell (1864-1954) of Annapolis, Maryland was an outstanding educator and early civil rights leader. Edward Franklin Frazier (1894-1962) of the Eastern Shore of Maryland was a teacher of mathematics, professor of sociology and author who created and furthered the academic knowledge and understanding of the African-American community. Clifton Wharton (1899-1990) of Baltimore, Maryland became the first African-American foreign service officer named chief of an American mission overseas when he was appointed U.S. Minister to Romania in 1958. Leon Day (1916-1995), a Hall of Fame baseball player from Baltimore, Maryland, was one of the most consistently outstanding pitchers in the Negro Leagues during the 1930's and 1940's. His consistency was interrupted only by two years of service in the Army during World War II where he distinguished himself on Utah Beach during the Allied invasion of France. Reginald F. Lewis (1942-1993) of Baltimore, Maryland created first African-American law firm on Wall Street and led the first African- American owned company with annual revenue exceeding $1 billion. Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993) of Baltimore, Maryland served as chief counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund (NAACP-LDF) at a time when the NAACP brought, argued and won Brown v. Board of Education, the seminal 1954 civil rights Supreme Court case. He went on to serve his nation as a federal Appellate Court judge, Solicitor General, and the first African-American member of the United States Supreme Court. I am also sorry to report that Maryland recently lost one of its legal and political leaders when Judge Harry A. Cole passed away earlier this month. Judge Harry A. Cole was both the first African- American to hold the office of an Assistant State Attorney General in Maryland, and the first African-American named to the Maryland Court of Appeals, which is my State's highest court. During his fourteen year tenure on the Court of Appeals, Judge Cole distinguished himself with his scholarly and independent opinions, and we will miss him dearly in Maryland. Mr. President, as this short account makes evident, Maryland is and has been proud to be the home of some of America's greatest African- Americans. These are people who did not let economic or racial barriers stop them from reaching their goals or achieving their dreams. These outstanding individuals, and many others from Maryland and across the United States, have opened doors and set high standards for later generations of African-Americans. Most importantly, however, these are people who continue to serve as role models for all Americans. Indeed, the State of Maryland continues to be blessed and enriched with outstanding African-American leaders who have built on Maryland's rich African-American legacy. I speak here of such individuals as Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke and NAACP President and CEO Kweisi Mfume. I would like to observe that the State of Maryland is currently benefiting from a continued growth in our African-American population. Between 1990 and 1997, when the last set of complete figures were available from the Census Bureau, the number of African-Americans calling Maryland ``home'' grew to 1.4 million--an increase of 200,609 people. This makes Maryland the state with the eighth largest African- American population in the United States. Nearby Prince George's County was second in the nation in terms of growth during this seven-year period with 68,325 new African-American residents. Mr. President, in closing, Maryland is fortunate to have such a rich legacy of African-American leadership as well as a growing population of young African-American men and women to whom this legacy will provide inspiration and examples. As I noted at the outset, Dr. Woodson believed in looking back in order to look forward. As I look back at the deeds and accomplishments of the Marylanders listed above, and of the many outstanding African-Americans who have contributed to American science, engineering, abolitionism, literature, religion, theater, education, civil rights, law, business, athletics, diplomacy and politics, I see much to inspire our forward march into the next century, during which I hope we will eradicate forever the scourge of prejudice and racial bias from our society.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the amendment that I and Senator Warner and Senator Robb and Senator Mikulski have offered is before the Senate. This is a very straightforward amendment expressing the sense of the Congress that parity between Federal civilian pay and military pay should be maintained. We should continue that parity. A comparison by CRS of military and civilian pay increases finds that 80 percent of the military and civilian pay increases in the last 25 years have been identical. Disparate treatment goes against established congressional policy that has ensured parity with all those who work to serve our Nation, whether in the Armed Forces or in the civilian workforce. One of the rationales for the increase for military personnel, which is in this legislation which I support, has been to address the concerns about retention and recruitment problems. We have comparable problems with respect to the civilian service, and I think it is important to note that more and more of graduating classes indicate less interest in the Federal service. A GAO report in 1990 found that low pay was the most cited reason for employees leaving the civil service or refusing to take a Federal position in the first place. Over the years, particularly in recent years, Federal employees have made significant sacrifices in the name of deficit reduction. The law governing Federal civilian pay has never been fully implemented since 1994. In fact, Federal civilian workers received a reduced annual adjustment. The gap continues to grow, which we are very concerned about. We have been through a downsizing period during which the Federal employees have continued to provide high-quality service. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support this provision. It is an effort to achieve a first-rate public service. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, to introduce legislation that is absolutely critical to the administration of justice and the economy in our State of Maryland. This legislation provides for four additional bankruptcy judges for the federal judicial District of Maryland. This bill represents only the most recent of our efforts to strengthen Maryland's federal bankruptcy court. Early in the 105th Congress, we introduced legislation adding two additional bankruptcy judges for the District of Maryland, in line with the then-pending request of the Judicial Conference. The House of Representatives followed suit in summer 1997, passing legislation that authorized these two judges, in addition to other new bankruptcy judgeships throughout the country. Last year, the Senate overwhelmingly passed bankruptcy reform legislation that, among other things, authorized these two judgeships, though under the Senate bill the judges were of temporary, rather than permanent, status. This legislation ultimately was not enacted into law, however, and with such inaction the problem facing Maryland's sitting bankruptcy judges has only grown. Maryland remains without the additional judgeships it so desperately needs to make our bankruptcy system work. Our State's need for additional bankruptcy judges has long since passed the critical stage. Since November 1993, when Maryland last received an additional bankruptcy judge, the number of bankruptcy filings in the State has more than doubled. While the entire nation has witnessed a surge in bankruptcy filings over the past several years, the increase in Maryland has dwarfed the national average increase. Bankruptcy filings in Maryland in the second quarter of 1998 grew at eight times the national rate of increase for that period; for the 12- month period ending June 30, 1998, the rate of increase in Maryland was the tenth greatest of the 90 federal judicial districts in the Nation. The District of Maryland ranks first among federal judicial districts in filings per judge. As noted earlier, each House of Congress authorized two additional bankruptcy judges for Maryland during the 105th Congress. Simply put, however, the problem has outpaced this solution. The need for the four additional judgeships sought in this legislation becomes even more evident when one considers it in the context of the case-weighting system adopted by the Judicial Conference in 1991 to assess requests for additional bankruptcy judges. Under this system, different types of bankruptcy cases are assigned different degrees of difficulty and overall weighted case-hour goals are established for the judges. The Judicial Conference begins to consider requests for additional judges when a district's per-judge weighted caseload reaches 1500 hours. The average United States Bankruptcy Judge had a weighted case- hour load of 1429 hours per year for the 12-month period ending June 30, 1998. For that same period, Maryland's bankruptcy judges averaged a weighted case-hour load of 3020 hours--an astounding 211 percent of the national average. Not only do the Maryland figures dwarf the national average; they also dwarf the prior Maryland figures which led to legislation passed by each Houses of Congress authorizing additional judgeships. Indeed, Maryland's overall weighted case load for the 12- month period ending June 30, 1998, represented a 25% increase over its load for the prior 12-month period alone. I ask my colleagues to consider these telling statistics: If Maryland were to receive two additional judgeships tomorrow, its per-judge weighted caseload would still be 2013 hours--41 percent greater than the national average last year, and 34 percent greater than the 1500-hour benchmark used by the Judicial Conference to evaluate requests for additional judgeships. If Maryland were to receive three additional judgeships tomorrow, its per-judge weighted caseload would still be 1725 hours--21 percent more than the national average, and 15 percent greater than the Judicial Conference benchmark. Only if Maryland were to receive four additional judgeships, as requested in this bill, would the per-judge caseload in Maryland approximate the national average. And even then each Maryland judge would have a caseload of 1510 case-weighted hours--still above the 1429-hour national average, and still above the 1500-hour Judicial Conference benchmark. The additional judgeships sought in this bill are essential not only for effective judicial administration, but also for Maryland's economy. Bankruptcy laws foster orderly, constructive relationships between debtors and creditors during times of economic difficulty. Their effective and expeditious implementation results in businesses being reorganized, jobs (provided by creditors and debtors) preserved, and debts managed fairly. Overworked bankruptcy courts have a destabilizing effect on this system, and the inevitable delays occasioned by the lack of judges harm creditors and debtors, imperiling Maryland's businesses and the people they employ. It is expected that bankruptcy reform legislation will be one of the first items on the Senate's agenda now that it has resumed legislative business. Adding judgeships in Maryland's and other bankruptcy courts in need of relief is an essential component of any such reform, given that the legislation we are contemplating will not only not ease the burdens on these courts, but in fact will increase these burdens by imposing new responsibilities on our nation's bankruptcy judges. And even if comprehensive bankruptcy reform fails or is delayed, the current state of affairs facing Maryland's bankruptcy court requires immediate action in the form of adding judges to that court. In closing let me once again commend the efforts of Maryland's four sitting bankruptcy judges--Chief Judge Paul Mannes and Judges Duncan Keir, James Schneider, and Steve Derby. Their dedication to the administration of justice is especially impressive given the extraordinary burdens placed on them--burdens which the Senate ought to ease at the earliest possible instance.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, to introduce legislation that is absolutely critical to the administration of justice and the economy in our State of Maryland. This legislation provides for four additional bankruptcy judges for the federal judicial District of Maryland. This bill represents only the most recent of our efforts to strengthen Maryland's federal bankruptcy court. Early in the 105th Congress, we introduced legislation adding two additional bankruptcy judges for the District of Maryland, in line with the then-pending request of the Judicial Conference. The House of Representatives followed suit in summer 1997, passing legislation that authorized these two judges, in addition to other new bankruptcy judgeships throughout the country. Last year, the Senate overwhelmingly passed bankruptcy reform legislation that, among other things, authorized these two judgeships, though under the Senate bill the judges were of temporary, rather than permanent, status. This legislation ultimately was not enacted into law, however, and with such inaction the problem facing Maryland's sitting bankruptcy judges has only grown. Maryland remains without the additional judgeships it so desperately needs to make our bankruptcy system work. Our State's need for additional bankruptcy judges has long since passed the critical stage. Since November 1993, when Maryland last received an additional bankruptcy judge, the number of bankruptcy filings in the State has more than doubled. While the entire nation has witnessed a surge in bankruptcy filings over the past several years, the increase in Maryland has dwarfed the national average increase. Bankruptcy filings in Maryland in the second quarter of 1998 grew at eight times the national rate of increase for that period; for the 12- month period ending June 30, 1998, the rate of increase in Maryland was the tenth greatest of the 90 federal judicial districts in the Nation. The District of Maryland ranks first among federal judicial districts in filings per judge. As noted earlier, each House of Congress authorized two additional bankruptcy judges for Maryland during the 105th Congress. Simply put, however, the problem has outpaced this solution. The need for the four additional judgeships sought in this legislation becomes even more evident when one considers it in the context of the case-weighting system adopted by the Judicial Conference in 1991 to assess requests for additional bankruptcy judges. Under this system, different types of bankruptcy cases are assigned different degrees of difficulty and overall weighted case-hour goals are established for the judges. The Judicial Conference begins to consider requests for additional judges when a district's per-judge weighted caseload reaches 1500 hours. The average United States Bankruptcy Judge had a weighted case- hour load of 1429 hours per year for the 12-month period ending June 30, 1998. For that same period, Maryland's bankruptcy judges averaged a weighted case-hour load of 3020 hours--an astounding 211 percent of the national average. Not only do the Maryland figures dwarf the national average; they also dwarf the prior Maryland figures which led to legislation passed by each Houses of Congress authorizing additional judgeships. Indeed, Maryland's overall weighted case load for the 12- month period ending June 30, 1998, represented a 25% increase over its load for the prior 12-month period alone. I ask my colleagues to consider these telling statistics: If Maryland were to receive two additional judgeships tomorrow, its per-judge weighted caseload would still be 2013 hours--41 percent greater than the national average last year, and 34 percent greater than the 1500-hour benchmark used by the Judicial Conference to evaluate requests for additional judgeships. If Maryland were to receive three additional judgeships tomorrow, its per-judge weighted caseload would still be 1725 hours--21 percent more than the national average, and 15 percent greater than the Judicial Conference benchmark. Only if Maryland were to receive four additional judgeships, as requested in this bill, would the per-judge caseload in Maryland approximate the national average. And even then each Maryland judge would have a caseload of 1510 case-weighted hours--still above the 1429-hour national average, and still above the 1500-hour Judicial Conference benchmark. The additional judgeships sought in this bill are essential not only for effective judicial administration, but also for Maryland's economy. Bankruptcy laws foster orderly, constructive relationships between debtors and creditors during times of economic difficulty. Their effective and expeditious implementation results in businesses being reorganized, jobs (provided by creditors and debtors) preserved, and debts managed fairly. Overworked bankruptcy courts have a destabilizing effect on this system, and the inevitable delays occasioned by the lack of judges harm creditors and debtors, imperiling Maryland's businesses and the people they employ. It is expected that bankruptcy reform legislation will be one of the first items on the Senate's agenda now that it has resumed legislative business. Adding judgeships in Maryland's and other bankruptcy courts in need of relief is an essential component of any such reform, given that the legislation we are contemplating will not only not ease the burdens on these courts, but in fact will increase these burdens by imposing new responsibilities on our nation's bankruptcy judges. And even if comprehensive bankruptcy reform fails or is delayed, the current state of affairs facing Maryland's bankruptcy court requires immediate action in the form of adding judges to that court. In closing let me once again commend the efforts of Maryland's four sitting bankruptcy judges--Chief Judge Paul Mannes and Judges Duncan Keir, James Schneider, and Steve Derby. Their dedication to the administration of justice is especially impressive given the extraordinary burdens placed on them--burdens which the Senate ought to ease at the earliest possible instance.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. SARBANES. I want to add that there was a time not too far back when Maryland and Virginia watermen used to shoot at each other on the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. I am happy to report that has never been the tenor of the relationship between myself and the distinguished Senator from Virginia. I have enjoyed working in cooperation with him on a whole range of issues which have been to the benefit of our respective constituencies, and, indeed, to the benefit of the country. I am delighted to be aligned with him once again on an important issue.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President I will be very brief. I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senator from Georgia in allowing me to present this amendment before he presents his. We will take this up in the morning. There will be a very limited amount of time. Very simply, this is a sense-of-the-Congress resolution that there should be parity between the adjustments and the compensation of members of the uniformed services and the adjustments and the compensation of civilian employees of the United States. In almost every year over the past two decades, there have been equal adjustments in the compensation of members of the uniformed services and the compensation of civilian employees of the United States, and this expresses the sense of the Congress that this parity in adjustments should continue. I know a number of Members wish to join in cosponsoring, and I add Senators Robb and Senator Mikulski as cosponsors at this point. Members will obviously have a chance to do that first thing in the morning. Senator Warner and I can speak to it briefly in the morning. It is a very straightforward amendment. I don't know of any opposition to it. I very strongly urge my colleagues to be supportive of this amendment. I again thank the Senator from Georgia for his kindness, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleague Senator Mikulski, which will help commemorate and preserve significant sites associated with America's Second War of Independence, the War of 1812. My legislation, entitled ``The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Study Act of 1999,'' directs the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a study to assess the feasibility and desirability of designating the route of the British invasion of Washington, D.C. and their subsequent defeat at Baltimore, Maryland, as a National Historic Trail. A similar companion bill is being sponsored by Congressmen Ben Cardin and Wayne Gilchrest in the House of Representatives. Since the passage of the National Trail Systems Act of 1968, the National Park Service has recognized historically significant routes of exploration, migration and military action through its National Historic Trails Program. Routes such as the Juan Bautista de Anza, Lewis and Clark, Pony Express and Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trails cross our country and represent important episodes of our nation's history, episodes which were influential in shaping the very future of this country. It is my view that the inclusion of the Star- Spangled Banner Trail will give long overdue recognition to another of these important events. The War of 1812, and the Chesapeake Campaign in particular, mark a turning point in the development of the United States. Faced with the possibility of losing the independence for which they struggled so valiantly, the citizens of this country were forced to assert themselves on an international level. From the period of the arrival of the British forces at Benedict, in Charles County, Maryland, on August 18, 1814, to the American victory at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, on September 14, 1814, the war took a dramatic turn. The American forces, largely comprised of Maryland's citizens, were able to slow the British advance through the state and successfully defended Baltimore, leading to the retreat of the British. The more than 30 sites along this trail mark some of the most historically important events of the War of 1812. The Star-Spangled Banner Trail, commemorating the only combined naval and land attack on the United States, begins with the June, 1814 battles between the British Navy and the American Chesapeake Flotilla at St. Leonard's Creek in Calvert County, Maryland. It continues to the site of the British landing at Benedict, Maryland the starting point of the British march to the nation's capital, Washington, D.C. The trail follows the defeat of the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg, the evacuation of the United States Government, the burning of the nation's capital, including the White House and the Capitol Building, the battle at North Point and the bombardment of Fort McHenry, site of the composition of our National Anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner, and the ultimate defeat of the British. The route will also serve to bring awareness to several lesser known, but equally important sites of the war, including St. Leonard's Creek in Calvert County, where Commodore Joshua Barney's Chesapeake Flotilla managed to successfully beat back two larger and more heavily armed British ships, the Upper Chesapeke Bay and related skirmishes there, Brookeville, Maryland, which served as the nation's capital for one day, and Todd's Inheritance, the signal station for the American defenders at Fort McHenry. These sites, and many like them, will only enrich the story told along the trail. Additionally, the attention given to these sites should prove beneficial in terms of efforts to preserve and restore them. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that a more detailed list of these sites, as well as a copy of this legislation and a letter of support from Governor Parris Glendening, be included in the Record. Mr. President, the designation of the route of the British invasion of Washington and American defense of Baltimore as a National Historic Trail will serve as a reminder of the importance of the concept of liberty to all who experience the Star-Spangled Banner Trail. It will also give long overdue recognition to those patriots whose determination to stand firm against enemy invasion and bombardment preserved this liberty for future generations of Americans.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleague Senator Mikulski, which will help commemorate and preserve significant sites associated with America's Second War of Independence, the War of 1812. My legislation, entitled ``The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Study Act of 1999,'' directs the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a study to assess the feasibility and desirability of designating the route of the British invasion of Washington, D.C. and their subsequent defeat at Baltimore, Maryland, as a National Historic Trail. A similar companion bill is being sponsored by Congressmen Ben Cardin and Wayne Gilchrest in the House of Representatives. Since the passage of the National Trail Systems Act of 1968, the National Park Service has recognized historically significant routes of exploration, migration and military action through its National Historic Trails Program. Routes such as the Juan Bautista de Anza, Lewis and Clark, Pony Express and Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trails cross our country and represent important episodes of our nation's history, episodes which were influential in shaping the very future of this country. It is my view that the inclusion of the Star- Spangled Banner Trail will give long overdue recognition to another of these important events. The War of 1812, and the Chesapeake Campaign in particular, mark a turning point in the development of the United States. Faced with the possibility of losing the independence for which they struggled so valiantly, the citizens of this country were forced to assert themselves on an international level. From the period of the arrival of the British forces at Benedict, in Charles County, Maryland, on August 18, 1814, to the American victory at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, on September 14, 1814, the war took a dramatic turn. The American forces, largely comprised of Maryland's citizens, were able to slow the British advance through the state and successfully defended Baltimore, leading to the retreat of the British. The more than 30 sites along this trail mark some of the most historically important events of the War of 1812. The Star-Spangled Banner Trail, commemorating the only combined naval and land attack on the United States, begins with the June, 1814 battles between the British Navy and the American Chesapeake Flotilla at St. Leonard's Creek in Calvert County, Maryland. It continues to the site of the British landing at Benedict, Maryland the starting point of the British march to the nation's capital, Washington, D.C. The trail follows the defeat of the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg, the evacuation of the United States Government, the burning of the nation's capital, including the White House and the Capitol Building, the battle at North Point and the bombardment of Fort McHenry, site of the composition of our National Anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner, and the ultimate defeat of the British. The route will also serve to bring awareness to several lesser known, but equally important sites of the war, including St. Leonard's Creek in Calvert County, where Commodore Joshua Barney's Chesapeake Flotilla managed to successfully beat back two larger and more heavily armed British ships, the Upper Chesapeke Bay and related skirmishes there, Brookeville, Maryland, which served as the nation's capital for one day, and Todd's Inheritance, the signal station for the American defenders at Fort McHenry. These sites, and many like them, will only enrich the story told along the trail. Additionally, the attention given to these sites should prove beneficial in terms of efforts to preserve and restore them. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that a more detailed list of these sites, as well as a copy of this legislation and a letter of support from Governor Parris Glendening, be included in the Record. Mr. President, the designation of the route of the British invasion of Washington and American defense of Baltimore as a National Historic Trail will serve as a reminder of the importance of the concept of liberty to all who experience the Star-Spangled Banner Trail. It will also give long overdue recognition to those patriots whose determination to stand firm against enemy invasion and bombardment preserved this liberty for future generations of Americans.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chief Justice and colleagues, in his award-winning book ``The Making of the President, 1960,'' Theodore H. White refers to an American Presidential election as ``the most awesome transfer of power in the world.'' He notes that: No people has succeeded at it better or over a longer period of time than the Americans. Yet as the transfer of this power takes place, there is nothing to be seen except an occasional line outside a church or school or file of people fidgeting in the rain, waiting to enter the voting booths. No bands play on election day, no troops march, no guns are readied, no conspirators gather in secret headquarters. And later in that opening chapter White observes: Good or bad, whatever the decision, America will accept the decision and cut down any man who goes against it, even though for millions the decision runs contrary to their own votes. The general vote is an expression of national will, the only substitute for violence and blood. I begin with those quotes to underscore the critical significance of a Presidential election in the structure of our national politics. Many learned commentators have observed that one of the original contributions to the art of government made by the Constitutional Convention was to develop a Presidential, as opposed to a parliamentary, system of government, wherein the executive is chosen by the electorate and is not dependent upon the confidence of the legislature for his office. As former Attorney General Katzenbach observed: It is a serious matter for the Congress to remove a President who has been elected in a democratic process for a term of four years, raising fundamental concerns about the separation of powers. He goes on to note that if the removal power is not limited, as it clearly is, impeachment could be converted into a parliamentary vote of no confidence which, whatever its merits, is not our constitutional system. The separation of powers embraced in our Constitution and the fixed term of the President have been credited by many observers with providing stability to our political system. It is important therefore to recognize that in considering the matter before us we do so in the context of a Presidential election, wherein the people have chosen the single leader of the executive branch of our Government--the President. Since the Framers put the impeachment remedy in the Constitution, it is obvious they recognized that there may be circumstances which require the Congress to remove a duly elected President. However, in my judgment, as the Framers indicated, we need to be very careful, very cautious, very prudent, in undertaking that remedy lest we introduce a dangerous instability in the workings of our political institutions. Viscount Bryce, whose bust is at the foot of the steps in the hallway below, was a distinguished commentator about the American political system. He wrote in ``The American Commonwealth'' in discussing the impeachment of a President: Impeachment is the heaviest piece of artillery in the congressional arsenal, but because it is so heavy, it is unfit for ordinary use. It is like a 100-ton gun which needs complex machinery to bring it into position, an enormous charge of powder to fire it, and a large mark to aim at. Or to vary this simile, impeachment is what physicians call a heroic medicine, an extreme remedy proper to be applied against an official guilty of political crimes. Let me turn next to the argument which seeks to draw an analogy between the impeachment of a President and the impeachment of judges, an argument that cites three recent cases in which judges have been removed from office. In my view, this analogy misses the mark. Two of the judges that the Senate convicted and thus removed from office had been accused in a criminal case, tried before a jury, found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and were in jail. Until we removed them they were still drawing their salary. In the third case, the defendant had been acquitted of bribery, but a judicial inquiry found that he had perjured himself to cover up the bribery misdeeds. Difference No. 1: Judges can be criminally prosecuted while in office; the President cannot. (At least that has been the theory up to this point.) Secondly, elected versus appointed. Judges are appointed to the bench for life. They can only be removed by impeachment. The President is elected by the people for a 4-year term and can only hold two such terms. As President Ford, when he was a Congressman, stated: I think it is fair to come to one conclusion, however, from our history of impeachments. A higher standard is expected of Federal judges than of any other civil officers of the United States. The President and the Vice President and all persons holding office at the pleasure can be thrown out of office by the voters at least every 4 years. Thirdly, one needs to consider the injury to the branch of Government which would result from the removal of the officer. The removal of one judge out of hundreds and hundreds of judges does not significantly affect the operation of the judicial branch of our Government. The removal of the President, the single head of the executive branch, obviously is in an entirely different category. The President, under our system, holds the executive power. In the end, executive branch decisions are his decisions. In the minority report in the House Watergate proceedings, Republican Members stated: The removal of a President from office would obviously have a far greater impact upon the equilibrium of our system of Government than removal of a single Federal judge. The House Judiciary Committee majority report accompanying the article of impeachment against Judge Walter Nixon in 1989 similarly stated as follows: Judges must be held to a higher standard of conduct than other officials. As noted by the House Judiciary Committee in 1970, Congress has recognized that Federal judges must be held to a different standard of conduct than other civil officers because of the nature of their position and the tenure of their office. In putting on their case, the House Republican managers sought to portray a simple logical progression--first that the material which they brought before the Senate showed violations of provisions of the Federal Criminal Code, i.e., perjury and obstruction of justice. Then they argued that if you find such crimes, you have high crimes and misdemeanors and, ergo, removal from office. But let us look at this supposed logical progression which I view as flawed at each step. First, I do not believe the House managers carried the burden of proof with respect to the commission of crimes. Since they relied on the Federal Criminal Code--charging crimes--in making their case, it is appropriate that they be held to the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt--the standard used in criminal cases. In the House Judiciary Committee a panel of distinguished former Federal prosecutors testified that a responsible Federal prosecutor would not have brought a criminal prosecution on the basis of the case set out in the Starr Report on which the House Judiciary Committee relied. One of them, Thomas P. Sullivan, a veteran of 40 years of practice in Federal criminal cases, and U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois from 1977 to 1981, stated the following: If the President were not involved, if an ordinary citizen were the subject of the inquiry, no serious consideration would be given to a criminal prosecution arising from alleged misconduct in discovery in the Jones civil case having to do with an alleged coverup of a private sexual affair with another woman or the follow-on testimony before the grand jury. The case simply would not be given serious consideration for prosecution. Now, let me move beyond this question of proving the case and address the next step in the managers' ostensible logical progression, namely that the crimes that they were trying to prove are high crime and misdemeanors and, therefore, a vote for conviction and removal must follow. Actually, in considering this issue we must bear in mind the ultimate question: Does the conduct warrant removal from office? The House logic seems to be that any perjury, any obstruction of justice, warrants removal. As serious as those charges are, not all such conduct in all instances may rise to the level of an impeachable offense. In considering this matter, it is important to understand that the House articles included within them not only the charges but also the penalty. In the ordinary criminal case, there is a two-step judgment-- guilt and then sentence. In an impeachment case, the finding of guilty carries with it removal from office--the remedy provided by the Constitution. There is an important precedent for the view that in certain circumstances offenses of the sort alleged here may not rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. That precedent is found in the tax article of impeachment of Richard Nixon which was before the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. That article charged President Nixon with knowingly filing tax returns which fraudulently claimed that he had donated pre-Presidential papers before the date Congress had set for eliminating such a charitable tax deduction. (It was worth $576,000 in deductions.) This deduction was claimed in tax returns that contained the following assertion just above the taxpayer's signature: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complete. The House Judiciary Committee voted down that article of impeachment by a vote of 12 for, 26 against. As one of nine Democrats who joined the Republicans in voting against this article of impeachment in the Nixon case, I did not believe that in the circumstances of that case it rose to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor, I did not believe it was conduct against which the Founding Fathers intended the Congress to invoke the impeachment remedy. Let me turn briefly to the procedure followed in this impeachment matter, since good procedure enhances the chances of good results while bad procedure does the opposite. I am prompted to do so by various comments made by House managers criticizing the Senate for the procedure we have followed. I think the Senate has handled this matter well under very difficult circumstances. Given that the House managers questioned our procedure, let us look at the procedure on the House side. The House, which brought in no ``fact'' witnesses, came to the Senate and said to us, ``In order to evaluate testimony that is in the record, you must bring witnesses in and look them in the eye in order to assess their credibility.'' Obviously, one must ask, how did the House managers assess the credibility of witnesses when they brought none before them and yet voted to bring articles of impeachment recommending the President's removal to the Senate? Secondly, the other day, in response to a reasonable request by the President's lawyers on how the House planned to proceed in using deposition excerpts, a House manager said, ``I believe the appropriate legal response to your request is that it is none of your damn business what the other side is going to put on.'' This same attitude marked the treatment of President Clinton's lawyers before the House Judiciary Committee. Contrast this with the House Judiciary Committee's conduct in the matter of President Nixon's impeachment when the President's lawyers sat in with the committee in its closed sessions when committee staff presented findings of fact. The President's lawyers were able to challenge material, to ask questions, to supplement all presentations. Fact witnesses were called in and were subjected to questions by all. There was an understanding of the gravity of the matter for the Nation and the absolute imperative of having a fair process. In this matter the House Judiciary Committee took only a few weeks to report impeachment articles. In the Nixon case the committee took 6 months. In the Judge Hastings case, the House Judiciary Committee received an 841-page report from the Judicial Conference as to why Hastings should be removed. Nevertheless, the committee undertook its own examination of the evidence. It heard 12 fact witnesses, deposed or interviewed 60 others, and held 7 days of hearings. In closing, it is very important to keep in mind the distinction between the person who is President and the Office of President of the United States provided for in our Constitution. President Clinton has engaged in disgraceful and reprehensible conduct which has severely sullied and demeaned his tenure as President. Because of his shameful and reckless behavior he has brought dishonor upon himself, deeply hurt his family, and grievously diminished his reputation and standing now, and in history. But the diminishing of Bill Clinton must not lead us to diminish the Presidency for his successors as our Nation moves into the new millennium. There is a danger to the Nation in deposing a political leader chosen directly by the people and we must be wary of the instability it would bring to our political system. In the report of the staff of the impeachment inquiry in 1974 on the constitutional grounds for Presidential impeachment, the conclusion states: Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. There is a further requirement-- substantiality. In deciding whether this further requirement has been met, the facts must be considered as a whole in the context of the office, not in terms of separate or isolated events. Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office. I do not believe the conduct examined here meets this test. I will vote against removing the President.