Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 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 1998,'' 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. 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 Bendedict, 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 sites along this trail mark some of the most historically important events of the War of 1812. It begins with the only combined naval and land attack on the United States, originating at Benedict, Maryland and continuing on to the nation's capital, Washington, D.C. It 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 two American vessels scuttled by the British have recently been found, 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, 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 to 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 1998,'' 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. 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 Bendedict, 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 sites along this trail mark some of the most historically important events of the War of 1812. It begins with the only combined naval and land attack on the United States, originating at Benedict, Maryland and continuing on to the nation's capital, Washington, D.C. It 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 two American vessels scuttled by the British have recently been found, 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, 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. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Mikulski in sponsoring this amendment to require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare an environmental impact statement and comply with all other applicable laws, rules and regulations related to property transfers before engaging in a land exchange near Oxon Creek in Prince Georges County and the District of Columbia. Section 135 of the Interior Appropriations Act of 1998 directs the Secretary of the Interior, to ``accept full title to approximately 84 acres of land located in Prince Georges County, Maryland, adjacent to Oxon Cove Park, and * * * in exchange * * * convey to the Corrections Corporation of America all of the interest of the United States in approximately 42 acres of land located in Oxon Cove Park in the District of Columbia,'' ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' The language directing this exchange was inserted at the eleventh hour in the Conference Report on the Interior Appropriations bill with no prior hearings or consideration, no opportunity for debate, no input from the National Park Service or the area Congressional Delegation and no consultation with the affected communities. It circumvented every procedure and process by which land exchanges normally take place. The only conditions placed on the transaction were that the property would not have environment contamination and that it be a fair market value exchange or equalized in value by a cash payment from CCA. Since the enactment of the Interior Appropriations bill, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has filed an application with the District of Columbia Zoning Commission to build a 2,200 bed prison on the 42 acre National Park site to house portions of the District of Columbia's inmate population. This facility is strongly opposed by local residents who have raised serious concerns about both the planned location of the prison and the propriety of bypassing National Park Service land exchange and environmental compliance guidelines which allow for public input. Department of the Interior officials have stated that ``absent public review, which NPS has been precluded to conduct by statute, it is not clear that the location of a prison on the current parcel of park land would be in the best interest of the public. Further, the legislated land exchange with CCA does not afford equal opportunity to all potential bidders to provide a nearby inmate facility for felons of the District of Columbia.'' It is important to point out that the National Park Service's Oxon Cove property has been planned as the site of a public golf course and a hiker-biker trail--recreational facilities urgently needed in great demand by the local community. They are a key component of an overall effort to revitalize the area and enhance the quality of life for local residents. These public facilities would largely be displaced by the CCA prison. Moreover, development of a correctional facility on this site would likely have adverse environmental impacts on Oxon Cove and on the Potomac River which was recently designated as an American Heritage River. In addition, it is my understanding that the CCA owned property in Prince Georges County is mostly wetlands and has no access and consequently the land swap is hardly a ``fair market value'' exchange. The amendment which Senator Mikulski and I are offering will ensure that no legislated land exchange can be consummated unless and until the exchange has been reviewed in accordance with the procedures customary for such land exchange proposals including: an Environmental Impact Statement in accord with the National Environmental Policy Act; a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that the land is suitable for exchange under the criteria normally used for such exchanges; an evaluation of whether the land exchange is in the best interests of the public and the National Park Service; an opportunity for public hearings and input; a review of the NPS General Management Plan for the property and scrutiny by the National Capital Planning Commission. It is my firm conviction that this legislated land exchange should never have been enacted. We hold this property and all of our Nation's lands in public trust and it my hope that the amendment we are offering will help preserve that trust as well as citizens' rights to due process and having their concerns heard. I urge adoption of this amendment. Amendment No. 3588 (Purpose: To modify Section 121 of the bill regarding wildland fire management in Alaska) On page 59, line 25, insert between the words ``Alaska'' and ``prior'' the following: ``for assignment to a Type I hot shot crew that previously has been certified and listed in the Bureau of Land Management 1998 Interagency National Mobilization Guide,''. Amendment No. 3589 S. 2237 is hereby amended as follows: At page 19, line 20, add the following after the word ``program'': ``and of which $4,400,000 shall be available for the Katmai National Park Land Exchange''. At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last fall, the Majority Leader and the other Republican opponents of campaign finance reform denied the will of a majority of the Senate--and a majority of the American people--by denying an up or down vote on the McCain-Feingold bill. This past February, we witnessed again successful efforts to block consideration of this proposal. At that point, I stated that such maneuvers violate the Senate's well-earned reputation for thoughtfulness and deliberation, in which it rightly takes such pride, and I noted that full consideration of the campaign finance issue by the Senate is crucial to maintaining the public's confidence in its government. Mr. President, the McCain-Feingold bill is before us again, but under changed circumstances which make the need for Senate consideration of campaign finance reform all the more vital. We must now consider this most important issue in the context of House passage of its own campaign finance legislation--passage which occurred only after determined members of both parties successfully navigated a minefield of amendments erected by the House Republican leadership with the goal of killing campaign finance reform there. Despite these efforts, a majority of the House held together and enacted legislation that gives voice to the belief of the American public that our system of campaign financing needs fixing. I hope that this time the Senate leadership will give us the same opportunity to express our support for campaign finance legislation that the members of the House earned this summer. I am a cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill, and will therefore vote in its favor when-- if--the issue comes before the Senate. Others oppose this legislation. What the American public deserves at least, however, is an up or down Senate vote that gives effect to the will of the majority and that makes the American public confident that the issue has received thorough review by its elected representatives. Based on prior votes, I suspect that such review will in fact yield a decision by a majority of the Senate that campaign finance reform is appropriate and necessary. But even if I am mistaken and a majority of Senators now oppose such legislation, a fair Senate process demands that an up or down vote take place as soon as possible and that the will of the majority be allowed to carry the day. In February I noted that the Senate's failure to consider the McCain- Feingold bill on an up or down vote merely increases the public cynicism that makes campaign finance reform necessary. Now that the House has acted, my prior statements are even more true. I therefore once again urge the Majority Leader to observe a process consistent with the Nation's desires and needs.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I just want to follow along with what the able Senator from Kansas has said. Adoption of this amendment would prevent the United States from consenting to a quota increase until all of these conditions had been met. These conditions cannot be met immediately. That is a guaranteed thing. It means that the United States would, in effect, not be carrying through a quota increase. We are facing a very serious financial crisis worldwide. One of the instruments we have to deal with that is the IMF. We need to pass this quota increase, and we need to do it immediately, and we need to address this situation. If the IMF is perceived, as it now is, not to have the resources with which to deal with the international crisis, it will only worsen and intensify the crisis. If anyone wants to ask what is the one thing we can do to try to address this crisis, it is to pass this legislation without this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering would fix and restore one of our most important monuments, the Korean War Veterans Memorial. It authorizes the Secretary of the Army to provide, within existing funds, up to $2 million to complete essential repairs to the Memorial. Joining me as a cosponsor of this amendment is my distinguished colleague from Colorado--a Korean War veteran himself-- Senator Campbell. The Korean War Memorial is the newest war monument in Washington, DC. It was authorized in 1986 by Public Law 99-752 which established a Presidential Advisory Board to raise funds and oversee the design of the project, and charged the American Battle Monuments Commission with the management of this project. The authorization provided $1 million in federal funds for the design and initial construction of the memorial and Korean War Veterans' organizations and the Advisory Board raised over $13 million in private donations to complete the facility. Construction on the memorial began in 1992 and it was dedicated on July 27, 1995. For those who haven't visited, the Memorial is located south of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial on the Mall, to the east of the Lincoln Memorial. Designed by world class Cooper Lecky Architects, the monument contains a triangular ``field of service,'' with 19 stainless steel, larger than life statues, depicting a squad of soldiers on patrol. A curb of granite north of the statues lists the 22 countries of the United Nations that sent troops in defense of South Korea. To the south of the patrol stands a wall of black granite, with engraved images of more than 2,400 unnamed service men and women detailing the countless ways in which Americans answered the call to service. Adjacent to the wall is a fountain which is supposed to be encircled by a Memorial Grove of linden trees, creating a peaceful setting for quiet reflection. When this memorial was originally created, it was intended to be a lasting and fitting tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of our troops who fought in the ``Forgotten War.'' Unfortunately, just three years after its dedication, the monument is not lasting and is no longer fitting. The Memorial has not functioned as it was originally conceived and designed and has instead been plagued by a series of problems in its construction. The grove of 40 linden trees have all died and been removed from the ground, leaving forty gaping holes. The pipes feeding the Pool of Remembrance' return system have cracked and the pool has been cordoned off. The monument's lighting system has been deemed inadequate and has caused safety problems for those who wish to visit the site at night. As a result, most of the 1.3 million who visit the monument each year--many of whom are veterans--must cope with construction gates or areas which have been cordoned off instead of experiencing the full effect of the Memorial Let me read a quote from the Washington Post--from a Korean War Veteran, John LeGault who visited the site--that I think captures the frustration associated with not having a fitting and complete tribute for the Korean War. He says, ``Who cares?'' ``That was the forgotten war and this is the forgotten memorial.'' Mr. President, we ought not to be sunshine patriots when it comes to making decisions which affect our veterans. Too often, we are very high on the contributions that our military makes in times of crisis, but when a crisis fades from the scene, we seem to forget about this sacrifice. Our veterans deserve better. To resolve these problems and restore this monument to something that our Korean War Veterans can be proud of, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted an extensive study of the site in an effort to identify, comprehensively, what corrective actions would be required. The Corps has determined that an additional $2 million would be required to complete the restoration of the grove work and replace the statuary lighting. My amendment would provide the authority for the funds to make these repairs swiftly and once and for all. With the 50th anniversary of the Korean War conflict fast approaching, we must ensure that these repairs are made as soon as possible. This additional funding would ensure that we have a fitting, proper, and lasting tribute to those who served in Korea and that we will never forget those who served in the ``Forgotten War.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Frederick County, Maryland. Throughout Maryland's glorious history, Frederick County and her sons and daughters have played a critical role in our State's quest for freedom and progress. From the very founding of our nation, Frederick Countians have proudly and resolutely upheld the principles and beliefs which are the basis of our democratic system of self government. This strong commitment to freedom was evident among the English and German immigrants who first settled in Frederick County. They were extremely appreciative of the freedoms they found in this ``New World'' and zealous in their dedication to protecting them. One such individual was Francis Scott Key, the lawyer and poet who, watching the bombardment of Ft. McHenry from a British cartel ship off Sparrow's Point in Baltimore's harbor, penned the words that subsequently became memorialized as our National Anthem. What many may not know is that the eloquent author of the Star Spangled Banner was born in Frederick City, which celebrated its own 250th birthday in 1995. Francis Scott Key was detained on the British ship in 1814 while attempting to secure the release of Dr. William Beanes of Upper Marlboro who had been arrested. In the early morning of September 14, 1814, during the Battle of Baltimore, Key, overcome with pride from his unique vantage point, wrote the words that captured the essence of our national struggle for independence. Frederick County is also the seat of some of our State's most tumultuous historic incidents. When the British passed the Stamp Act in 1785 requiring colonists to purchase stamps for all legal and commercial documents, twelve Frederick County judges resolved to reject the Stamp Act, and approved the use of unstamped documents. This bold maneuver is believed to be the first recorded act of rebellion in the colonies. It was in Frederick County that the Maryland legislature held the momentous vote on secession. The vote was held in this venue in response to a personal request from President Lincoln in the hope that Marylanders from the southern part of the State would not be able to attend, therefore guaranteeing that Maryland remain in the Union. Although the strategy was successful, the narrow vote sent reverberations throughout the State and there were skirmishes at towns along the Potomac. While the resulting Confederate occupation of parts of Frederick County was relatively peaceful, this event was the immediate precursor to the Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest day of fighting in any American war. A local anecdote, which serves as a testament to the tremendous dedication of these citizens, claims that on the day that General Jackson's troops were marching out of Frederick to Antietam, a Union flag was seen hanging from the home of Barbara Fritchie, a 95 year old widow known for her spirited nature, who risked injury and death by hanging from her window after shots were fired, flag in hand, shouting, ``Shoot, if you must, this old gray head, but spare your country's flag.'' Another significant event has its beginnings here, as it was from the City of Frederick that Lewis and Clark launched their exploration of the American West. In July, 1803, these two explorers set out from the Hessian Barracks in Frederick Town into uncharted territories. These events further illustrate Frederick County's position at the symbolic crossroads of history, and it is here that we find Maryland's true roots firmly in place. Frederick County is at a literal crossroads as well due to the construction of the B&O Railroad in the early 1800's and the location of the C&O canal. These two modes of transportation opened up major corridors from and to the east, laying the groundwork for a tradition of jobs, industry and trade. From this lasting spirit of community interdependence and unity comes many of Frederick's modern landmarks. Frederick County is home to Ft. Detrick, crucial to the creation of new jobs and economic development in the region, and to the National Fallen Firefighters memorial in Emmitsburg. In recent years, Frederick County has been a leader in developing new economic growth and opportunities for our State and has attracted innovative technology companies to its pleasant surroundings. The City of Frederick, the County Seat, is the second largest city in Maryland, yet it maintains its small town charm and sense of community that reflects the civil congeniality that has always defined Frederick, both in its rich history and its contemporary success. The contribution of Francis Scott Key to our nation has been complemented over the decades by other distinguished citizens of this county. Most recently, many of us in the Senate were privileged to count as a colleague the extremely distinguished Senator from Maryland and native son of Frederick, Charles Mac Mathias. The intellectual and personal integrity which Senator Mathias brought to this body in service to the nation is exemplary of the spirit of his fellow Frederick Countians. The activities that have been planned in celebration of this auspicious anniversary exemplify the deep devotion of Frederick residents to their county. I join these citizens in sharing their pride in Frederick's past and their optimism for continued achievement. I urge my colleagues to visit this lovely location in the heart of Maryland and explore this renowned resource.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, we had a tabling motion on this yesterday. I am prepared to take it on a voice vote, but I understand there may be some colleagues either who didn't vote who weren't here to vote yesterday or others who may want a rollcall vote. We can have a rollcall vote at this point on the Gramm amendment, as I understand it.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, when this debate on the Shelby amendment first began, my colleague from Alabama quoted the introductory statement made by former chairman William Proxmire when he introduced the CRA legislation. We pointed out at the time that we thought the Proxmire rationale still supported his original position. I have received a letter from Senator Proxmire and he has asked me to read it into the Record. I will do that now. Dear Paul: I would appreciate your reading this letter into the Congressional Record at the appropriate time during the debate on the Credit Union bill. I am totally opposed to the Shelby amendment which would exempt small banks from the Community Reinvestment Act and take strong exception to the thrust of his ``Dear Colleague'' letter which quotes my remarks as the author of CRA and the Chairman of the Banking Committee at some length. Throughout my 32 year career in the Senate I championed the cause of the independent small banks of America. In my home state of Wisconsin they represented an important constituency. As Chairman of the Banking Committee from 1975- 1980 and 1987-1989 and a member of the Committee from 1957- 1989 no one fought harder to protect their interests. I count the enactment of CRA as one of the achievements of which I am most proud. I introduced CRA in 1977 because banks receive significant public benefits, such as federal deposit insurance and access to the Federal Reserve Board's discount window. In turn, banks have an obligation to help meet the credit needs of the localities they are chartered to serve. This obligation should apply to all banks, large and small alike, all of whom receive significant public benefits. I regret that the statement I made on the Senate floor in 1977 introducing the Community Reinvestment Act is being used to undermine the purpose for which I introduced the legislation. Sincerely, William Proxmire, U.S.S. (Retired--D-Wis.) That is Senator Proxmire's direct response to the effort to use his statement to, in effect, undermine support for the CRA. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. SARBANES. So, the question arises: How may the NCUA deal with this issue while implementing the bill's safety and soundness provisions? In my view, the NCUA should be mindful of community development credit unions' unique circumstances in applying the bill's prompt corrective action provisions. In addition, community development credit unions that demonstrate that they can build their capital over time to the required levels--as evidenced by an acceptable net worth restoration plan--should be given the full opportunity to do so.

Mr. SARBANES. The bill gives all credit unions two years before these provisions become effective. Because of their mission and the special characteristics that arise from that mission, some community development credit unions may have unique difficulties in becoming and remaining adequately capitalized. Accordingly, some community development credit unions may need more time than most other credit unions to build capital in order to comply with the legislation's new capital standards and prompt corrective action provisions. Does the Senator agree?

Mr. SARBANES. There is a special class of credit unions--known as community development credit unions--that bear special mention. Community development credit unions serve consumers, neighborhoods, and rural areas that are predominantly low-income. Because of their special mission and circumstances, some community development credit unions may have difficulty in generating capital. On the deposit side, community development credit unions have high operating costs because they serve an extremely labor-intensive market of very low-balance depositors. The average depositor in a community development credit union has $1,462, which is one-third the $4,300 of the average depositor in non-low-income credit unions. Typically, as much as 40 percent to 60 percent of the community development credit unions' membership base consists of persons with less than $200 on deposit. Moreover, many of community development credit unions' very- low-balance depositors use the credit union solely for transactions-- that is, they deposit checks and immediately withdraw virtually the entire balance. On the lending side, community development credit union's business consists primarily of making small loans to borrowers with imperfect credit. The average loan balance per member at a community development credit union is $1,190 compared to $3,200 at all credit unions. Thus, community development credit union loans tend to have more credit risk and higher transaction costs (i.e., noninterest costs per dollar loaned) than loans made by other credit unions, thereby resulting in lower net returns. These lower net returns mean relatively lower income for the community development credit union, which makes capital accumulation more difficult. The challenges community development credit unions face from credit risk and low returns are exacerbated because communities served by community development credit unions are especially vulnerable to economic downturns. Unemployment rates in such communities are typically two or three times the national average. Unemployment in low- income communities is slow to decline as the economy improves, and quick to worsen when the economy deteriorates. Despite these challenges, most community development credit unions today are quite strong and have capital ratios similar to those of other credit unions. And the changes brought about by new capital requirements and prompt corrective action will ultimately strengthen all community development credit unions. Does the Senator agree that this is a fair description of the challenges facing community development credit unions?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, very quickly, let me just say to my colleagues that this legislation is not an allocation of credit. Larry Lindsey has said, and I quote him, former member of the Federal Reserve: Many [institutions] now recognize in an era of growing competition, CRA performance may be critical to an institution's ability to adjust to the new banking environment. CRA-related activities can help to develop new markets, potentially profitable business and improve a bank's public image. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated: The essential purpose of the CRA is to try to encourage institutions who are not involved in areas where their own self-interest is involved in doing so. If you are indicating to an institution that there is a foregone business opportunity in an area X or loan product Y, that is not credit allocation. That, indeed, is enhancing the market. Let's continue to enhance the market by supporting CRA and rejecting this amendment.

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

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3336

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, first of all, I express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman for his very kind remarks about my efforts with respect to this legislation. But I really want to underscore the very skillful leadership which Chairman D'Amato provided in helping to move the bill through the committee and then through the Senate on the Senate floor. This was not a bill without significant controversy in it. I think the committee worked out a balanced package and preserved most of it on the Senate floor--I regret not all of it. But in any event, I think the legislation we now have passed is a reaffirmation for the credit union movement of their important role in serving consumers. When the cooperative movement was established in the early part of the century, it was premised on the proposition that individuals coming together, ``small people,'' would gain access to credit; that the credit union movement would remain concerned and dedicated to their needs and would provide them an opportunity to share in the American economy. Credit unions, by and large, have done a good job of that over the years. And this legislation, I think, will enable them to continue to do a good job. It has important safety and soundness provisions in it, the consequence of a very comprehensive and thorough Treasury study on the basis of which the committee was able to incorporate into the legislation some very important safeguards. But I say to the credit union movement: We worked very hard in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision which, of course, cast a pall over the credit union movement. It really raised very severe questions as to what the future of the credit union movement would be. This legislation has answered that question. But I think implicit on the part of the Congress, in answering that question, is that credit unions will redouble their efforts in terms of serving the purposes for which they were established. Some have criticized the credit union movement. They say they are getting away from those purposes. I am frank to say I do not think that is generally true of the credit union movement. I think you can point to isolated exceptions. And I only raise the warning flag that to the extent those exist, they tarnish the image of the credit union movement in the eyes of many. So with this legislation, which has given them a path to move forward, a firm and secure path to move forward, I look forward to the credit union movement reaffirming its basic and original purposes and look forward to continuing to try to work closely with them in achieving those objectives. I, too, like the chairman, express my very deep appreciation to the staff on both sides, to Howard Menell and Phil Bechtel and Rachel Forward and Madelyn Simmons on the Republican side--we depend very heavily on our staff; they are extremely competent and dedicated; they were in here many nights, late into morning hours in order to help put this legislation together--and Steve Harris and Marty Gruenberg and Dean Shahinian and Mike Beresik on our side of the aisle. We were able to work together in a cooperative and positive and constructive manner on this legislation. I always look forward to those opportunities with the chairman. It is not always possible. Usually when it is not possible, we set up a separate committee to deal with the issues and work within our own committee. I close, again, by commending the chairman for a very skillful job in helping to move this legislation through the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, very briefly, if we were seeking to leave the consumer or the user of the credit union exactly in the posture in which they now find themselves prior to the Supreme Court decision, we would have no limitation on credit union business lending, because that was the existing state of affairs. So in that sense, the problem of an issue was raised. There was an effort to respond to that problem. But if one is to use the argument that all we should do in this legislation is to return to the status quo--that that is the whole purpose of the legislation--then we have no limitation, because the status quo was without limitation.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will be very brief, but I want to follow on the chairman in expressing my opposition to this amendment. The chairman just quoted from a letter from Secretary Rubin, but I would like to expand that quotation a bit. In his last paragraph, Secretary Rubin said: Finally, I would like to comment on the safety and soundness of credit unions' business lending. So he addressed this very issue. Credit unions may make business loans only to their members, and cannot make loans to business corporations. Under the National Credit Union Administration's regulations, each business loan must be fully secured with good-quality collateral, the borrower must be personally liable on the loan, and business loans to any one borrower generally cannot exceed 15 percent of the credit union's reserves. Credit unions' business loans have delinquency rates that are comparable to those on commercial loans made by community banks and thrifts, and charge-off (i.e., loss) rates that compare favorably with those of banks and thrifts. We believe that existing safeguards--together with such new statutory protections as the 6 percent capital requirement, the risk- based capital requirement for complex credit unions, and the system of prompt corrective action--represent an adequate response to safety and soundness concerns about credit unions' business lending. It is important to note, of course, that the Secretary is speaking with the benefit of an 18-month--actually, the distinguished Senator from Utah was the one who put the requirement in in the previous piece of legislation for the Treasury to undertake such a study. That study came in a few months ago and then was available to the Treasury, in terms of making recommendations as we address this legislation, and available, of course, to the Members of the Congress. The Secretary pointed out in his letter: The bill's safety and soundness provisions would represent the most significant legislative reform of credit union safety and soundness safeguards since the creation of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund in 1970. The bill would institute capital standards for all federally insured credit unions, including a risk-based capital requirement for complex credit unions. It would create a system of prompt corrective action--specifically tailored to credit unions as not-for-profit, member-owned cooperatives. It would also take a series of steps to make the Share Insurance Fund even stronger and more resilient. These reforms involve little cost or burden to credit unions today, yet they could pay enormous dividends in more difficult times. Mr. President, I think it is important to note that this legislation, as it came to us in the committee, had no limitations. And under the current law and regulations, there are no limitations. So what the committee is doing here is putting in a limitation where none had heretofore existed. So it is not as though the committee simply ignored the assertions that are now being made. The committee reached a decision and struck a balancing point. And that is what is reflected in the legislation. But as I said, this does place statutory restrictions on member business loans for the first time. In fact, undercapitalized credit unions would not be permitted to increase their net commercial lending. In fact, the restrictions that are in this legislation are tighter than what now applies under the regulations of the National Credit Union Administration. These loans can only be made to members, not to an outside business corporation. This is consistent with the credit union's mandate to provide services to members, not a broad array of customers, and in and of itself places a significant constraint on credit union commercial lending overall. I understand the arguments that are being made. I think the committee reached a reasonable process. The $50,000-loan issue, I think, is an important one in terms of the requirements placed upon credit unions. In fact, it is the NCUA, under its regulations, that determines that the dollar amount of risk is very small, small enough that they have regulations that excluded loans less than $50,000 from being counted as a member business loan. This is the current state of affairs. There are not all that many such loans. But for some credit unions, it is quite important in terms of their member activities. It also avoids the necessity of trying to separate out what is a commercial loan and what is a business loan. If you buy a pickup truck and use it for business activities, does that then become a commercial loan? And how would the credit unions have to address those kinds of questions? I say to my colleagues, recognizing the issue that is being raised by the amendment, I simply say that the committee was not oblivious to this issue. We tried to address it, I think, in a sensible and balanced and forthright way. That is why we have the limitations that are contained in the legislation that is before us. I urge my colleagues not to alter those limitations and, therefore, to reject this amendment. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I move to table the Gramm amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SARBANES. The Secretary of the Treasury has written to the leadership after Treasury did a thorough study of credit unions. The Secretary says, ``The bill's safety and soundness provisions would represent the most significant legislative reform of credit unions' safety and soundness since the creation of the share insurance fund.'' And then he specifically addresses business lending and says, ``The provisions in this legislation represent an adequate response to safety and soundness concerns about credit unions' business lending.''

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

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.

Mr. SARBANES. That letter says, in part: Rural Americans need tools of the Community Reinvestment Act to ensure accountability of their local lending institutions. It is needed to prevent rural banks from abandoning their commitment to serve the millions of Americans living in smaller low and moderate-income communities. Unfortunately, small commercial banks do not automatically reinvest in their local communities. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from more than 40 community groups with respect to CRA and with respect to both the Shelby and the Gramm amendment be printed in the Record as well.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to take just a moment to join those of my colleagues who have already spoken with respect to our profound shock at the death of Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut and John Gibson, two Capitol Police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty on this past Friday, and to express my very heartfelt sympathies to their families. J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson have been engaged over their working careers in the dedicated mission of protecting the lives of their fellow citizens, literally thousands of people who move in and out of the Capitol Building each day, those who work here, those who visit here, both our own citizens and from abroad. As we all know, on Friday, the people's house, the U.S. Capitol, was violated by a gunman. Officer Chestnut and Special Agent Gibson put themselves on the line, as do all law enforcement officials, each and every day, both at work and, since they are committed to law enforcement, even when they are off work, literally all the time, in order to protect the physical well-being--indeed, to protect the freedoms that so many of us have taken for granted. In its editorial today, Roll Call, which, of course, as we all know, is the newspaper devoted to reporting the activities on Capitol Hill, said this: Sometimes, given the comparative low level of violence around the Capitol complex and given that Capitol Police officers are usually seen cheerfully directing traffic and gently herding tourists, it's forgotten that ours-- Meaning the Capitol Police Force-- is a real police force. We who live and work around the Capitol know--but others don't--that our police also fight crime in the neighborhood as well as watch the Capitol. But now all of America understands that the Capitol Police do not just stand guard, but also stand ready to be heroes. That knowledge was derived last week at heartrending cost. We call them heroes today, and they truly are, but Officer Chestnut and Special Agent Gibson were also husbands, fathers, grandfathers-- already heroes to their wives, to their children and grandchildren, to their other family members, and to their neighbors who respected them not only for their uniforms but for the laws they vowed to uphold and the lives they protected on a daily basis. It is these loving people they leave behind, having given of themselves to protect the lives of others and in defending one of the great symbols of this democratic Nation, perhaps the preeminent symbol of our democratic Nation--the United States Capitol. Mr. President, may God bless J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson. They are true heroes, and I join with my colleagues in expressing my condolences to their family members. Deep Sense of Sorrow