Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate one of Maryland's finest state institutions, Frostburg State University, on the occasion of its Centennial Anniversary. Since its founding in 1898, Frostburg State University has been a primary component of the greater Frostburg community. Although small towns are often identified merely as extensions of the school in their midst, it is more the case that Frostburg State is a true extension of the town of Frostburg. In fact, the people of Frostburg themselves raised the funds that were used to buy the land on which the institution is located. This symbiotic relationship is one in which the Frostburg community provides the support system for the school and in turn, is enriched by the school and its students. This unique relationship dates back to when the University was a small local teacher training institution named the State Normal School at Frostburg. Upon completing their training, students often stayed in the area and taught at regional elementary schools. This tradition of community participation continued as the school evolved into a State Teachers College in 1935 and finally, a multipurpose institution, Frostburg State University, in July of 1987, becoming a member of the University of Maryland System the following year. While the commitment to teacher training remains at the core of Frostburg State's mission, the University has expanded its curriculum significantly to include the arts and sciences, professional and pre- professional programs, and graduate programs including business, psychology and biology training. Enrollment has grown from an initial class of 57 to over 5,200, and the University's degree program now requires four years of study. It is important to note, however, that Frostburg State University occupies a unique educational niche as the only four-year institution west of the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area. Therefore, it serves as the intellectual and cultural center for this westernmost region of my State, and for nearby communities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Although the student body includes students from various states and foreign countries, it continues to draw primarily from the immediate area, and provides important employment opportunities for the residents of the region. Furthermore, Frostburg State enjoys a partnership with the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) from whom they receive federal funds for various projects that enrich the school's resources and provide further economic development to the area. It has always been my firm belief that a democracy cannot prosper and grow without an educated populace. As the world becomes increasingly complex and technically challenging, the quality education of the individual is one of the most important tasks in our society. From its inception, Frostburg State University has prioritized education; maintaining a commitment to providing community and educational services to the entire region while, at the same time, succeeding in providing a nationally acclaimed education to its own university community. As we celebrate this important milestone, I would like to commend the greater Frostburg State University family for upholding the traditions of community cooperation and commitment to excellence that serve to exemplify the very best that Maryland has to offer.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. No, no, no, no, no. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. I object.

Mr. SARBANES. Not when someone is seeking recognition here.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as some of my colleagues may know, each year tuberculosis claims nearly 3 million lives--more than all other infectious diseases combined--making it the number one infectious cause of death worldwide. Unlike many other infectious diseases, tuberculosis is an airborne disease transmitted like the common cold. Nearly one-third of the world's population is already infected, and cases of multi-drug resistant strains, which are far more difficult and expensive to treat, are on the rise. Overall, tuberculosis is responsible for 25% of all preventable deaths. The Los Angeles Times recently published an article about USAID's work to expand and strengthen programs to control tuberculosis, along with other global threats to public health. I think this is a very important initiative and would urge them to continue their efforts. The renewed focus on tuberculosis is due in part to the activities of Princeton Project 55, established by Princeton University's Class of 1955, which has pressed for aggressive United States leadership in the prevention and treatment of this terrible disease. I commend them on their involvement and would ask that the full text of the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, March 6, 1998] U.S. Launches Global Effort to Control Disease (By Marlene Cimons) Washington--The U.S. Agency for International Development announced Thursday a new initiative aimed at controlling the global emergence of lethal infectious diseases, saying it will develop programs in targeted countries to fight the escalating health threats posed by bacterial resistance, tuberculosis and malaria. The agency also said it will work with other health agencies worldwide to better monitor and respond to new outbreaks of diseases before they get out of hand. ``This is as important for American citizens'' as it is for citizens abroad because ``we are dealing with these problems at their origin, rather than waiting for them to get here,'' said Dr. Nils Daulaire, a senior health advisor to USAID. Congress, recognizing the potential danger from infectious diseases overseas, awarded the agency an additional $50 million for fiscal 1998 specifically for control of infectious diseases--the first time in four years that, ``instead of cutting our budget, Congress has added to it,'' Daulaire said. In response, the agency is pursuing a 10-year effort that it hopes will reduce by at least 10% the deaths caused by infectious diseases, excluding those caused by acquired immune deficiency syndrome, by 2007. The $50 million is in addition to the agency's public health budget of $850 million, which is spent on maternal and child health, family planning and the control of AIDS and the human immunodeficiency virus that causes it. USAID has estimated that more than 17 million people worldwide will die from infectious diseases in 1998. This health problem has gotten worse in recent years due to numerous factors, including rapid population growth, overcrowding, poor sanitation, poverty, loss of trained health personnel and decreasing resources available to public health services in the poorest of countries, according to

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a native son of Southern Maryland, Tubby Smith, who, as a first year head coach, led the Kentucky Wildcats to victory in this year's NCAA Basketball Tournament. This event is a historic one as Tubby Smith becomes only the third African-American to coach an NCAA men's championship basketball team at an institution that, at one time, did not allow African-Americans students to participate in basketball. It is for these reasons that I am particularly proud to congratulate Tubby Smith, a fellow small-town Marylander, on behalf of athletes and citizens nationwide who appreciate the value of opportunity and victory. Mr. President, I ask that an article on Tubby Smith, his family and life in Scotland, St. Mary's County, Maryland from the April 1, 1998 edition of the Washington Post be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, Apr. 1, 1998] In St. Mary's, a Champion's Family Celebrates (By Jessie Mangaliman) In the modest one-story cinder-block home in Scotland near St. Mary's County's southernmost point, Tubby Smith's large family--he has 16 brothers and sisters, 10 of whom still live in Southern Maryland, and 38 nieces, nephews, grandnieces and grandnephews--gathered yesterday at the family home to celebrate a victory by one of their own. It was family-style: in the kitchen over a cup of coffee or in the den in front of a television tuned to a sports channel. But in some ways, this victory encompasses a larger family. That's because Tubby Smith, the winning coach of the NCAA champion University of Kentucky Wildcats, was the first African American coach of a school that once barred blacks from playing on its basketball team. On Monday, he brought honor to that school and the country when his team, which included his son, Saul, won the national basketball title, defeating Utah 78-69. ``I think he's proved them all wrong,'' said his jubilant sister Ramona Smith, who lives in Scotland, the tiny farming community of several hundred people six miles from the Chesapeake Bay. ``He's made a believer out of everybody. His coaching record speaks for itself; he just happens to be black.'' ``Yes, my God, we are proud of Tubby Smith,'' declared Frank Dove, manager of the Mixx Lounge and Grill in Dameron, a nearby community, where more than 100 of Smith's friends gathered Monday night to watch the game and toast him in his victory. A sign outside the lounge on Route 235 proclaimed: ``Congratulations, Tubby Smith.'' ``You can't help but smile to think that Tubby, who is liked by everyone here, came from being a farm boy to what he is now. We are proud,'' said Dove, who opened the lounge, usually closed on Mondays, to Smith's friends and family. ``You want to talk about the coach of the year? He's my coach of the year . . . for life,'' said William Smith, one of Tubby Smith's younger brothers who joined the crowd at the Mixx. ``He's the greatest!'' said Guffrie Smith Sr., Smith's father, who worked three jobs while helping to raise his family: He drove a school bus, fired boilers at Patuxent River Naval Air Station and barbered. Guffrie, 79, and Parthenia, 72, still live in the five- bedroom home where Tubby grew up. Guffrie, with the help of his uncle, a share-cropper, built that house in 1963 so that the family could move out of a farmhouse that lacked indoor plumbing. The Kentucky coach might be known as Tubby--the young boy who liked sitting in his grandmother's wash bin so much that he didn't want to leave--but his given name is Orlando. ``He was an obedient child,'' Parthenia Smith said. ``Weekdays he went to school, and on Sundays he went to church. He was not allowed to play ball on Sundays.'' But he was also a hard-working child, said Dove, who has known Tubby since he was an infant. Even at a young age, he helped his father plant fruits and vegetables on the family's five acres of land. ``The whole family is like that--a churchgoing, hard- working good family. That's the bottom line,'' Dove said. Yesterday afternoon at the Smith home, there was only one subject of conversation: Tubby. ``Every time Tubby came on, somebody holled, `Tubby's on!' '' said Ramona Smith, a guidance counselor at Great Mills High School. ``We're still flying high, and we haven't quite calmed down yet.'' Neither Guffrie nor Parthenia finished high school, but from the beginning, education was one of the family's most important values, the parents said. It paid off, Guffrie Smith Sr. said yesterday, for most of his 17 children have college degrees, including Tubby. ``He called last night after the game, and he said, `Hey, Mama, did you see me on TV? I told him, yeah and I thanked the Lord [for the win] because I was so nervous,'' said Parthenia Smith, who conceded that she could not stop smiling in disbelief. At Great Mills High, Tubby Smith scored 1,000 points in three seasons before graduating, helping unite a racially divided school in 1967 with his athleticism, according to his brother Odell, who was in Texas to watch the game Monday night. Tubby Smith played for four years at High Point University in North Carolina. Then he coached in high schools, including at Great Mills. One of his college coaches, J.D. Barnett, later hired him as an assistant at Virginia Commonwealth University. Barnett went on to the University of Tulsa, where he was fired as head coach and replaced by Smith in 1991. Under Smith's coaching, Tulsa went to the middle rounds of the NCAA tournament. He went to the University of Georgia in 1995, leading his teams to two NCAA tournaments. Last year when Smith became the first African American coach of the men's team at the University of Kentucky, a paper there published an open letter from a black staff member warning him that the school was not ready for a black coach. ``I fear for your safety,'' she wrote. ``There are good and bad people everywhere you go,'' Parthenia Smith said. ``I told him that I didn't like what she said. But that made me nervous more than anything else.'' ``He's a good man,'' Smith's father said. ``The boys believe in him.'' Guffrie Smith, who has had multiple bypass surgery, said he had no doubt his son would come through a champion, but the thrill of Monday night's game was too much for his heart. At halftime, when the Wildcats were behind 10 points, Guffrie Smith stood up, paced around the living room and the shut himself in the bedroom. He came out only after the Wildcats had won. After the game Monday night, Tubby Smith said: ``It's obviously something that is special. It's probably the most noteworthy thing that has happened in our family as far as family achievements. Smith said he plans to visit his family in St. Mary's County in the next several days. On national television, he thanked his relatives in St. Mary's because he knew they were watching. The family gathered at the Mixx lounge hooted and hollered, toasting with champagne.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I just want to say, I don't really have a basic quarrel with my good friend from Minnesota. I want to be on the side of environmental protection and on the side of workers' rights and on the side of human rights. The Secretary of the Treasury has committed himself to undertake a serious review of the international financial architecture. I have a lot of confidence in the Secretary of the Treasury. In fact, I think we have the best finance minister in the world in Secretary Rubin. I place great credibility in his proposals. But you cannot remodel the emergency room at the very time the patients are being brought in to be dealt with. That is the issue that is involved in this IMF replenishment. The distinguished chairman of the committee said on yesterday that the Asian flu is the El Nino of economics, and he warned that unless we understand that, we are liable to make a big mistake. I think the distinguished Senator from Alaska was absolutely right on that point. These countries got into trouble because of, in many respects, mismanagement of their economy. The IMF wasn't there to begin with. The IMF came in in order to try to help them out. Now, we can argue about its programs, and I have been critical of them in the past and, indeed, even critical of them in the current context. But nevertheless, we have to do this replenishment because, if the IMF is perceived as having inadequate resources to deal with any crisis that might now emerge, it makes it more likely that the crisis will happen. If the IMF is perceived as having adequate resources, it makes it less likely that a crisis will happen because there will be an increase in confidence. So I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment; otherwise, we may be headed for very big trouble, as the distinguished chairman of the committee said on yesterday.

Mr. SARBANES. No, I am here to speak in support of the amendment, very strongly in support.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I yield briefly to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. SARBANES. I will respect the time limit. I think we should go to the vote. I do not want to be constantly delaying the votes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Murray and Murkowski, as an original co-sponsor of S.1825, The Veterans' Burial Rites Act of 1998. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure the continued availability of military burial honors to our veterans. More and more families across the country are discovering that, due to budgetary cutbacks, full military burial honors are not available for their relatives who have served in the armed forces. In many cases that have been brought to my attention, families are now being told that the best they can expect for these loved ones--who clearly deserve a funeral with full military honors--is a taped rendition of ``taps'' and a lone representative from the armed services. In my view, a society is not only judged by the way it treats its aging, its children and its least fortunate, but also by how it dignifies and honors its deceased. Knowing of the commitment and sacrifice of the armed forces and how important military honors are to those who serve and to their families, it would seem that maintaining these rites would be a high priority for the Department of Defense. It is very difficult for me to understand any degradation or lapse in this regard. When I first learned of this growing problem, in late 1997, I wrote to the Secretary of Defense, urging him to personally review this matter and identify the means to reinstate traditional military honors for those who have served. I have now joined forces with Senators Murray and Murkowski in introducing this legislation in an effort to ensure that full burial honors will always be available to our nation's veterans when requested. Simply, this legislation would ensure that the sufficient manpower and funding is available for requested burial details to consist of at least five members of the armed services, National Guardsmen, or Reservists--including a bugler, a firing party, and a flag bearer. In my view, the issue is clear and our commitment should be unwavering. Our veterans are always there when this country is in need. Rightfully, they have come to expect certain commitments in return which ensure them the dignity they deserve --in life and in death. In my view, it is our obligation to continue to provide these honors without hesitation and without degradation. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Chairman D'Amato in introducing the Federal Transit Act of 1997 and the Transportation Equity Act as part of reauthorizing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, what is characterized as ISTEA II. I want to commend Senator D'Amato for his leadership on this bill and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. The Federal Transit Act of 1997 continues for another 6 years the program structure established in ISTEA in 1991. It takes the total funding for Federal transit programs, all Federal transit programs, up from $31.5 billion for the 6 years under ISTEA I to $41.3 billion over the next 6 years. Adoption of the budget agreement for transit continues the important 4-to-1 funding relationship between highways and transit that was incorporated in ISTEA. Actually, that ratio has existed now since the early 1980s, during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, when we raised the gas tax 5 cents. Four cents went to highways and 1 cent went to mass transit. We have managed, subsequently, to maintain that 80/20 ratio with respect to the allocation of the gasoline tax. The additional funding provided for in this legislation is critical to address the demand for transit in all regions of the country. The Department of Transportation reports in the newly released 1997 Conditions and Performance Status Report on the Nation's surface transportation system that we need to spend almost $10 billion every year just to maintain existing transit conditions. Enactment of this bill will at least take us a good part of the way toward meeting the goal of maintaining current conditions on transit systems nationwide. It doesn't really take us far enough out to address the question of improving the conditions and performance of the transit systems. The bill and the budget agreement increase the authorization levels for discretionary capital grants of formula programs to new levels. Funding for urbanized areas, for rural areas, for the elderly and persons with disabilities, the bus capital program, the fixed guideway program, and new starts are all covered under this legislation. The new levels should, hopefully, provide an important boost to much- needed transportation services in all parts of our country. Transit investment is critical to achieving the full implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Enactment of this legislation strengthens the important Federal commitment to a national transit program. Building on the flexibility in ISTEA, the bill ensures that local decisionmakers continue to have the necessary tools to make balanced transportation decisions based on local needs. There is a new emphasis in this bill on giving transit operators greater flexibility to use transit formula funds. The definition of capital is expanded to include preventive maintenance activities. These changes help ensure that the Federal investment is properly maintained and encourages the development and deployment of new transit technologies. In this legislation, small urbanized areas, those between 50,000 and 200,000 population, will gain the flexibility that rural areas already have. This is a flexibility that is already provided to rural areas of the country; namely, to use their formula funds flexibly for either capital or operating assistance. In other words, they won't be divided into categories in this respect. This change should help to offset the reductions in the operating assistance that various areas of the country have faced over the past 3 years. In combination with the expanded definition of capital, which I referred to above--expansion includes preventive maintenance activities--this new flexibility will benefit all transit operators in those communities. The transit bill also includes an additional $600 million over 6 years for a new access-to-jobs program that is designed to improve transit services for welfare and low-income individuals to get to and from jobs. Actually, one of the greatest obstacles welfare recipients face in getting jobs is getting to the job. Making public transportation more accessible ensures that people can move from welfare to work. This legislation follows the path broken by ISTEA in placing emphasis on regional planning and flexibility to allow each area of the country, whether rural or urban, east or west, north or south, to use Federal transportation dollars, along with matching State and local resources, to develop the best mix of highway and transit systems to meet local infrastructure needs. It seeks to level the playing field so that local decisionmakers can make those choices, in effect, on an equal basis. ISTEA gave us a balanced, multimodal approach to designing and constructing transportation systems, quality systems that reduce congestion, reduce air pollution, conserve fuel, improve efficiency in the movement of people and goods, contribute to the economic well-being of our country nationally, and help us compete more effectively in the global economy. The legislation that is now before us continues that balanced approach to the development of an integrated and intermodal transportation system. Now, I don't think there is much argument that transit is critical to our overall economy. It's especially essential to our ability to sustain and revitalize the great metropolitan areas of the country. In many areas, transit systems provide basic mobility for people of all ages and abilities. As an increasingly larger proportion of our population ages, we need to ensure mobility for active seniors who can no longer drive. I really want to stress that point. This is a very important matter. Various senior groups have actually been to us underscoring how essential transit is in terms of meeting the needs of our senior citizens. Clearly, transit systems link people to jobs, to medical care, to shopping and other essential services. They are particularly crucial to lower income Americans who have no other alternative to reach their jobs. Making public transportation more accessible ensures that people can move from welfare to work. Now, let me turn for a moment to the interrelationship between effective transit systems and the environment and dealing with the challenges we confront with respect to our environment. Congestion and air pollution are two major headaches that we confront every single day, whether or not we drive. Increased use of public transit is critical if we are to reach Clean Air Act goals in areas with significant noncompliance. In fact, many of the gains that have been already achieved under the Clean Air Act are now in jeopardy unless there are viable transportation alternatives. Air pollution constitutes a major public health threat, and careful scientific study has shown that the danger posed by air pollution to health is more pervasive than scientists previously thought. In fact, the American Lung Association estimates that the national health care bill for air-pollution-related illness is $40 billion a year. In many areas of the country, transportation actually is a major creator of air pollution for both ozone smog and particulate matter pollutions. Whether it be diesel trucks or gasoline-powered vehicles, they contribute to that problem. One way, of course, of reducing this problem is for people to make greater use of our mass transit systems. Secondly, congestion is imposing significant costs to the economy and wasted time and fuel as drivers are simply stuck in traffic. If we did not have public transit, there would be a minimum estimate of 5 million more cars on the Nation's roads, requiring 27,000 more land miles of roads. Last year, the Texas Transportation Institute released its 10th annual report on congestion in 50 urban areas. Research showed that commuters in one-third of the Nation's largest cities spend more than 40 hours a year in traffic jams, and they estimate that the gridlock costs the Nation over $50 billion a year. Use of mass transit systems is on the increase. In the third quarter of 1997, transit ridership increased by 2.6 percent over the same period in 1996. Actually, the total number of trips taken on all modes of public transportation from July through September of 1997 exceeded 2 billion. More than 50 million more trips were taken on transit during this period than during the same time the previous year. Third, transit means mobility. According to the Federal Transit Administration, over 10 million Americans use transit each working day, and another 25 million use it less frequently but on a regular basis. Public transit provides these commuters with an affordable and convenient transportation option. Mobility is important in all parts of the country in urban, rural and small town America. This legislation seeks to contribute to an improvement in transit in all parts of the country. Finally, transit is an important contributor to economic development and job creation. Observers from across the political spectrum recognize that quality transit investment, whether bus or rail, makes good economic sense. In ``Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is It Time For A New Look?'' Paul Weyrich and William Lind state that transit serves important conservative goals, ``including economic development, moving people off welfare and into productive employment, and strengthening feelings of community.'' Public transit is also about jobs--creating jobs and connecting people with jobs. Increasingly, employers see the benefits of locating their businesses near a transit line for employee access to work, for reduced need for parking facilities, and for the economic benefit from commercial development around transit stations. Mr. President, a balanced, integrated national transportation network is essential to improve the economic productivity and quality of life of all Americans. Public transit is a vital part of our intermodal transportation system. We must continue to invest to both maintain existing transit and to build the necessary infrastructure to meet growing, unmet demands for quality transit systems. ISTEA has worked well for transit, and that has brought many benefits to our States and to the country. Passage of the Federal Transit Act of 1997 will keep America moving forward well into the 21st century. Therefore, I am very pleased to join with Chairman D'Amato to continue a strong Federal transit program as we reauthorize ISTEA. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation. Privilege of the Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Loretta Garrison, of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be permitted access to the floor during the consideration of S. 1173 and S. 1271.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to address very briefly the matter which my distinguished colleague from New York was addressing just before I took the floor, because apparently it now appears, unfortunately, that we are going to have a squabble over regional allocations of transit money. The transit program has always been based on need. We have tried to structure the program in such a way that it responds to need, whether it is in the urban areas, the small metropolitan areas, or in the rural areas of the country. If we get into a sort of, ``well, I need to get back what I put in'' mentality, this can be carried to an extreme. My State, for example, is a high taxpayer to the Federal Government with a high per capita income. On any chart we put in, we are right up in the top handful in terms of what we put into the Federal Treasury. We don't get, to use an example, much from the agricultural subsidy program--from the various stabilization programs for agriculture. I, in fact, have supported those programs in this body, responding to the appeal of my colleagues from the farm States that it is essential to the economies of their States and, indeed, essential to the economy of the Nation. I think a strong agricultural program is essential for America's strength, just as I think a strong transit system program is essential to America's strength. But I have not approached that issue on the basis that I should get out of the agriculture subsidy program a relationship to the money we are putting into the Federal Treasury. I am willing to take that issue on its own in terms of the need to have the program. I think if you are going to have a united nation, you have to have a certain amount of that attitude. We have already been through a revision of the highway formula that has markedly shifted the percentage shares distributed under that formula to the Western and Southern States, and we recognize the arguments that are made for that. That change is taking place in other sections of this legislation. I, for one, would be very much opposed to departing from the needs criteria in addressing the transit systems. We are trying to meet, in effect, national transportation needs. The extent of that, of course, varies in different parts of the country. We structured legislation to try to ensure that a reasonable amount of resources go into each part of the country. But we have not structured it on the basis of, in effect, you get back something that is related to what you put in. As I said, if we go down that path, there are any number of programs that we are supportive of that are not done on that basis. And I think Members, if they stopped and thought about it for a bit, would reach the conclusion that it would not be advisable to have that approach. So I hope these matters can be dealt with in a spirit that recognizes the national interest that is involved in these transit system programs and that maintains some sense of equity as between highway and transit moneys, which I think is essential--that sense of equity is essential-- if we are going to develop a balanced and integrated national transportation network. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from New York, the chairman of the committee. There are just a few basic points I want to make. First of all, I think all of us owe a significant measure of appreciation to the chairman of the committee for his efforts interacting with the chairman of the Budget Committee to find additional money for transit programs. In other words, a real effort was made here to get more money into the transit programs to help address the various needs of people. Secondly, on the fixed guideways, the committee itself, in consultation with the public transit groups across the country, made an adjustment in the workings of that formula so it is not as though we are oblivious to some of the problems that have been raised here on the floor. We try to make adjustments to take care of them. Thirdly, it is very important to understand that about three-quarters of the riders are in those cities. So there is a relationship between where you are putting the money and where the ridership is. This gets complicated because more and more cities now want to come on line with transit systems. The additional money that the chairman and those of us working with him have been able to gain for the transit programs will help to make that possible. Now, the distinguished Senator from Colorado said that this last year, he thought his return had jumped significantly. As I understand it, there is a full-funding agreement for the transit system in the Denver area so that the payout is beginning on that system. One of the problems you have here--and people have to understand this--the transit systems have to be funded in discreet jumps. You can't do it just a little bit everywhere each year because that doesn't give you enough money to build your transit system. In order to build a transit system, the transit systems have to work with the Department of Transportation to get a full-funding agreement, and then there is a commitment. So you get a jump, a discreet jump, in the amount of money coming in to build your system. You have to do that with each system that is coming along. If you just give a few extra dollars in each place, you can't build a transit system with that little money. Now, one of the problems, obviously, we will confront as we move along is more and more areas and regions recognize the desirability of a transit system, so they want to be part of the process. I am in favor of their being part of the process. I fought very hard with the chairman to maintain the 80/20 allocation. If we had lost that allocation, I think our ability to have additional money for transit would have been very quickly on the downslide. We know there are lots of needs. Members come to us. We understand that. We are trying to work with Members in order to achieve that. You can't look at one segment of the transportation funding without relating it to the other segments, not just within mass transit, but highways as well. Now, the chairman's State and my State take a sharp hit on our percentage share of the highway money in this bill. We take a sharp hit on the percentage share of the highway money. Many of those who are now coming to us who were seeking to rework the transit formulas, in fact, were among the States that benefit very significantly by the reworking of the highway formula. I am trying to look at it with a broad point of view. I recognize some of the arguments that have been made about the highway formula, although I had counterarguments I could make if you want to talk about miles traveled, congestion and all the rest of it. I can bring up a list of figures. The second most congested area in the country on highway traffic is right here in Washington, DC, as most of my colleagues probably realize as they seek to move around the area. But in any event, those adjustments are getting made, and we are recognizing that those adjustments are getting made. Now, even within the transit scene, it's clear that the new-start money is moving to new areas. Now, that simply is happening. I don't think the old areas ought to be ``frozen out'' of new starts because often they have to, as it were, extend their systems to accommodate the movement of populations further out into suburban areas. We are trying to build systems here that work, and we recognize the needs of new areas. I think we have tried to be very responsive, as a matter of fact, in the committee to try to address the needs of new areas. So I say to my colleagues that I think it's very important to try to take a balanced view. I think it's important for the Senate to try to come out with a balanced bill that represents a reasonable accommodation amongst all the interests that are reflected in the Senate, because the nature of the political dynamic is quite different in the House, if one stops and thinks about it for a moment. I think that if we have a balanced bill, it can become a kind of magnet point in dealing with the House. If our bill is seen as unbalanced, it won't be that magnet point, and the House people, I think, will obviously be seeking to move it to a new balance. So I think it is very important for us here to try to come with a new balance, and we are working hard to try to get that. I made my point on the highway formula, and I don't intend to press it any further. But in terms of taking a broader view, I hope we can get a comparable response on the transit measures. But you have these older transit systems--actually, a system that is more than 15 years old may need modernization worse than any system in the country. You have to upgrade these systems. New York has upgraded its system, and it made an enormous difference in ridership and in the general acceptability of the transit system. So we understand the problem, and we are trying to work with our colleagues. We are trying to keep moving this process along. We really have worked overtime to try to get the additional resources to help ease the situation. And I think, having done that, although we have to carry it all the way through the appropriations process now, I think we are in a better position to respond to needs that Members have. If we get into undoing all of these arrangements--it is a never- ending process--then I think we are going to confront a lot of difficulty. I appeal to all of my colleagues to recognize the complexity of it and recognize that the committee has been trying to deal with it. I think the chairman has bent over backwards to try to find ways to accommodate Members. But I certainly hope we don't make any sort of major, sweeping changes in the allocation because it's going to throw the balance completely off. I yield the floor. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I think we are now scheduled to go out, as I understand it, for the party conferences.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I just want to make a few points about the importance of transit as we are considering this amendment. First of all, when we had the energy crisis, there was a tremendous focus at the time on transit, which in a sense faded from the scene because we no longer confront an energy crisis. But it is very important to underscore how energy efficient mass transit is in terms of moving people and goods. We have developed and, of course, even improved technology with respect to low emissions on clean-fuel buses, clean technology for light rail systems and for heavy rail systems. People have to understand that means it is just that much less oil we have to import. So we are able to decrease our dependence on foreign oil by developing transit systems. And, of course, we are able to, as a consequence, improve our balance of payments situation. We often lose sight of that. We do not talk about that very much nowadays because energy isn't seen as a critical issue. But I simply want to remind people that at the time when we had the oil embargoes and everything, there was a tremendous emphasis on transit and its importance. Secondly, the importance of transit for improving the environment I think is indisputable. It is estimated that over 40 percent, between 40 and 50 percent, of all Americans live in areas with unhealthy air, according to the EPA. In many communities, transit investments are a cornerstone of the strategies to achieve air quality standards. A failure to develop transit capacity will undermine our efforts to give millions of Americans cleaner air to breathe. So we have to recognize that transit is important for environmental purposes as well. Thirdly, traffic congestion in our Nation's largest 50 cities is estimated to cost travelers over $50 billion annually, just from the bottlenecks and the gridlocks. These delays translate directly into added cost to businesses and to individuals. Transit carries the equivalent of 5 million additional automobiles per year. People need to sort of envision what would happen if we did not have these transit systems. You would have utter chaos. So we have to address this congestion and delay cost for millions of American motorists. And it is interesting to note, transit is used disproportionately during peak periods, peak-period commuting, which is exactly the same time when the roads are at their most congested. So, obviously, it serves a very important purpose in limiting or diminishing the amount of congestion that would otherwise occur on the highways. Now, not only does it eliminate or decrease the amount of congestion, transit also provides essential access for people to jobs and shopping and medical services. It is estimated there are about 80 million or above Americans who do not drive, in other words, people who, to get around independently, are totally dependent on transit. Transit is also essential now as we focus on moving people from welfare to work, a major national priority, one as a consequence of the legislation passed by the Congress. Now the States are under very tight constraints in terms of addressing that population. It is estimated that only a very small percentage of welfare recipients, 6 percent, own cars. So most people on welfare would be dependent on transit in order to get them to and from their jobs. So a strong and vibrant transit system, I think, is critical to the Nation's economy, to the well-being of our communities. I hope we can keep these additional considerations in mind as we address the transit title which is now pending before the Senate. There are these additional benefits that flow from it, and they really flow to the country as a whole. If we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and the import of oil, we become less in the hands, as it were, of others overseas, and we improve our balance of payments position. Transit makes an important contribution in that regard. It clearly makes a very strong contribution in the effort to improve our environment and to achieve clean air quality. It helps to reduce congestion. Of course, people look around and say there is a tremendous amount of congestion now. I only say to them, think how much worse it would be if we did not have the transit systems. I mean, for those in the areas that are served by a transit system and are traveling by automobile or truck and encounter a lot of congestion, think what they would encounter if there was not a transit system moving millions and millions of people every day. You would have absolute gridlock in those areas of the country. Now, as we deal, of course, with the welfare-to-work challenge, transit is a major component in helping us to succeed in addressing that challenge. It is also clear that transit is an important contributor to economic development and property values. Those areas that have the availability of convenient transit services have discovered that it makes an important contribution in spurring economic development and job creation. So, Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will keep this in mind. An argument was strongly made in this body many years ago that we needed farm-to-market roads. We needed roads to make it possible for farmers to move their goods to market. As a nation, we responded to that and sought to support a farm-to-market network of highway transportation. I am supportive of that concept. I think if we are going to build the Nation, we have to be sensitive to the needs of all parts of our country. I very much hope my colleagues will be sensitive to the needs of transit. Actually, everywhere in the country, we have provisions in this bill for rural transit, and transit in cities of over 50,000 and up to 200,000, special provisions. But, of course, we have the situation in which we have the greater urban centers where literally millions of people move every day on mass transit. If it were not there, if we did not have a first-rate system, we would have a total, total breakdown in the functioning of the economy. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I just say, I think this is an instance of trying to work through, in a practical and pragmatic way, points that are being made, which the chairman has indicated he is quite prepared to do. So I am prepared to go along and accept the amendment in an effort in part to move this legislation forward and also to indicate that we are trying to be reasonable here. We want to get accomplished a result without departing from the basic structure of ISTEA in some significant way. I think what has been talked about here sort of puts us on that path. So I support accepting the amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Safety Title

Mr. SARBANES. This is an apt demonstration, Mr. President, of the fact that we are really up with the times.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank my able colleague, Chairman D'Amato, for his very kind words. I simply underscore that it has been a pleasure to work with him on this issue and also to thank him very much for his leadership throughout. He has been, of course, a leader on the transit issue in the Senate. It was reflected once again in the consideration of this measure. I also thank by name the staff people involved: Steve Harris and Loretta Garrison on this side of the aisle, and Howard Menell, Joe Mondello and Peggy Kuhn on the other side of the aisle, who really have made extraordinary contributions. They have worked late at night, early in the morning, on the weekends. They have really committed themselves totally to helping to bring us to this state of affairs. The fact that we have put together a good transit title is very much due to the tremendous contributions which the staff people have made. I express my appreciation to all of them. Modification to Amendment No. 1931

Mr. SARBANES. I see the Senator from Texas is on the floor. I say to the Senator, we are scheduled for a vote at 5:45. So the time between now and 5:45 is available.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to offer my support for H.R. 3116, a measure that will help our nation's bank regulators address the so-called Year 2000 computer problem, and enhance the safety and soundness of our financial system. The Banking Committee has held five important hearings on the Year 2000 problem and its consequences. It became clear during these hearings that the Year 2000 problem, in which computer systems may crash because they fail to process the date change from the 20th to the 21st century, could have a significant impact both on our financial system, and on the U.S. economy as a whole. witnesses testified that the problem is extensive, and will be expensive to solve. Our banking system is heavily dependent on computer technology, and failures at one institution could spread to others through their closely linked networks. Every single financial institution in the U.S. will need to solve this problem, and some individual banks plan to spend $250 million or more on computer replacements and repairs. The consequences go far beyond the financial sector, however. Estimates of the worldwide cost of Year 2000 remediation range as high as $600 billion. One Banking Committee witness, economist Edward Yardeni of the investment firm Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, said that there is a 40% or greater risk that business dislocations caused by the Year 2000 problem could bring about a global recession as severe as the one that followed the OPEC oil embargo in 1973. The stakes involved clearly are high. I want to commend Senators Bennett, Boxer, and Dodd, along with Chairman D'Amato, for their leadership on this issue through their efforts in the Banking Committee. The committee has been working hard to make sure that our financial industry regulators solve their internal Year 2000 difficulties, and that our banks, thrifts, brokers, and credit unions are ready to enter the new century as well. Thanks to these efforts, our financial institutions are generally acknowledged as leaders in solving the problem, although much work remains to be done. This bill is a first legislative step toward helping our financial regulators meet the Year 2000 challenge. It directs each federal banking agency--the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, along with the National Credit Union Administration--to provide financial institutions with informational seminars on, and model approaches to, the problem. It also gives our thrift and credit union regulators the authority they need to examine an institution's vendors, particularly computer services vendors, for Year 2000 compliance. This will put all of our financial regulators on an equal footing with respect to these crucial examinations. Mr. President, the Year 2000 will not wait: there is no extending the deadline, and our financial institutions must be ready. To help our regulators meet that goal, I urge speedy adoption of this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the achievement and service of the American Red Cross. March has been declared ``Red Cross Month'' by Presidential Proclamation, and I can think of no more appropriate a season to recognize an organization whose mission centers on renewing hope for the citizens of our Nation. Founded in May, 1881 by Clara Barton, the American Red Cross was charged with providing emergency relief in times of war and natural disaster. Today, the American Red Cross is the largest grass-roots volunteer organization in the United States with 2658 chapters and over a million volunteers. I am pleased that the United States Congress had the foresight in 1905 to designate the American Red Cross as the lead voluntary agency responsible for national and international relief in times of peace. In over a century of service, this organization has grown from an idea borne from war to a national network on which people depend in times of crisis and calm alike. My own State of Maryland recently suffered severe damage from two consecutive Nor'Easters which battered the coastline. Ocean City, a center of Maryland's summer tourism, and Assateague Island, one of the State's most critical natural resources, sustained high winds, wave action and tidal surges which leveled protective dunes, destroyed recreational beaches and caused severe damage to roads, parking lots, and bike trails. American Red Cross volunteers responded quickly to the needs of these communities by preparing shelters for evacuees, providing replacement food, clothing and basic furnishing to those in need, and helped to evaluate damage to homes of year round residents. I am personally very grateful for all that was done for these people in a time of unexpected loss and would like to thank the many volunteers who pitch in when ``Help Can't Wait.'' Although disaster relief is one of the most important and renowned roles of the American Red Cross, the local chapters offer many other critical services that serve to prevent emergencies and provide training. The Red Cross is perhaps best known for its work to ensure a safe blood supply and blood products for cancer patients, accident victims and others in need. Other important services include courses in CPR, First Aid, HIV/AIDS education, swimming lessons, life guarding, and disaster relief and preparedness training. The American Red Cross also works closely with civic and educational entities to further their message and facilitate training. In Maryland, a newly formulated ``Safe Families--Safe Kids'' Campaign will be presented to schoolchildren from kindergarten to third grade in Baltimore City and counties throughout the State. This program will address safety concerns for children and families, including fire and injury prevention and interaction with strangers. The activities of the American Red Cross are innumerable and their contributions to the health and wellbeing of our society are invaluable. What is clear, this month and throughout the entire year, is that the tradition of service and the value of community responsibility thrives in the actions of this historic organization. I urge my colleagues to join me in applauding those who are taking part in the oldest and best of America's traditions--the spirit of service.