Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know we, in effect, have concluded the debate today with respect to the credit union bill, but there were some comments made earlier about the CRA aspects of this legislation, and I want to put this in the Record. First of all, let me make it very clear, the CRA that is being applied to the credit unions is not the Community Reinvestment Act. It is a provision drafted especially for the credit unions, and it is designed to ensure that they pay full attention to the field of membership. I think it is a reasonable provision. I hope it will stay in the bill. I know that the Senator from Texas is trying to strike it, but, of course, he is against any CRA, any version of CRA anywhere and at any time. I disagree very strongly with that. We will have an extended debate on the effort to exclude some banks from CRA. There is really a basic philosophical difference. We see the CRA as bringing people into the mainstream of economic life and involving them in our economic process. I have spoken to many bankers who support CRA. They think it has produced good results. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has said: 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 forgone business opportunity in an area X or loan product Y, that is not credit allocation. That, indeed, is enhancing the market. That is Chairman Greenspan. It is being portrayed by its opponents as sort of a mandatory credit allocation. It certainly is not that. It is an effort to ensure a reasonable amount of money goes back into the community. A number of banks have issued statements in support of CRA. They say it has increased their focus on their lending performance. In fact, the Bank of America said: Over the past several years, Bank of America, in partnership with community organizations, has developed CRA lending into a profitable mainstream business. And that is really what we are trying to achieve--a profitable mainstream business.'' These institutions receive deposit insurance, and I earlier indicated the importance of that to the workings of the industry and the fact we had to produce hundreds of billions of dollars in the S&L crisis in order to deliver on that promise. There was a problem with CRA over bookkeeping, recordkeeping, and so forth. Secretary Rubin led a major effort to revise the Federal regulations. This extended over a 12- to 18-month period. All groups were involved--the bankers, the community groups, academics, the administration. In effect, Members of the Congress were drawn into the process, and, in the end, very, very significant changes were made. As a consequence, I think many of the defects that earlier were argued against CRA were taken care of. Much of the regulatory overburden I think was removed. The argument was made that these small banks hold only a fraction of the assets. The fact is that in 30 States, over 80 percent of the banks would be affected by the Shelby amendment. In other words, it would exclude 80 percent of the banks; in 6 States, over 95 percent; in 9 other States, over 90 percent; and the remainder, the other 15 States, over 80 percent. Most of these are rural States, and there seems to be a perception that CRA benefits only the urban areas of our country. However, rural areas, no less than urban areas, are affected by it. We received a letter from a coalition of rural and farm groups, including the National Farmers Union, the National Family Farm Coalition, the National Rural Housing Coalition, and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, in opposition to the small bank exemption for CRA. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will quote a portion of this letter: Rural Americans need the 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- or moderate-income communities. Unfortunately, small commercial banks do not automatically reinvest in their local communities. It is a strong view that CRA has really brought investment back into the communities and that this has redounded to everyone's advantage, including--including--the advantage of the banks. We think that CRA has been remarkably effective in encouraging both large and small banks to look closely at market opportunities in all of the areas which they serve and in building a better relationship between the banks and the community. The result has been billions of dollars in market-rate profitable loans in urban and rural communities that historically have had difficulty in gaining access to credit. That is the basic, bottom-line message, and it is a very good message. It is a very good message for the country. I very much hope that as my colleagues think through this issue, they will appreciate the benefits that flow from CRA and reject the Shelby amendment, which would exclude banks under $250 million in assets-- which, as I indicated, are the overwhelming number of banks in the country--and reject the Gramm amendment which seeks to eliminate a modest provision in the credit union bill that would require the credit unions to take a look at how they are serving their field of membership in their community, a provision which, I might note, the credit unions have indicated they accept. In fact, their stated position to us is that they support this bill as reported from the committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. I thank Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski, my good friend from Maryland, for their efforts in bringing this bill to the floor so quickly. I know how difficult it is to balance the many competing needs contained in this appropriations bill. Senators Bond and Mikulski are to be commended for the good bill that they have produced. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, I am particularly pleased with the appropriations for HUD. S. 2168 provides an increase in appropriations to HUD over what was enacted in FY 1998. I applaud these funding increases and I believe they will go a long way towards helping our neediest citizens. However, I am concerned that they fall somewhat short of the Administration's request--and considerably short of what is needed to address the severe housing and community development needs in this country. Today, only about one out of every 4 households in need of housing assistance receives it. This includes households living in public housing, assisted housing, and housing built with the tax credit and HOME funds. Of the roughly 12 million unassisted families, approximately five and a half million have worst-case housing needs. These families are paying more than half of their incomes every month in rent, or live in physically substandard housing, or both. My colleagues on the Appropriations Committee recognize this need. For the first time since 1995, they have provided for additional incremental vouchers; $40 million has been appropriated to support roughly 7,000 to 8,000 welfare-to-work vouchers--vouchers that will play a crucial role in helping smooth the transition from welfare to work. Furthermore, the appropriators have deleted a provision in current law which requires housing authorities to retain vouchers and certificates for a period of three months upon their turnover. This simple change means that as many as 40,000 additional low-income families will be served by the Section 8 program each year. I commend the appropriators for implementing this change. While I applaud the direction S. 2168 moves us, I am discouraged by the pace. I fully understand the constraints in which the Committee has to work, but these constraints are artificial. CBO tells us to expect up to $63 billion in budget surpluses for FY '98, and hundreds of billions of dollars in surpluses over the next ten years. At least some portion of these funds should be returned to the HUD budget, which has been sacrificed over the years in the name of deficit reduction. An appropriate start would be to fully fund the Administration's request of 50,000 welfare-to-work vouchers. A recent HUD study found that the fastest growth in worst case housing needs during the 1990s has been among working families. These findings indicate that wages earned by lower income working families simply have not kept pace with the escalating cost of housing. Welfare-to-work vouchers help fill the gap between real wages and housing costs. Additionally, they help unemployed and underemployed individuals move to where jobs are available. Finally, welfare-to-work vouchers build new partnerships between housing agencies and other local agencies which promote and implement welfare reform. For all of these reasons, it is important that more welfare-to-work vouchers are available in future years. We should also be providing funding to fulfill the President's request of 34,000 vouchers for homeless persons. Homelessness continues to be a significant problem in this country. It is estimated that as many as 2 million people will experience homelessness at some point in the next year. Some of these people have chronic disabilities that lead to chronic homelessness; others experience unanticipated problems such as job loss or a sudden illness which results in displacement from their housing. That is why I strongly support the appropriators' decision to substantially increase funding for homeless programs, and their decision to include a recommendation that 30% of all funding be allocated to permanent housing. These gestures indicate a real commitment to attaching permanent solutions to the problem of homelessness. But make no mistake. Vouchers are an essential tool for addressing the needs of the homeless. A tenant-based voucher provides immediate assistance to families in need, and is a much better and cheaper housing alternative than a shelter. Project-based vouchers can leverage funding for supportive housing developments, which provide essential services for chronically disabled and chronically homeless individuals. I am also pleased to see a renewed commitment to the HOPE VI program. S. 2168 would increase funding for the HOPE VI program by $50 million. This program has provided a crucial source of funding for redeveloping obsolete public housing developments and transforming entire neighborhoods. HOPE VI funds are used to leverage other public and private funds which can be used to promote resident self-sufficiency and economic independence. I have witnessed first-hand the impact that this program has had on communities in Baltimore, and I commend the appropriators for pledging more funds in support of these vital initiatives. In order to succeed, however, public housing needs more funding. Without adequate operating subsidies, public housing authorities cannot pay for the day to day operations of their housing developments. PHAs are forced to put off routine maintenance and small capital projects. Over time, this leads to a greater demand for large scale capital improvements. It is currently estimated that PHAs would need roughly $4.5 billion of capital funds per year for 10 years just to address their backlogged capital needs. The Senate appropriation of $2.55 billion in capital funding for FY 1999 represents a $50 million increase over the level enacted in 1998, but does not come close to addressing the severe need for public housing capital improvements. It is regrettable that S. 2168, while providing a much needed $75 million increase for Community Development Block Grants, does not adequately fund the Administration's Economic Development Initiative. The EDI supports grants and Federal loan guarantees which municipalities can use to leverage private capital for business loans, community development banks, revolving loan funds, large scale retail developments, and welfare-to-work projects. HUD requested $400 million to fund EDI in FY '99, anticipating that this would leverage $2 billion in private sector loans and create roughly 280,000 jobs in needy communities. Economic growth and jobs are the key to revitalizing urban areas, and the EDI fosters these opportunities. It is unfortunate that the EDI could only be funded at $85 million. I am pleased that the appropriators showed a commitment to homeownership by expanding the FHA single family mortgage insurance program. This program is the best tool that the Federal government has for helping low- to moderate-income families become homeowners, and it doesn't cost the taxpayer a single dime. It is well documented that the FHA program serves a higher proportion of low-income, minority and first-time homebuyers than any of the conventional home loan products. By increasing the loan limits for this program, we should see a further expansion in homeownership throughout the country--both in high cost urban areas and lower cost rural regions. S. 2168 also contains language which would require HUD to engage in a lengthy and resource consuming effort to redefine their fair housing mission. While I appreciate the need to have a clear mission statement, I am concerned that the process prescribed in S. 2168 will be detrimental to the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity's ability to fight housing discrimination. The Department's standard policy making procedures require that the public and Congress be notified when significant policy changes are being contemplated. Additional requirements beyond this will hamstring the Office, and take away resources which could be deployed to meet program goals. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for all of their hard work. They are to be commended for substantially increasing the Federal commitment to housing and economic development programs in a climate of limited resources. I regret that we cannot do more at this time in the areas I have outlined, but S. 2168 is a good bill and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Nickles amendment. The simple fact is that the Nickles amendment would greatly reduce the availability of FHA loans, which have helped millions of first-time, low-income and minority home buyers share in the American dream of home ownership. S. 2168, before us, currently includes a provision that would expand the FHA loan limits in high-cost markets only--in high-cost markets only--from a current cap of $170,000 to a new cap of $197,000 in such high-cost markets. My able colleague from Missouri earlier indicated on a map where those markets would be located. Now, the committee's proposal represents, I think, a very significant and appropriate compromise to the administration's request. The administration's request was to institute a single, nationwide loan limit of $227,000. The committee did not go down that path. The committee, instead, went down the path of raising the lower limit which, interestingly enough, this amendment does not try to strike, apparently, according to my colleague from Oklahoma, because of just political realities of the matter, and also raise the high-cost limit, maintaining that distinction. I think it represents a very significant compromise. I urge my colleagues to support the committee and to reject the amendment. Now, we are experiencing a time when almost two-thirds of American families own their own homes today. This would not have been possible without the FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program. Each year, about 700,000 Americans purchase homes using FHA insurance. The vast majority of these home buyers could not qualify for a conventional home loan. If the FHA weren't available, they would not have been able to break into the ranks of homeowners. The point is made that the default rate within the FHA is somewhat greater, at 8 percent, than it is in the private insurance market. But that is because, of course, the FHA is making this opportunity available to people who would otherwise be closed out of the market altogether. Of course, the reverse side of the 8 percent is the 92 percent who were able to break into the home ownership market. It is estimated that 77 percent of first-time home buyers and 85 percent of minority home buyers who use FHA would not have qualified for private mortgage insurance. And since the FHA insurance premium is financed through borrower premiums, it does not end up costing the taxpayer. One of the difficulties is that FHA insurance, at a set figure, cannot be utilized effectively in all parts of the country. Nationwide, there are 43 metropolitan areas, representing 25 percent of the population, which are capped at the current ceiling of $170,000. In 32 out of the 43 metropolitan areas, the median home price exceeds the $170,000 figure. So at the $170,000 figure, in 32 of the 43 metropolitan areas, the median home price exceeds that figure. In Maryland, half of our counties--12 of our 24 countries--are now capped at $170,000. Now, by striking the provision in S. 2168 which raises the loan limits in high-cost areas to $197,000, the result of the Nickles amendment would be that hundreds of thousands of Americans would be denied the opportunity to purchase modestly priced homes simply because they live and work in high-cost parts of the country. These are not wealthy Americans. These are teachers, policemen, and firemen who serve in communities where they often cannot afford to live. Now, this isn't just unfortunate, this is also unfair. What has to be understood is that a limit that will work in one part of the country will not work in another part of the country. In other words, if you say, well, we ought to give moderate-income people an opportunity to have home ownership, you have some parts of the country where the cost of housing is low, incomes are lower, costs are lower, a whole different dynamic works, and other parts of the country where costs are much higher and housing costs in particular are much higher. I can take you on a very short ride from here to jurisdictions where ordinary working people would not have a chance at home ownership, except through the FHA program. We need to raise those limits in those areas because the median housing cost is now well above the existing cap. Furthermore, I want to know--because of the split which the Senator from Oklahoma has made where he said he doesn't go after the lower limits, which, of course, have a much broader application throughout the country--the Nickles amendment imposes substantial increases in Ginnie Mae user fees. This imposes a double hit on consumers. First, the increased cost to lenders will be passed along to FHA consumers in the form of higher interest rates and/or larger downpayments. Second, FHA lenders may opt out of the program if the cost of participation becomes too high. The net result of these changes, the increase in the Ginnie Mae user fees, would be a substantial reduction in FHA use and availability even within the current loan limits. And to those of my colleagues who do not have high-cost areas in their State, I point out that the Nickles amendment provision to increase the Ginnie Mae user fees would hurt all FHA users regardless of the size of their loans. By contrast, S. 2168 would increase FHA participation without placing a cost on the taxpayers or any additional financial burdens upon FHA consumers. Mr. President, the FHA program has helped millions of Americans purchase homes who would not otherwise qualify. The FHA program serves a much higher percentage of first-time, low- and moderate-income and minority home buyers than any conventional loan product. If we as a Nation are committed to supporting home ownership for all Americans, we should reaffirm our commitment to the FHA program. I really want to commend the committee, I think, for the very careful balance which they developed. This is a far departure from what the administration's request was. In fact, I think the committee obviously took into account the number of points that had been raised by proponents of the Nickles amendment in making their calculations and reaching their judgments in terms of what to do. But unless we raise the cap in the high-cost markets, they are really going to get excluded from the possibility of home ownership. People really qualify as low- and moderate-income people in those high-cost areas. The Nickles amendment allows the floor figure to come up, which in those areas of the country means that the very sort of people that I am concerned about in the high-cost areas would, in fact, not be able to obtain home ownership. I don't think the people in the high-cost areas who confront a whole different economic circumstance ought to be denied that opportunity. This program has been enormously important and successful in moving Americans into home ownership who would not otherwise have had that opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Nickles amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as the ranking member on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, I echo the comments made by others praising the work that has been done by Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski in framing the housing part of this appropriations bill. I have had a chance to go over it. I think they have been very sensitive to the various concerns existing in this field. I think they have done a very good job on the legislation. So as the ranking member on the authorizing committee, I want to enter that into the Record as others have done, recognizing the general work they have done on this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his support for this amendment. The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation has done an absolutely outstanding job. I think it bears out the wisdom of the Congress in establishing it. The services they are now providing to the families of deceased firefighters are really exemplary. We have had many communications from spouses, from children, from parents, of how much the activities of the Fallen Firefighters Foundation mean to them. They have enlisted very significant support from the private sector for their activities. These changes are technical in nature in order to enable the foundation to carry out its responsibilities with greater efficacy and greater efficiency. I didn't want to let this opportunity pass without underscoring the tremendously fine work that is being done by the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment, along with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, to extend rural housing programs for the Rural Housing Service of the Department of Agriculture. I would like to commend the leadership of Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Bumpers for their continued commitment to ensuring that rural housing programs serve rural Americans with affordable, decent housing choices. This amendment would extend for one year several rural rental housing programs. This includes the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program, the Section 538 Rural Rental Housing Loan Guarantee Program, and the Underserved Areas Program. Because many families in rural America do not have incomes high enough to make homeownership possible, it is imperative that Rural Housing Service be able to provide decent, affordable rental units. These programs are among the few resources that help alleviate the shortage of affordable rental housing and enable very low and low income renters in rural America to access affordable rental housing. The Section 515 Program has provided over 450,000 units of affordable rural housing since 1962; there is no other federal program that provides this assistance to very low income renters in rural areas. The Section 538 Loan Guarantee Program is designed to meet the needs of low and moderate income rural Americans not being served by the Section 515 Program. This program enables the federal government to partner with developers and funders to generate needed rental housing in rural areas. Both the Section 515 and 538 Programs offer direct benefits for communities, including creating jobs and increasing local taxes, in addition to attracting and maintaining businesses. Stable rental housing has been proven to be a vital link to the overall health and viability of rural communities. While the Rural Housing Service has done much to bring affordable housing to rural America, many rural families still experience housing overcrowding, substandard facilities, cost overburdens, and remain in desperate need of housing assistance. As we encourage families to move from welfare to work, it is even more essential that we build on this vital housing program that provides the safety net which will give the working poor an opportunity to live in affordable, safe and decent housing. Again, I would like to commend Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Bumpers for their action to ensure that essential rural rental housing programs receive authorization to continue serving low income families for another year. I urge the swift adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today in introducing the ``Africa: Seeds of Hope Act of 1998.'' This legislation will support sustainable and broad-based economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa by directing bilateral aid and investment programs toward small- scale farming and rural development. At the same time, by fostering research and extension activities and helping to build local markets, this initiative will provide important opportunities for mutual cooperation between U.S. and African farmers, educators, scientists and entrepreneurs. Recognizing the high rates of malnutrition, poverty and hunger in many African countries, this bill is designed to promote food security and agricultural productivity by expanding access to credit and technology, improving information and farming techniques, and creating more efficient market mechanisms. The legislation would accomplish this in several ways. First, it ensures that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will devote adequate funding to programs and projects that improve food security and meet the needs of the rural poor. It requires the participation of affected communities in all phases of project planning and development, and strengthens coordination with non-governmental organizations, cooperatives, land- grant and other appropriate universities, and local marketing associations that have relevant expertise. Second, the bill highlights the role of microcredit assistance in the overall strategy against rural poverty. Lack of access to credit, particularly among women, has restricted the growth of small-scale agriculture, the availability and use of appropriate technology, and the establishment of an adequate and reliable food supply. Third, this legislation mobilizes new resources for investment in African agriculture and rural development through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), working with small businesses and other U.S. entities to develop the capacities of small-scale farmers and rural entrepreneurs. A fourth way in which the bill promotes food security and agricultural productivity is by directing USAID and the Department of Agriculture to develop a comprehensive plan to coordinate and build on the research and extension activities of U.S. land-grant universities, international agricultural research centers, and national agricultural research and extension centers. In this way, the initiative encourages the latest agricultural methods and most successful business practices, while ensuring they are appropriate to local conditions and adapted to specific climates. Finally, this legislation establishes the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, which is intended to serve as a reliable mechanism for providing emergency food aid overseas. Using unexpended balances in existing accounts, this bill converts the Food Security Commodity Reserve into a trust account that will allow for more timely and cost-effective responses to humanitarian crises. Mr. President, as funding for international affairs has been reduced, it is programs like these, which address the needs of the world's poorest, that have been hit hardest. This bill draws attention to the importance of sustainable agriculture and targets U.S. assistance programs in Africa toward building food security and self-sufficiency. I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, in introducing this legislation, and I look forward to working with him, the other cosponsors, and the Administration in moving it toward enactment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1882, the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998, reauthorizing the Higher Education Act for 5 years. The Higher Education Act, enacted in 1965 to provide disadvantaged students with greater educational opportunities, recognized the shared benefit of providing every American a chance to maximize his or her potential. As a result of the passage of this legislation, doors have been opened to millions of citizens who otherwise would not have had the access or the resources to obtain a higher education. Although the act has been amended over the years through the reauthorization process, the central purpose of the legislation has remained the same--to ensure access, choice and opportunity in higher education. First, and foremost, this measure reauthorizes all postsecondary grant and loan programs which have allowed so many of our citizens to obtain additional education and training. It lowers the in-school interest rate on student loans from the current 7.6% to 6.8% and for the years after school from the current 8.2% to 7.4% to make higher education more affordable for more students. Most notably, the bill includes an increase in the maximum Pell Grant from $3,000 for the 1998-1999 academic year to $4,500 for 1999-2000, and increases that award by $200 a year for the following four years and further expands eligibility to include more students who are financially independent of their parents. I am pleased that the bill also reinforces our continued support of the TRIO programs which have been so successful in serving disadvantaged and first-generation college students. I have been a longstanding supporter of TRIO which has served more than 700,000 through 1,900 programs nationwide. The impact of the outreach and early intervention services provided by TRIO become even more profound considering that more than two-thirds of the students benefitting from the program come from families with incomes under $24,000. No one set of Federal programs captures more completely the American ideal that fostering educational opportunity for all citizens benefits both the individual and the society as well. Title II of the bill consolidates teacher training programs and refocuses Federal efforts to more efficiently and effectively train and recruit new teachers for our Nation's schools. It also provides for greater loan forgiveness for those who choose to dedicate their lives to the teaching profession. Now those who agree to teach for at least three years in high-need areas can see up to $8,000 in their student loans forgiven. In my view, this is an important step in relieving the heavy loan debt many graduates find themselves burdened with upon graduation to allow some of our best and brightest to enter the teaching profession independent of this financial pressure. I am also pleased that legislation I introduced to establish the Thurgood Marshall Legal Opportunity Program has been incorporated into the bill before us. This program would identify socially and economically disadvantaged law school students and provide them with the opportunity to hone their skills through summer institutes, mid- year seminars and support services. Working within the framework of the highly successful Council on Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO), this program will provide the necessary resources to ensure that those who have proven themselves at the undergraduate level of study are able to maximize their potential as they move on to law school. Investing in the promise of these talented individuals is a worthwhile endeavor and I am pleased that this legislation has been included in this reauthorization. Mr. President, passage of this legislation sustains our Nation's longstanding commitment to access, choice and opportunity in higher education. Every society places a premium on education in terms of fostering a skilled and trained work force in the next generation, and the more complex economically the world becomes, the more critical it is to address this aspect of developing our human resources. In our society, however, education carries two other very important responsibilities which make the legislation we are talking about today essential to the health and vitality of our society. The first is that we are one of a handful of countries that has maintained a democracy over a sustained period of time. Obviously, education is essential to a literate citizenry capable of making a democracy work. The other dimension is that education in America represents a ladder of opportunity. We take great pride in being an open society in which people can move up and forward, and the way they do that is essentially through the educational ladders provided in the programs we are reauthorizing today. In a Nation which believes that a person's merit and talent should take them as far as they can go, we must continue to foster a path which allows them to maximize this potential. Many of us here today have benefitted from this philosophy and have achieved certain levels of success as a direct result of the opportunities afforded by such principles. However, all of the programs we address in this bill are not solely for the benefit of the individual, as important as that aspect is. These programs are part of our national effort to include people in our society rather than exclude them, an essential concept in my view to the harmonious working of American society. In passing this legislation, it is important to understand that the value of programs authorized by this bill cannot be measured simply in terms of dollars spent. Without Federal support, millions of Americans would not have been able to attend college or receive the advanced training required to make them contributing, productive members of society. If this Nation is to continue to thrive in an ever-evolving global economy, we must not underestimate the value of the Federal government's commitment to higher education. The Senate's approval of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is a critical step in our on-going efforts to maintain access and choice in higher education. We must continue to acknowledge the vital importance of education in this country, to sustain the educated base we have created, and to commit ourselves to a quality education for all our Nation's citizens.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to join with all my other colleagues in congratulating the majority leader, Senator Lott, on the birth of his grandson, and also to express my very deep appreciation to Senator Byrd for his wonderful statement just a few minutes ago on the floor of the Senate. There is no one who brings us back to our sense of the Senate as an institution any more than Senator Byrd. And it is always a delight to have the opportunity to hear him.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to amend one thing that the distinguished Senator from Virginia said. I think he referred to his role here as a ``modest role.'' But he really was very pivotal in helping us to get this legislation enacted last night. The Secretary of the Interior determined that the Martin Luther King statue, which is going to be placed in the District of Columbia in memory of Martin Luther King, would be put in the prime area, which is the Mall and the surrounding areas. That determination needed the approval of the Congress. Senator Warner and I joined together in the Senate, along with Congresswoman Morella, who led the effort in the House, in order to bring this about. We will now have a statue in the District in a fairly short time. The money will be raised privately by the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. But it will stand as a tribute to what Martin Luther King, Jr. represented, which, in my judgment, was a commitment to achieving change through nonviolence--a very important lesson. Martin Luther King, Jr. clearly worked within the framework of a democratic society. He sought very significant and substantial change. He sought to make the Nation live up to its ideals. But he was committed in doing it in a nonviolent way. I think that is a very important lesson for all Americans. I, like the Senator from Virginia, have personal memories. I was at the Reflecting Pool the day he gave the ``I Have a Dream'' speech, when he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and, of course, that speech had a tremendous impact on American society then and continues to have a tremendous impact. So I am very glad that this matter has been moved forward now. All of the legislation that is now necessary is in place, and now we look forward to going ahead and we look forward to, at sometime in the not too distant future, a ground breaking and, sometime thereafter, a dedication. I express again my deep appreciation to the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia for his efforts in this regard. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleagues Senators Faircloth, Warner, Mikulski and Robb, to help address the serious problems posed by toxic microorganisms that are affecting the tidal and non-tidal wetlands and waters of the States along the eastern seaboard. The ``Atlantic Coast Toxic Microorganism Environmental Remediation Act'' authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to develop and implement a strategy to mitigate current and potential problems posed by these aquatic microorganisms. Serious outbreaks of toxic microorganisms, such as Pfiesteria and Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates, have recently struck inland waters and estuaries in Maryland, North Carolina, Delaware, Florida, and Virginia. Linked to the flow of excess nutrients and loss of habitat, these toxic microorganisms are seriously impacting regional economies and threatening finfish resources and economic and recreational sectors along the Atlantic Coast. Between 1972 and 1995, the number of coastal and estuarine waters that host major, recurring attacks by harmful microbes has doubled. Last year alone, approximately 450,000 fish were killed in North Carolina by Pfiesteria, while tens of thousands of valuable fish met the same fate in tidal rivers in the eastern shore of my own State of Maryland last year. There are other harmful microbes, as well, that are similar to Pfiesteria in their effects and that may be poised in a moments notice to wreck havoc on our aquatic ecosystems and communities and which may pose serious threats to human health and safety. In 1982, scientists were aware of 22 species of harmful water-borne dinoflagellates; now they are aware of over 60! So, we now face a situation where more than five dozen different harmful microbes can potentially produce catastrophic economic and environmental effects in waters extending along the eastern seaboard. Experts note that such harmful attacks are increasing in frequency or severity in aquatic environments both in the United States and worldwide. Toxic dinoflagellates and harmful algae are microscopic, single-celled organisms that live in the sea, estuaries and near-shore inland waters along our coasts. Most species are not harmful, and are a key element in the aquatic food web. Unfortunately, a small number of these species also produce potent neurotoxins than can affect and even kill higher forms of life, such as shellfish, finfish, birds, marine mammals, as well as impact human health. Last year, the Administration directed that an interagency research and monitoring strategy be developed in response to the outbreaks of Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. Seven federal agencies participated in developing this strategy including NOAA, EPA, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control. Funding to implement actions called for under the plan and the Administration's Clean Water Initiative was included in the fiscal 1999 budget request. Unfortunately, the key Federal agency with expertise in water resources and aquatic habitat restoration--the Army Corps of Engineers--was not included in the interagency task force and habitat and related considerations were not integrated into the response plans. The bill I am introducing seeks to address this shortcoming and to ensure that all the available expertise of the Federal government is brought to bear in combating these biotoxins. The legislation authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers, in partnership with State and local governments as well as other Federal agencies, to conduct an evaluation, develop a strategic master plan, and implement recommended actions to address problems in the degradation of aquatic habitat related to the presence of toxic microbes, including Pfiesteria, in wetlands and waters along the Atlantic coast. With its expertise in watershed management and restoration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in responding to the threats posed by toxic microorganisms and this legislation provides the funding and authority for this agency to do so. Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I offer my very strong support to my colleague from the State of Washington and commend her for her efforts on behalf of our Nation's veterans. What we are dealing with is really an unacceptable situation. Families across the nation have come to expect and depend on having a proper military burial for their loved ones who have served in our Armed Forces. This is simply not happening. I joined earlier with the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, in introducing legislation to in effect mandate a solution to this problem. This amendment--and I think this is a commendable effort on the part of my distinguished colleague from Washington--will direct the Department of Defense, working with the Department of Veterans Affairs, to convene a summit and identify the means and manpower to meet this need. Senator Murray has put this process on a very tight timeframe. The Department has a 6-month period in which to come up with a plan to take care of this problem. I have received letters that would move you to tears in terms of the importance that families place on providing a proper burial for their loved ones who have served in our armed services. Not every family requests these honors. But for those families who seek a military burial and have it incorporated into their burial plans, this is an extremely important matter. These military honors, honoring the sacrifice that members of armed services have made for this country during their lifetimes, should always be a high priority, I think, on behalf of the Congress and on behalf of the Department. Unfortunately, this problem has not been recognized as such until now--due to the tremendous outcry that this situation be addressed. And Senator Murray has undertaken to make these burial rites a priority in a very positive and constructive and forthright way. I am very pleased that the managers of the bill have agreed to accept this amendment. I think that through the process it establishes we will be able to work to a solution. That is my expectation and hope, that we will now, in effect, by requiring the executive branch to focus on this problem, come together to give it the kind of high priority study which we think it requires and that they will come up with a solution. We are constantly told the Department is in favor of our goals and objectives in this regard, so we want it now to work out the means to achieve these goals and objectives. I think the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Washington will move us very much down that path and help to accomplish that purpose. I very strongly support her efforts. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for yielding time. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this year marks the 81st anniversary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps, one of the seven uniformed services of the United States. The officers of the NOAA corps play an integral role in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and serve this multi- disciplinary scientific organization and our nation with distinction. The roots of the NOAA Corps can be found in 1807, when our third President, Thomas Jefferson, created the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. Directed by Congress, the Department of War and the Department of the Navy provided the Survey with commissioned officers to chart the coastlines and map the shores of our nation, allowing for the expansion of maritime commerce. On May 22, 1917, an Act of Congress formally established a uniformed service, patterned after the military, to meet the growing responsibilities and unique needs of the Survey. This commissioned service of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (C&GS) served with distinction in both world wars. Since its inception, the NOAA Corps has enabled its members to perform remote, sometimes hazardous and otherwise arduous duties in a wide range of environmental measurement and stewardship responsibilities. Indeed, the NOAA Corps is truly on the front line of NOAA's operations. Today's corp officers combine unique qualifications as research ship and aircraft operators; as technical experts with advanced academic backgrounds in hydrography, geodesy, fisheries sciences, meteorology, and oceanography; and as leaders in technical program and data management contributing to the coherence, integrity, and effectiveness of the administrative structure of NOAA. In order to discharge the responsibilities of NOAA, the NOAA Corps continues to provide a highly effective interface with other branches of the armed forces, most notably the Coast Guard, Navy, Air Force, and Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, the Corps, our nation's experts in nautical charting, ensure the safe navigation of foreign trade, 98% of which travels in U.S. coastal waters. In recent years, the NOAA Corps has contributed its valuable scientific and engineering skills to the Armed Services and to the Nation, particularly during times of national emergency. Mr. President, you may recall that it was the crew from the NOAA Ship Rude that so swiftly located the wreckage of TWA Flight 800. The Rude and a shore component of NOAA officers were also responsible for creating a highly detailed map which greatly aided Navy divers in their retrieval of the wreckage. For their efforts, they were recognized by then Secretary of Transportation Pena and by NOAA's parent bureau, the Department of Commerce, with the Department's highest award, the Commerce Gold Medal. Additionally, it was the NOAA Corps who provided ship, aircraft and technical expertise for an environmental appraisal and the first comprehensive study of the Persian Gulf following the Gulf War. While shore personnel provided expertise in the management of hazardous materials, scientists above the NOAA Ship Mt. Mitchell evaluated and determined the extent of environmental damage to the Gulf. Not only did the work of the NOAA Corps grant instant credibility to both the United States and the other nations involved in the Gulf conflict, it also provided a safe, effective research platform. Once again, the Captain and crew were lauded for their service, receiving a Commerce Gold and Silver Medal, respectively. Whether charting our nation's coastline, assessing its fisheries stock, or flying into hurricanes for the benefit of science and mankind, today's NOAA Corp maintains a standard of excellence in steadfastly following its mission, always ready to apply their scientific and service skills to the management of the United States' oceanic and atmospheric resources. On this, the 81st anniversary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Commissioned Corps, I urge all Americans to join with me in taking a moment to honor these men and women for their distinguished service in their efforts to explore, chart, and protect the oceans and atmosphere not only of the United States, but of the entire world.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee in a colloquy concerning funding for the restoration of Assateague Island National Seashore. I am deeply concerned that the Committee was not able to provide funding for so-called ``new start'' construction projects of the Army Corps of Engineers. I understand that the House Committee has also adopted a no new starts policy. The Corps of Engineers was scheduled to initiate an authorized and approved mitigation project for the North End of Assateague Island National Seashore in Fiscal 1999 and without funding, it appears that this project will have to be postponsed. This is a particular problem because the northern end of Assateague was hit very hard by two northeastern storms which slammed the mid-Atlantic coast this past February causing severe erosion and overwash conditions. In its current condition, the seashore is extremely vulnerable to breaching should another storm hit the coast. The integrity of the National Seashore and the area's coastal bays are at risk. Fortunately, the Corps will be able to make emergency repairs to the storm-damaged section under the authority of Public Law 84-99, providing some additional protection to the island over its current condition. But it would be far better if the approved restoration project could be initiated and completed as soon as possible. I recognize the difficult constraints that the Committee faced in crafting this bill but, given the critical nature of this project, I ask if the Chairman would be willing to work with me and Senator Mikulski in the Conference Committee to address Assateague's needs should additional funding become available.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chairman for these assurances. transfer of the st. georges bridge

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to voice my hopes that the Senate will this week have the opportunity, after several weeks of debate, to vote on the pending tobacco bill. The course that this bill has taken is in marked contrast to the course taken by many other important bills that we have considered in the 105th Congress. Whereas the Republican leadership has severely truncated debate on such important matters as campaign finance reform and education policy, we have been on the tobacco bill for several weeks, have engaged in hours of debate, and have considered a wide range of amendments. I have no doubt that when the Republican leadership has wanted quick resolution of an issue during the 105th Congress, it has understood how to accomplish that goal, and worked toward it. A similar commitment has not been apparent in the area of tobacco legislation. Let me be clear, Mr. President. I support the idea of full and considered debate on an issue as important as this one. I also believe, however, that once an issue has been fully vetted, once Senators have had a chance to listen to the debate and vote on amendments, it becomes time for the Senate to step up to the plate and vote on the legislation before us. That is what we are paid to do, and it is what the American people expect us to do. This is the fourth week of the tobacco debate. We have debated and voted on germane amendments and non-germane amendments; we have consumed dozens of hours of floor time and hundreds of pages in the Congressional Record. I worry, Mr. President, that the delays we are now facing on this bill are not designed to allow further thoughtful consideration of tobacco legislation, but rather to delay and obfuscate that legislation, to add to tobacco legislation layer upon layer of unrelated measures, to divide supporters of action in this area, and to run the clock in a legislative session that is evaporating before our eyes. The American people deserve better than that. Now I do not support everything in this bill. I have voted for some of the amendments the Senate has considered and against others. I have found the wide-ranging discussion on the Senate floor to be valuable and enlightening in some instances and irrelevant and repetitive in others. I do believe, however, that by the end of this week, after the Senate has had the chance to consider the handful of remaining outstanding issues, we will be ready to take a stand on how to deal with the problems of smoking--especially the problem of teen smoking-- in our nation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the case of Mr. Bong Koo Cho, whose property was confiscated by the Government of Korea in 1984. His daughter, my constituent, Sally Cho, is a U.S. citizen and resident of Maryland who has been actively involved in the effort to recover property. Recently, the Los Angeles Times published an article about the case which details the plight of Mr. Cho and his family, and I would ask that the full text of the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From The Los Angeles Times, Sunday, Mar. 1, 1998] From Afar, a Onetime Magnate Seeks Redress (By Henry Chu) Lawsuit: In a case filed in L.A. County, a S. Korean industrialist claims the Seoul government and a rival firm conspired to take his business. From the window of his small Westside apartment, Bong Koo Cho can gaze out at the ocean, but only in his mind's eye can he look across to the life and land he left more than a decade ago. Then, Cho was one of South Korea's wealthiest businessmen, the owner of Samho, one of the nation's biggest conglomerates, and the head of a sprawling estate in the heart of Seoul. Chauffeurs drove him around. Maids waited on his wife. But in 1984, his world was overturned. The government abruptly declared Samho insolvent and confiscated the entire construction empire, seized the family burial plot for good measure, and handed his business to a rival firm. Already in the U.S. for medical reasons, Cho had no choice but to stay, reduced in health and lifestyle. Now, the former entrepreneur and his family have sued to recover their money and property, alleging that a conspiracy between the South Korean government and their rival company drove them out of business. In exchange for huge kickbacks, the Chos say, South Korea's leaders concocted the bankruptcy charge against Samho, then divided the spoils--nearly $2 billion worth in current value--among their friends. The case is unusual in that the Chos are seeking redress in Los Angeles County Superior Court even though the actions in question took place 6,000 miles away. But more than that, the lawsuit provides a unique rearview- mirror look at the kinds of economic practices that first turned South Korea into an economic power, and have now led to its humiliating downfall. Cho's was one of the numerous companies confiscated during the South Korean government's ``rationalization'' of industry in the early 1980s. As told by the Cho family, the episode exemplified the history of collusion between South Korea's government and business leaders, whose cozy relationship means that political influence, nepotism and plain old graft enrich the well-connected at the expense of a totally free and open market. The International Monetary Fund, which is now bailing out the nation's economy, has demanded an end to such practices. Critics call the system ``crony capitalism.'' Cho calls it something else. ``This was highway robbery,'' said Cho, now 78. ``And it was a very simple thing: The government just wanted a kickbacks''--which Cho said he refused to pay. What will not be so simple, legal experts say, is proving his case, given that 14 years have elapsed since Samho was swallowed up by a company called Daelim Industrial. Added to that is the difficulty the Cho family may have in arguing that a California court, rather than a South Korean or even U.S. federal court, is the proper forum for them to air their grievances. ``It's certainly an odd and difficult case for a California state court to hear,'' says Greyson Bryan, an international business lawyer in Los Angeles. ``It's a very sensitive matter for an American court to become involved in an area that's essentially diplomatic and political in nature.'' But Phil Trimble, a UCLA professor of international law, said there is precedent for plaintiffs to seek justice in the U.S. for illegal actions taken in foreign countries, particularly if the actions violate international law. For example, South American nationals have successfully sued their government in U.S. courts for human rights abuses, such as torture. But those lawsuits filed in federal court and directed against the foreign governments themselves rather than private parties, as is the case in the Chos' lawsuit, which names as defendants the two companies involved in Samho's transfer. The Chos' attorney, John Taylor of Santa Monica, counters that the Chos are now U.S. citizens who are entitled to relief within the state judicial system. According to Taylor, the defendant companies used their ill-gotten gains to expand overseas, including in California, which gives the state a stake in ensuring that the companies doing business here were established legally and that residents like the Chos are compensated for any past wrongs. ``We feel jurisdictionally the money's here, [and] the Chos are in the United States,'' Taylor said. The lawsuit has yet to be assigned to a judge or served on defendants, pending its translation into Korean. At the time of its 1984 takeover, Samho ranked No. 9 on the list of South Korea's biggest chaebols, or conglomorates. Specializing in construction and infrastructure, the company built thousands of housing units in Seoul; helped install the city's subway; owned golf courses and a resort hotel; and had major contracts in the Middle East. Its success represented the rags-to-riches rise of its founder, Cho, the son of minor landlords who fell on hard times when he was a child. After running his first business at age 19, Cho scraped through World War II--he hid in a Buddist monastery to escape the Japanese imperial army draft--then expanded his textile business, set up South Korea's first sheet-glass factory and bet on a land boom by slowly acquiring more than 1,000 undeveloped acres in downtown Seoul by 1960. ``I could've bought more, but something like that would have raised eyebrows,'' he said. ``I was raising eyebrows as it was. That's a pretty massive holding.'' In 1970, Cho launched into construction on his many properties in South Korea, amassing a fortune in real estate. In 1975, he founded Samho, which concentrated on lucrative government-ordered housing projects in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia worth more than $1.5 billion. But squabbles with the Kuwaiti and Saudi governments and the headaches of working in an alien environment turned the first two projects into losing ventures, said Yong See (Peter) Cho, who took over Samho in the early '80s while his father sought treatment abroad after a series of strokes. Debts mounted to about $350 million on the Middle Eastern contracts, although Samho was confident that its latest project in Saudi Arabia would soon be turning in a tidy profit. That set the stage, however, for the South Korean government's bankruptcy charge against Samho. On the morning of Aug. 24, 1984, according to the Chos' lawsuit, the South Korean finance minister summoned Peter Cho to his office. The minister, Kim Mahn Je, curtly informed Cho that Samho was on the list of insolvent companies being targeted for ``rationalization'' by the government, part of an effort to shed financially troubled concerns and shore up the economy, Samho was to be taken over by Daelim Industrial, a smaller conglomerate. When Cho protested, Kim advised him to stay silent. An officer with Cho Hung Bank, which worked out the details of the takeover, also warned Cho not to contest the decision or his physical safety would be threatened, the lawsuit alleges. By day's end, Peter Cho has signed over his family's controlling share of Samho. ``I'd been brought up in this country's system, so I knew not to argue,'' the younger Cho recalled in an interview, smiling bitterly at the memory. The next day, ``the 15 executives of Daelim came into my headquarters office to take over, like little Napoleons, in their suits and black neckties.'' Samho's assets included ``country clubs, farms, orchards, driving ranges, shopping, centers, apartment [and] residences,'' valued by the bank at a total of $250 million but worth at least three times that, the lawsuit claims. Even the family burial plot was seized, forcing them to exhume the body of a son who had died years earlier and bury him elsewhere. ``We were left with just about nothing,'' said Kyung Ja Cho, 73, Bong Koo Cho's wife. Her husband insists that his personal holdings could have more than paid off the debts from the Middle Eastern projects. Instead, he said, the bankruptcy charge was merely a ploy to oust him for his refusal to make large donations to then- President Chum Do Hwan, and reward another company, Daelim, whose chairman had a brother high up in the South Korean government. The Chos' lawsuit alleges that Daelim agreed to pay bribes to Chun's government and his family in exchange for being given Samho. A spokesman for Daelim in Seoul would not comment directly on the allegations. ``It was such a long time ago,'' the spokesman said. ``Few people in the company know about the alleged takeover, and we do have any official position on the issue.'' Skeptics point out that Samho itself has flourished, in part through government contracts, at a time when the South Korean government regularly colluded the business to push the tiny nation to its remarkable economic recovery since World War II. Ultimately, such government-business complicity and cavalier lending practices helped pitch South Korea into its current economic quagmire, requiring a bailout from the International Monetary Fund. As a condition of assistance, the IMF has demanded an end to crony capitalism and easy credit. Cho bristles at suggestions that he ever participated in palm-greasing and cronyism. ``We never benefited from any relationship with the government. We've been completely victimized by it,'' he said, adding that other companies like Daelim have been the ones proven corrupt. Indeed, Lee June Yong, who has been the head of Daelim throughout this period and whose brother was speaker of the South Korean parliament under President Chun, was found guilty in 1996 of paying a bribe to Chun's successor, Roh Tae Woo. Lee was sentenced to 2\1/2\ years in prison but received a pardon. Daelim, meanwhile, has expanded significantly since swallowing up Samho in 1984. Once a minor player, it is now South Korea's 17th-largest chaebol, with a subsidiary in Houston that just closed its doors in January because of the escalating Asian financial crisis. Also named as defendant in the Cho family's lawsuit is Cho Hung Bank, which facilitated the takeover of Samho. The bank has also gained a foothold in the U.S., setting up California Cho Hung Bank, based in Los Angeles and worth about $31 million, according to Dun & Bradstreet. The U.S. unit is also a defendant. ``It's groundless,'' California Cho Hung's attorney, Simon Hung, said of the lawsuit. ``The allegations . . . seem to be based on events that occurred many years ago, long before California Cho Hung Bank was established here in the United States. I don't know why they're bringing a lawsuit at this time here in the United States.'' In fact, South Korea's own judicial system has already heard a case similar to Samho's--and ruled in favor of the confiscated company. In 1993, the nation's Constitutional Court ruled that the Chun government had illegally dissolved the Kukje conglomerate on trumped-up charges of insolvency in 1985. Kukje's previous owners are now demanding compensation. But the Cho family feels that the best chance for recovering what was once theirs now lies in the U.S. Bong Koo Cho and his wife have nursed such hope for years as they shuttled from home to home on the Westside, finally settling in their current Brentwood apartment after giving up a condominium in Santa Monica that they could no longer afford. The Chos maintain their simply furnished one-bedroom apartment with some financial help from their six adult children, who all reside in the U.S. With their savings dwindling, they have applied for low-income assisted housing--a far cry from the days when the two presided over their 15,000-square-foot antique-filled home back in Seoul. Most of the last two decades have been spent trying to restore Cho's health. His strokes left him partially paralyzed, forcing him to walk with a cane. ``I cannot describe the pain of watching the man who built Seoul's subway living out his last years in a small apartment in Los Angeles,'' Sally Cho Seabright wrote about her father in an essay to be published in a South Korean magazine. ``When I think of what my poor parents, indeed my whole family, have suffered, it makes me cry.'' For Peter Cho, 47, watching Daelim and Cho Hung Bank prosper in the U.S. has been especially galling. ``They brought their money to this country and expanded their business here. Obviously they must have brought my money in here.'' He now lives in Pacific Palisades and stays afloat by managing his father's sole source of income: a couple hundred acres of farmland in Kern County, purchased a few years before Samho's takeover in hopes that the area was ripe for development. ``That's the only business mistake my father's made,'' said Seabright, who lives in Maryland. Seabright has spearheaded the family's efforts to tell its story, enlisting the aid of a public relations firm in Washington and rounding supportive letters from politicians such as U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Her father, who hasn't returned to his homeland since Samho was seized, mostly reads and watches CNN, monitoring events in South Korea such as the inauguration Wednesday of the country's latest president, former opposition leader Kim Dae Jung. Jung has pledged to democratize the country further, an announcement Cho greets with caution. ``I don't believe it's entirely desirable for Korea to copy Western democracy and Western capitalism,'' Cho said. ``We have different cultures. Democracy as it's practiced in Korea will be different.'' But some form of democracy--including a free and open business culture--must come, Cho said, if only to prevent another situation similar to his. ``Something like this can never take place in a truly democratic country,'' Cho said.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation together with my colleagues Senators Byrd, Rockefeller, and Mikulski to grant Congressional consent to a Compact entered into between the States of West Virginia and Maryland that established the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority. The purpose of this legislation is to help facilitate a regional approach to the operations, use, management and future development of the Greater Cumberland Regional Airport. Greater Cumberland Regional Airport is an important transportation hub serving the commercial, general aviation and corporate communities in the tri-state area of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. It is not only an essential link in the region's transportation network, but a critical part of the strategy to attract new business and tourism to the area. The airport was established in 1944, when the City of Cumberland, Maryland purchased property in Wiley Ford, WV--three miles south of Cumberland--and began construction of airport facilities. Unfortunately, this unusual situation--a commercial service airport located in one state while owned by a local unit of government in a contiguous state--has greatly complicated the operation, financing and development of the airport over the years. With two states, two counties and two municipalities having jurisdiction over different aspects of the airport and enforcing different laws, taxing authorities and regulations, it was difficult, at best, to transcend the political and boundary lines and achieve a consensus on the future of the airport. In order to address this situation, in 1976, the General Assemblies of the State of Maryland and the State of West Virginia enacted a bi- state compact authorizing creation of a public agency known as the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority (PHAA) to govern and operate the airport. However, no action was taken to implement that Compact until 1990, when the two states, the Board of County Commissioners of Allegany County, Maryland and Mineral County, West Virginia and the Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, Maryland signed an intergovernmental agreement to transfer airport management and control to the Authority and changed the name to the Greater Cumberland Regional Airport. Since that time, the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority has actively maintained and operated the airport, and has been working to develop and implement a 20-year, $10 million airport modernization and expansion program designed to facilitate current operations and anticipated growth in utilization of the facility. In the process of seeking investment capital, loans and airport development grants, questions have been raised by the Federal Aviation Administration, USDA Rural Development, and others about the Authority's eligibility to function as legal sponsor for the airport and borrow money and give security, absent Congressional Consent to the Interstate Compact which established the Authority. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution requires Congressional approval of compacts between States and Bond Counsel for the airport has recommended that the Compact creating the Airport Authority receive the consent of Congress in order to provide some certainty as to the legal status of the airport and to permit the Authority to borrow funds. The legislation I am introducing today would ratify the Interstate Compact enacted by Maryland and West Virginia in 1976 and reaffirmed in the 1990 Intergovernmental Agreement. It will allow the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority to fully exercise the powers and authority set forth by the Compact and to provide a truly regional approach to the operation, use and future development of the airport. It will help advance the public interest by ensuring the future viability of Greater Cumberland Regional Airport to serve the transportation needs of the tri-state area. I urge the swift enactment of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I concur with the Chairman of the Banking Committee's statement.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of Patrick Mulloy to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance. I have known Pat since he came to work for the Senate Banking Committee in 1983 as a Congressional Fellow from the Justice Department. Pat made such a strong impression during his fellowship that the then ranking Democrat on the Banking Committee, Senator Proxmire, hired him to be Minority General Counsel, a position which he held from 1984 to 1986. After the Senate changed hands in 1987, Pat became General Counsel for the majority and served in that capacity until 1989. When Senator Proxmire retired in 1989, Pat became Senior Counsel and International Affairs Advisor to the new chairman, Senator Riegle. Since 1992 he has served as Chief International Counsel for the Democratic members of the Committee. Since 1995, when I became ranking Democrat on the Banking Committee, Pat has worked directly for me. The first point I want to make about Pat is that he is a career public servant. He holds a B.A., Magna Cum Laude, from Kings College Pennsylvania, an M.A. in International Politics from Notre Dame where he was a University Fellow, a J.D. degree with Honors from George Washington Law School, and an LL.M. from Harvard Law School. He began his professional career as a Foreign Service Officer in the State Department, where he served from 1965 to 1973. From 1973 to 1977 he served as a Trial Attorney in the Land and Resources Division of the Justice Department, and from 1979 to 1982 he served as Senior Attorney in the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. It was from that position that Pat came to work for the Senate Banking Committee. During his tenure on the Banking Committee, Pat has played a lead role in every major international finance and trade issue the Committee has dealt with. These include enactment of the International Lending Supervision Act; amendments to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, the Export Administration Act, and the trade promotion programs of the Commerce Department; and the exchange rate, third world debt, and foreign investment provisions of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. He helped draft the Export Enhancement Act of 1992 which established the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee. He was intimately involved as a Congressional Advisor in the negotiation of the recently concluded agreement on trade in financial services in the World Trade Organization. I can think of no one better prepared or suited to serve in the position of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance. Pat brings a deep background and expertise in international trade and finance. He has served in the executive branch and the Congress, and in both capacities has worked closely with private sector business and labor groups affected by trade policies. He also brings a passionate personal commitment to opening foreign markets to U.S. exports and expanding job opportunities for American workers. Pat is a person of the highest intelligence, integrity, and commitment to public service. He has been an enormously effective member of the staff of the Senate Banking Committee, and I have come to rely with great confidence on his judgment and expertise. The fact that Senator D'Amato, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, as well as myself introduced Pat at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee suggests the deep professional and personal regard in which he is held by members of the Senate Banking Committee on both sides of the aisle. Pat has my unreserved support for confirmation to this important position.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. That is correct.

Mr. SARBANES. Yes.