Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. Now we are at a trillion. Each year, if you add $100 billion, $125 billion, $150 billion, if you run a deficit that year at $100 billion to $150 billion, that is another $100 billion or $150 billion you add to your debtor status. So, unless you get out of this status, you are continuing to worsen your position and get deeper and deeper into the hole. What it means to be in a debtor status is that others abroad have claims on us. When we were a creditor Nation we had claims on them. Now they have claims on us. I submit that is a weakening, that is a deterioration of the U.S. economic position. Then they will come along and say, ``Well, the economy is working well.'' The economy is working well now. There is no question about it. But the one thing we have not straightened out or addressed are these constant trade deficits which get us deeper and deeper into the hole. Others continue to finance us. But you wonder how long they are going to go on doing it. And even if they continue to do it, we nevertheless are more and more at their mercy. I mean we are depending on the good will of strangers, is what it amounts to, on the economic front. And I am just saying --now, if you didn't have fast track, would you correct it? Well, I don't know. At least the agreements would be subjected to a much closer scrutiny. In any event, we could turn our attention to finding out what the factors are that cause this.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate the comments of my distinguished colleague. Mr. President, I have one final point I want to make and that is on this matter of protection for workers' rights, health and safety standards, and environmental standards. Actually, in many respects, this legislation is weaker than the legislation which last reauthorized fast track in 1988 in these areas. The administration has come in today with a number of so-called initiatives and I am sure we will see more tomorrow, more the next day, and so forth. But, as I read them, none of those initiatives go right to the heart of the fast-track negotiating process in terms of what the negotiating goals should be. Let me just point out that under this legislation, we drastically limit the extent to which workers' rights, health and safety standards, and environmental protection are addressed in the principal negotiating objectives of the fast-track authority. The fast-track authority sets out principal negotiating objectives. And it is those objectives that describe the subject matter of trade agreements which are covered by fast-track procedure. My very able colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, made this point in a very careful and thoughtful way. The bill states that the principal negotiating objectives with respect to labor, health and safety, or environmental standards only include foreign government regulations and other government practices, ``including the lowering of or derogation from existing labor, health and safety or environmental standards for the purpose of attracting investment or inhibiting U.S. exports.'' ``The lowering of or derogation from existing * * * standards. * * *'' Thus the bill would not allow for fast track-consideration of provisions to improve labor, environmental and health and safety standards in other countries. It, in effect, says they can't lower it. But it says nothing about improving it. And one of the problems, of course, that we face is that environmental standards, workers' standards, health and safety standards in other countries are completely inadequate and we are in that competitive environment. The principal negotiating objectives, which are what the implementing legislation has to be limited to, leave no room for provisions that are outside a very narrow range, strictly needed to implement the trade agreement. So this provision, despite these assurances now which are coming in, all of which are unilateral assurances by the executive branch and not included in the negotiating objectives, would be included within the fast-track authority. So we are not even going to be able to start addressing this very serious and severe question about the discrepancy between workers' standards, environmental standards, and health and safety standards--between what exists in this country and what exists with a number of our competitors. What is the answer to that? Are we simply going to accept these lower standards, many of which result in lower costs, and then continue to experience these growing trade deficits? Are we going to lower our own standards, when clearly we put them into place because we perceive that they are necessary in order to deal with the sort of problems at which they are directed, when we are trying to get the rest of the world to come up not to go down? These are many of the questions that I think need to be addressed on the trade issue. Very quickly in summary, the fast-track authority represents a tremendous derogation of the power of the Congress. The Constitution gives us the power to regulate foreign commerce and we ought to exercise that power. We do very serious consequential arms control agreements that are open to amendment when they come to the floor of the Senate. We may not amend them. We may decide not to amend them. But we don't give away or forswear the power to do so. I don't see why we should give away or forswear that power when it comes to trade agreements. Of course we have had this incredible deterioration in our trade situation. That is the issue that ought to be addressed. It would serve everyone's purpose if we rejected the fast-track authority and then provoked or precipitated, as a consequence, a major national debate with respect to trade policy. It is constantly asserted--I understand the economic theory for free trade and I don't really differ with it, although I do submit to you that many of the countries with which we are engaged in trade are not practicing free trade. They are not playing according to the rules. They are manipulating the rules to their own advantage and to our disadvantage--witness these. In many instances the consequence of that is to contribute to these very large trade deficits. But those are the matters that we ought to be debating. We ought to have a full-scale examination of that and the Congress ought not to give away its ability to be a full partner in developing and formulating trade policy. This proposal that is before us, in effect, requires the Congress to give up a significant amount of its authority in reviewing trade agreements. I think, therefore, they don't get the kind of scrutiny which they deserve. The examination is always on one side. It says, we will get these additional exports. No one looks at what is going to happen on the import side and what the balance will be between the two. As a consequence of not examining the balance, we have had this incredible deterioration. We used to not do that. We used to have in mind the fact there was a balance and that it was important to us. We sought to sustain that balance, as this line indicates. We held that line for 25 years after World War II. Since then, we have gone into this kind of decline, and I, for one, think it is time to address that problem. I think the way to begin is not to grant this fast-track authority. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the pending measure overriding the line-item vetoes of the military construction appropriations bill. During last year's debate on the line-item veto legislation, I spoke at length--and I do not intend to do that again today--on how giving that authority to the President would strike a major blow against the intricate, carefully conceived system of checks and balances that the Framers of the Constitution crafted over 200 years ago and that has stood the Nation in such good stead ever since. With the line-item veto authority, the President needs only one-third plus one of either House of Congress, not even both Houses of Congress but either House, to negate legislation that the Congress has passed and the President has signed--I repeat, legislation that the Congress has passed and the President has signed. Then, after that process, the President can go back in and pull out those items he wants to cancel. In my view, giving such authority to the President cannot be done by statute, and I believe that the measure we passed last year is constitutionally deficient. I trust when it is finally determined by the courts they will agree. In the meantime, of course, we have to deal with the legislation. Furthermore, I simply want to point out that as a matter of policy, the line-item veto gives the Executive extraordinary power to determine the priorities of the Nation and to use that power, if he chooses to do so, to pressure Members of Congress on a whole range of other legislative issues. In other words, the Member is told, well, here is this item in this bill that is very important to your State, but on other matters on which I need your support--nominations, treaties, you name it. A Member of Congress is then under tremendous pressure to support the President's priorities. That is clearly not the arrangement the Founding Fathers envisioned when they established a system based on a sharing of policymaking authority between the legislative and the executive branches of Government. The Congress of the United States is distinguished amongst legislative branches in the world because it has some real measure of power and authority. This line-item veto approach is, in my judgment, well on its way to eroding that status. Some asserted during last year's debate that the line-item veto was necessary as a deficit-reduction mechanism. The response from many of us was that to reduce the deficit the Congress need only make the right budget decisions, which in fact we have done as demonstrated by the dramatic decline in the budget deficit. I am sure that many of my colleagues who voted for the line-item veto last year are having second thoughts after having seen it in action. In fact, the President's use of the line-item veto here does not even track the criteria which the executive branch itself said it was going to use in applying it. I welcome this opportunity to join in the effort to undo the President's use of that authority. However, my colleagues should realize that as long as this legislation remains on the books, we will be back here time and time again waging an uphill battle against the Chief Executive seeking to impose his set of priorities on the Congress and the Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield back whatever time remains to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. SARBANES. Could I get 3 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD conference report. This bill funds many important programs, programs that are crucial to America's veterans and to poor and working families struggling to attain the dream of home ownership or simply to find affordable rental housing. It will help ensure our Nation's environmental vitality, our Nation's health and scientific progress. The bill will maintain our commitment to the exploration of space. I commend the chairman, Senator Bond, and my good friend and colleague from Maryland, the ranking member, Senator Mikulski for their hard work to serve so many important needs with an ever-shrinking pot of money. I also appreciate their willingness to work with me, Senator D'Amato, Senator Mack, and Senator Kerry to include in this report important legislation designed to restructure HUD's portfolio of FHA-insured, assisted housing. This legislation is commonly known as the mark-to- market (MTM) legislation. Senator Mack, in particular, deserves credit for his tireless efforts to have this legislation included in the VA- HUD appropriations bill and for his willingness to work with the administration and the House authorizers to craft this final consensus. Again, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their partnership in this important achievement. Mr. President, the mark-to-market legislation--title V of the appropriations bill--will save the American taxpayers billions of dollars. It will allow HUD, primarily through State and local partners, to squeeze excess rents down to supportable market levels. It will provide for funds to rehabilitate those properties that need capital investments. It will eliminate bad owners from the program. Most importantly, Mr. President, this legislation will help preserve hundreds of thousands of units of affordable housing for the foreseeable future. At a time when we are cutting back on the Federal commitment to build new affordable housing while simultaneously facing growing needs for such housing, the long-term commitment established by this legislation is truly a landmark achievement. In implementing this legislation, HUD will most often do the restructuring through a participating administrative entity, or PAE. The legislation clearly indicates that we expect that, with some exceptions, State or local housing finance agencies will act as the PAE. In fact, HUD has signed 14 management contracts with State housing finance agencies [HFA's] to implement the fiscal year 1997 MTM demonstration, which was based on the legislation in the current appropriations bill. The experience HFA's have in restructuring section 8 as a result of their participation in the demonstration, or in restructuring equivalent properties, along with their experience in FHA risk sharing, overseeing low-income housing tax credit deals, mortgage revenue bond deals, and in underwriting and managing market rate and assisted low-income multifamily housing, clearly makes the HFA's the most qualified candidates to be chosen as the PAE in most cases. In addition to all these financial engineering and management qualifications, the legislation requires the use of highly qualified HFA's because these public agencies have a public purpose and share with the Congress the commitment to preserve these projects as low- income housing far into the future. This factor was paramount in the decision to give the HFA's such a prominent role in the MTM process. At the same time, we gave the Secretary the discretion to make the final choice of PAE because we did not want the Secretary to be required to choose an unqualified housing finance agency to be a PAE. There will be thousands of projects and hundreds of thousands of units that will have to go through the restructuring process. In order to get this done in a timely and cost-effective way, the Secretary may have to reach out to more than one entity in a given area, or HUD may decide to do the restructurings itself. In all cases, however, the crucial decisions that have major impacts on the residents, the projects, or their surrounding communities, such as, for example, whether the assistance is to remain project-based or, in a few cases, may be turned into tenant-based, shall be made by a public agency with a public mission whose interest is to preserve affordable housing. In addition, the ongoing oversight of the projects, after restructuring is completed, will have to be in the hands of the public. This requirement can be satisfied by HUD doing the contract monitoring and oversight, or by contracting this function out to a State or local HFA. Again, this is a public trust, and the legislation requires that a public agency carry it out. The Congress clearly expects HFA's who seek the role of PAE to strengthen their applications by reaching out to other experienced parties, particularly non-profits with experience in real estate development and/or management and with deep roots in their communities, to develop partnerships. In addition, PAE's may want to find financial and other relevant experts to ensure that they present the best possible application to the Secretary. Mr. President, tenants, owners, HFA's, HUD, and the Congress all agree that the majority of the portfolio of affordable housing that will go through the MTM process should continue to have project-based section 8 assistance. For example, the legislation requires that elderly and disabled housing projects and housing in tight rental markets continue to receive project-based section 8 assistance. It is the clear intent of the Congress that we preserve the existing section 8 project-based portfolio of affordable housing to the greatest extent possible. To do this effectively, we expect the PAE's to continue to provide project-based assistance except in certain rare circumstances. The bill provides for the final decision to be taken only after consultation with owners, residents of the projects, local government officials, and other affected parties. Moreover, the PAE must take into consideration the availability of other affordable housing in the area, the ability of tenants to use vouchers successfully, the financial stability of the project, and other factors which, when taken as a whole, would lead a PAE to conclude that project-based assistance continues to be the best choice in most cases. Mr. President, in the course of the final negotiations to include the MTM legislation in the appropriations conference report, it was agreed to create an office within HUD to oversee the restructuring process. The office, called the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance and Restructuring [OMHAR] will have a director that is appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. The Congress clearly intends, as the legislation language states, that the Director will work under the Secretary, subject to the Secretary's direction and oversight. Section 573(d)(2) of the bill gives the Director the authority to report directly to the Congress, in certain circumstances, when the Director determines, in his discretion, such a report would be appropriate. Finally, Mr. President, let me reiterate a point also made by my colleagues regarding tenant participation in the restructuring process. It is our clear intent that HUD and the PAE's work with tenants in a meaningful and effective way with regard to all aspects of the restructuring process. This means timely access to relevant information, adequate time to analyze such information, the right to meet with the PAE, and the right to be included in physical inspections of the property, capital needs assessments, proposals to transfer the property, and other decisions that have significant impacts on the residents. In conclusion, Mr. President, I strongly support the MTM provisions in the VA-HUD conference report, thank my colleagues for their hard work, and look forward to seeing this important Federal resource restored to sound financial and physical condition.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased that the mark-to-market legislation that is incorporated in the VA-HUD conference report contains some measures that deal with properties that are disqualified from the restructuring program. I believe that it is critical that flexibility is provided to the participating administrative entity [PAE] and HUD in dealing with disqualified properties. I am, however, concerned about those properties that are not part of the mark-to- market program but are disqualified from the renewal process.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, October has been designated National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and I rise today to speak briefly about our need to continue our struggle against this national problem. Mr. President, over the past several years, the Congress, the Clinton administration, our State and local governments, and our community- based organizations have taken enormous steps toward eradicating the scourge of domestic violence--a scourge that for too long had been ignored as a family problem outside the scope of government responsbility. Congress' passage of the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA] as part of the 1994 crime bill, and the wide variety of enforcement and prevention grants available under that legislation, has ensured that our Federal, State, and local authorities have at their disposal the resources and legal authority needed to educate our citizens about domestic violence, and to prosecute those who have chosen to engage in such reprehensible conduct. The administration's development of informational initiatives, such as a toll-free nationwide domestic violence hotline and a Violence Against Women information homepage, have buttressed Congress' efforts, and provided law enforcement officials with a direct link to those who need assistance. My State of Maryland has been at the forefront of these national efforts to combat domestic violence. With the assistance of over $400,000 in grant funds made available under the 1994 crime bill, Maryland has formulated its Stop Violence Against Women plan, under which the State identifies cases of domestic abuse, safeguards victims, and coordinates and funds local community responses to incidents of domestic violence. To implement this plan, the Governor's office has established a statewide Family Violence Council, headed by Maryland's attorney general and Lieutenant Governor, which will continue to keep this issue in the public eye and to formulate additional initiatives in this area. The Federal authorities in Maryland have been no less vigilant in their efforts to combat domestic violence. Maryland's U.S. attorney's office has developed a specific training program for prosecutors on VAWA, has drafted a VAWA manual now available to local law enforcement and community groups, and is in the process of prosecuting only the second interstate stalking case brought under that law. In short, Federal, State, and local authorities in Maryland, as elsewhere, have embarked on a cooperative effort designed to educate our citizens about the plague of domestic violence, and to bring to justice those who violate our increasingly strict laws in this area. At the same time, Mr. President, we still have a long way to go before domestic violence is evicted from our homes and communities. Last year alone, almost 4 million women were physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends. Women continue to be the victims of domestic abuse more frequently than they are victims of burglary, muggings, and all other physical crimes combined. The damage done by such abuse extends directly to the most vulnerable in our society--our children, who are subject to abuse in 75 percent of the cases in which their mothers are subject to abuse. Mr. President, I have long supported efforts to stamp out domestic violence in our communities. I once again urge my colleagues to continue on the path on which we embarked in 1994, and to ensure continued full funding for VAWA in future years. I also urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to preserve the $10 million provided for community police to combat domestic violence in this year's Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill. This money, expressly authorized under the 1994 crime law, is essential if we are to address the domestic violence problem at its local, root level. While October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, no month should go by without our attention to this issue. Domestic violence is directly contrary to the community and family values we hold most dear, and its eradication should continue to be one of our most pressing national priorities.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. In my State, we have not yet finished the interstate system. We have some very pressing problems in the Western part of my State with respect to certain interchanges. It was not done the way it should have been done to begin with, and we now have to address that problem. I say to the Senator from New Jersey, I take it it is your perception, as well, that these considerations of system need and the needs of the heavily urban areas in which there is this very heavy, heavy traffic, have not been adequately addressed in this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. I am aware of what the House does. I am not arguing the House bill.

Mr. SARBANES. I recognize there is a formula allocation. Here is the problem, and I am glad the Senator interjected because I think it is very important to focus on this problem. I understand the committee's problem. The committee had to do a formula allocation, Members are at them from all over the place, about the formula allocation. Now, I concur with the Senator from New Jersey, and I appreciate his continuing to yield to me for a question. We didn't know what the formula figure was going to be until the committee came out with the formula figure, and then we were presented with this formula figure. So we take a strong hit on the formula which I think does not adequately recognize the kind of transportation challenges with which we are confronted which have a national import. Now, in addition to the formula allocation, there are also other moneys that are available in the legislation--various discretionary programs. The interstate discretionary program is one, the public land highways is another, the Appalachian regional highway program is yet another, and there are others, as well, which can be used if the committee is saying to us we can't do the formula allocation in a way that takes into account all of these considerations. Then the least the committee should do is have these other programs which can then be used to offset the unfavorable impact of the formula allocations. It is my perception that that hasn't been done, as well. Now, we have one unique problem in my State that I want to bring to people's attention, and that is, the Federal Government owns the Woodrow Wilson Bridge; it is federally owned. It is the only facility on the interstate system in which that is the case. Now, the committee has provided $900 million, and that is certainly an important step forward, but it is barely over half of what would be required to get a new Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which every expert agrees is necessary. Now, the States have indicated that once a new bridge is done, they are willing to take over the responsibility of maintaining it from then on out. But it is clearly unfair to dump the responsibility upon them that was not met by the Federal Government. There is no way the States can pay for this thing. Maryland receives, under the formula allocation, a little over $300 million a year in Federal highway money. We are going to need, for one bridge, $1.6 to $1.8 billion, and this legislation provides $900 million. I think it is the Federal Government's responsibility, frankly, to deal with the problem of this bridge. They need to face up and deal with that problem. Once they have dealt with it, then it can be shifted over to State responsibility. But you ought not to dump this responsibility, which the Federal Government failed to meet, upon the State. So this is a whole list of the kind of problems we are talking about, which this legislation fails to come to grips with. (Mr. SANTORUM assumed the chair.)

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield further for a question, I simply ask the Senator, in fact, my State is the second-highest traffic density on the urban interstates of any State in the Nation. You may be No. 1. Now, that makes a very important point. The purpose of the Federal Highway Program is to provide a high- quality road system. I understand the claim of donor States and I am not trying to minimize that. I think attention has to be paid to that. On the other hand, I always thought that the system was directed toward the system's needs. The purpose is to construct an interstate highway system that serves the entire country, and I think if you are going to have real equity in the distribution of highway funds you need to look at things like urban areas of highway traffic density, high volume of vehicle miles traveled per lane mile, other systems that indicate how heavily the infrastructure is being used. I understand in rural States they have a different kind of problem and we need to take account of that as well. One of my difficulties with this bill, and I ask the Senator whether it is the same, if he has the same perception, is that this aspect of developing an interstate highway system--of course, we built the system. Much of it now needs repair and rehabilitation

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield further, I think he is addressing a very important point. Let me give an example from my State. Maryland has one of the highest density levels on urban interstate in the country, as I said before, second. Apparently, New Jersey is first. The Baltimore-Washington region interstates are the second most congested in the Nation. Now, my colleagues can appreciate this because they are here in Washington and they have some experience with this highway network I am talking about. We are in the center of the I-95 corridor, the north to south corridor. This corridor generates a huge amount of commercial and passenger traffic. It is adjacent to the Nation's Capital which generates additional commercial and personal through traffic. We are serving not just our own needs but national needs by having a first- rate interstate system here. In fact, we have a disproportionately large responsibility for complex infrastructure projects that need maintenance and rehabilitation. These projects--I-95, the Capitol beltway, the Baltimore beltway, I-70--all carry through traffic generated outside the State of Maryland. Now, there are other States along the eastern corridor--New Jersey is an obvious example--that are sort of through States. In other words, a lot of highway traffic is moving through those States, going from one point to another point, and neither point related to the State through which they are passing. Yes, we have to invest significant amounts of money, not only the Federal share that we receive, but State and local share as well, in order to maintain this highway network if we are going to maintain the existing infrastructure and have the efficient movement of freight and passenger traffic. Now, my perception of this bill is it does not adequately address that consideration, that that is one of the things that has not been focused on. The formula allocation represents a very significant drop for my State from 1.72 to 1.51. The amount of money now that is provided for the interstate discretionary program, as I understand it in this legislation, is severely limited. As I understand it, and I ask the Senator from New Jersey, there is only $140 million a year nationwide for both interstate highways and bridges, is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. This transportation bill is critical to every Member of the Senate. It is highly critical to every State, is it not?

Mr. SARBANES. The amount that is divided among the States, as I understand it, is a formula allocation.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Some of us have supported the committee in its effort to find more money, and you come in and you are confronted with a bill like this.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, I think we indicated that we understood the committee has done something. I am pointing out that it is not adequate to meet the problem. This is a pressing problem in the interstate system. The House approach would actually create a gaping hole in the interstate system. I think the committee recognized that problem at least. But, again, I am talking about this in the context of the other things that are happening in this legislation. If the committee came to me and said, look, we have to redo a formula allocation, we understand the problems it creates for you, we understand you have some other pressing highway needs, and we are trying to help you address those, but that hasn't happened. Any effort to try to get at that hasn't met with any success. I understand the committee has a difficult job and I, frankly, have been supportive of the effort to try to find more money with which the committee can work. I say to my friend from New Jersey, isn't it a fact that if more money were available, it would be easier to work out these problems?

Mr. SARBANES. My State has one of the Nation's great ports, the Port of Baltimore. Mr. President, the road network from that port to the West is critical for the commerce of the Nation--not just for the commerce of Maryland, but for the commerce of the Nation. A proper system of access for the movement of goods is extremely important to the economic health of the country. So all of this needs to be taken into account. We are on a major corridor for the movement of passengers and traffic north and south, and because of the port, we have a major corridor that goes to the Midwest that is critical for the economic activity in the Midwest. In many respects it is more critical for the economic activity in the Midwest than in my own State. Those things need to be considered in this legislation. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge that we talked about--and I think the chairman is right, they have certainly done a better job than they have done in the House. But we still have to get up to a point where we can do this bridge, and this level will not allow that to happen. That is a major link on the entire interstate highway system. Every expert who has examined it says the bridge needs to be replaced within the next 5 to 6 years. We have to move on that project. Those are items that could be addressed I think in this legislation. I also agree with the Senator from New Jersey. If you are going to start adjusting the formula in recognition of, let's say, population shifts, which is what the argument is that is being made, at the least--of course, I argue that you have to look at system needs in a much more significant way than I think has been done in this legislation. But leaving that to one side, at the very least, the transition period has to, in effect, cushion the impact of it so that States don't all of a sudden find themselves unable to carry through on committed transportation projects which are essential for the vitality of their economy. That is what the whole issue is that we are discussing here.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to bring my colleagues' attention to a crime-fighting initiative implemented by the Baltimore City Police Department, in conjunction with the Federal Community Oriented Policing Services [COPS] Program created by the 1994 Crime Bill, and with American Telephone and Telegraph. This initiative--the 1-year anniversary of which was the first of this month--has contributed greatly to community policing efforts in Baltimore, and I believe holds great promise for the Nation at large. Like other major cities in America, Baltimore--our 12th largest city--has experienced over the past several decades a rapid rise in crime. One of the effects of this rise has been the increasing burden placed on the 911 emergency telephone system--a system which citizens regularly used to phone in not only emergency calls, but also criminal complaints of a nonemergency nature. In 1995 alone, the Baltimore Police Department fielded 1.7 million 911 calls. Such a volume made it increasingly difficult for the city's police to address in an expeditious manner those complaints that were truly of an emergency nature, and required the redeployment to the phone banks of officers who should have been on the city streets. In October 1996, the Baltimore City Police Department, aided by a $350,000 award from the COPS office, established a new telephone line for nonemergency calls. This 311 line is staffed by limited duty officers specifically trained to handle both emergency and nonemergency calls, and citizen understanding of the differences between the 311 and 911 lines has been heightened by an intensive public awareness campaign. Mr. President, this experiment has proven to be an unmitigated success. As a result of the implementation of the new 311 number, emergency calls to 911 have decreased by 25 percent, leaving Baltimore's police with more time to address in an expeditious manner true emergencies. In fact, statistics show that 911 operators now answer the phone on an average of 2 seconds, as compared to 6.5 seconds before the 311 line was set up, and that 80 percent fewer callers to 911 receive a message asking them not to hang up. In short, because of the 311 number, Baltimore's police can now respond immediately to situations that demand prompt action. Moreover, the reduction in 911 calls has allowed Baltimore's police to spend more time patrolling their beats, a consequence of which has been a declining crime rate in the city of 15 percent in fiscal year 1997, as opposed to an 11 percent decline in fiscal year 1996. These and other statistics appear in an October 2 New York Times article entitled ``Baltimore Cites Success with Alternative to 911,'' which I ask to be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. Mr. President, on this 1-year anniversary of the 311 program, I want to applaud the successes of the COPS Program, and the efforts of the Baltimore City Police Department and the Office of Governor Glendening, both of whom have demonstrated the kind of vision and initiative that are essential to a successful Federal-State-local law enforcement partnership. Numerous other localities are in the process of developing their own 311-type programs, and I fully expect that on the second anniversary of the Baltimore initiative, several of my colleagues will be on the Senate floor announcing similar success stories in their own States. The article follows: [From the New York Times, Oct. 2, 1997] Baltimore Cites Success With Alternative to 911 (By Michael Janofsky) Baltimore, Oct. 1.--Until a year ago, the owner of a cat stuck in a tree and the spouse of a shooting victim would be likely to call the same number for help: 911. But under a pilot Federal program that could expand quickly around the country and beyond, Baltimore is using a different telephone number for non-emergencies, 311, a change that has reduced the number of 911 calls to local police by nearly 25 percent, enabling operators to handle life-threatening situations more efficiently and giving officers more time to patrol the streets. In announcing the results of the program on its first anniversary, local, state and Federal officials said the 311 experiment has been so successful that more than 100 other jurisdictions, including Chicago and Philadelphia, are eager to try it. ``The results here have exceeded my expectations,'' said Joseph E. Brann, the director of the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing. ``The importance to the rest of the country is that this was a community willing to use a new strategy to solve an old problem.'' Most regions have used 911 as an emergency alternative to a seven-digit number for the local police station since the early 1970's. But here in Baltimore, Thomas C. Frazier, the police commissioner, said the steady increase of calls to 911, an average of 5 percent a year in recent years, was forcing many officers to spend their entire eight-hour shifts responding to calls--many of which were not true emergencies--at the expense of department efforts to increase the time officers patrol neighborhoods. ``We are trying to create more discretionary time for officers.'' Mr. Frazier said at a news conference, ``and this enhances our ability. It has freed up an amount of time for them to be proactive.'' As part of the Clinton Administration's comprehensive 1994 crime act, the Justice Department last year had a small grant--$349,787--available to test a program that would combine new technology and a city's willingness to wean residents from 911 for non-emergency needs. Baltimore jumped at the chance. After a year, Mr. Frazier pronounced the program ``a hugh success,'' with 24.8 percent fewer calls to 911 and better service for those who still needed it. A department analysis of calls made after 311 was implemented showed that 911 operators now answer within an average of two seconds, rather than six seconds; that 78.5 percent fewer callers get a busy signal, and that 82.2 percent asking them to not to hang up. In addition, a police survey of people who called 311 found that 98.2 percent of them were satisfied with the response even after learning that an officer would not be immediately dispatched. For example, someone returning from vacation to discover a burglary had taken place would probably be told by a 311 operator that the police would respond, but not necessarily right away. More significant, Mr. Frazier said, the availability of 311 to solve nonemergency problems led to an immediate decrease in the frequency with which the police were dispatched. After 311 was introduced, Mr. Frazier said, the number of times the police were dispatched fell enough to give an officer an additional hour a day for community policing. Mr. Frazier added that the overall crime rate in Baltimore has fallen 15 percent in 1997, compared with an 11 percent drop in 1996. The success of the 311 option here probably will lead to its implementation in other cities. Lieut. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who helped lobby for the Federal grant, said Maryland's other populous regions, including Montgomery County and Prince George's County, near Washington, would soon get 311 systems. And John F. Reintzell, a spokesman for the Baltimore Police Department, said that the department had received inquiries from 150 police departments in the United States, Britain, Canada and South Korea. Mr. Brann of the Justice Department said that the Federal Government did not intend to offer further financial support for 311 but that several current studies the Government was monitoring could help localities decide how they might amend the way they handle emergency calls. Dallas is offering a 311 line for access to all city agencies, and Buffalo is beginning a public awareness campaign to familiarize residents with seven-digit police station numbers. ``Agencies all over the country are interested,'' Mr. Brann said. ``But we're not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. It should be a local agency determination.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences [USUHS] as it celebrates 25 years of service to our country. It was on September 21, 1972 that Public Law 92-426 established USUHS to provide a corps of uniformed medical officers who would provide continuity and leadership for uniformed medicine in the United States. For 25 years, USUHS had remained our Nation's only military medical school, ensuring top- quality medical care to the men and women of our armed services. This institution has consistently produced first-rate career medical officers who excel in meeting the needs of military medicine and military readiness. USUHS provides a unique curriculum that contributes greatly to our military preparedness by providing knowledge that is vastly different from that taught in civilian medical schools. In fact, the American Medical Association [AMA] has recognized that training in military medicine mandates special course work and instruction not necessary in the civilian sector, and calls the existence of USUHS vital to the continued strength, morale and operational readiness of the military services. This specialized training includes trauma, mass casualties, combat surgery, medical logistics, nuclear medicine, tropical infectious diseases, and medical responses to terrorism. Following 18 graduations at the University, the total of USUHS School of Medicine [SOM] graduates is 2,470; the 2,276 active duty USUHS physicians represent 17 percent of the current physician force in the military medical system. Over the years, the university's graduates have consistently demonstrated a high level of performance during their various deployments in combat areas and in support missions, including Desert Storm and Somalia. This performance based upon their extensive military training has been validated by three Surgeons General, the American Medical Association and the Military Coalition, the Retired Officers Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services, and the American Legion, among others. It is also important to underscore the long-term commitment made by USUHS graduates to our armed services. Although USUHS graduates are required to serve 7 years of active duty beyond the time they devote to internships and residencies, the average time served is actually 18.5 years. Indeed, 85 percent of those graduates who have completed their initial service obligations and could leave active duty for the private sector remain on active duty in the Armed Forces where they often hold significant leadership and operational positions. For example, four USUHS-SOM graduates currently work directly for the President of the United States in medical support positions. That so many USUHS graduates have made a career of military medicine provides the continuity that is so critical to our military medical services. In addition to its original mandate, USUHS has further expanded its mission to meet the changing needs of the armed services. Additional programs provided by USUHS include the Graduate School of Nursing, recently granted full accreditation by the National League for Nursing, which prepares advanced practice nurses to deliver primary care and services to all eligible beneficiaries; the Graduate Medical Education Programs, established in 1986 to provide DOD-wide consultation on internships, residency, and fellowship training for physicians; the Graduate Education Program which has provided 444 students with graduate degrees in the basic medical sciences; and the Continuing Education for Health Professionals Program which facilitates the continued professional growth of health care professionals in the uniformed services and reduces DOD travel and other expenses by bringing medical training directly to the health care professional. For 25 years, this institution has consistently produced first-rate career medical officers who excel in meeting the needs of military medicine and military readiness. USUHS is a cost effective means of providing these uniquely trained physicians and deserves significant recognition of its accomplishments over its 25-year history in providing top- quality medical care.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 462, the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997. This bill is the culmination of months of hard work and careful consideration. It represents the collective wisdom of housing authority directors, public housing residents and resident organizations, local elected officials, and experts at HUD. As a result of this open, inclusive, and bipartisan process, this bill represents widespread agreement among stakeholders. I want to take a moment to extend my special thanks to Senator Mack for his hard work over the past 3 years to get us to this point. Senator Mack has worked tirelessly to listen to every argument, to entertain every question, and to consider every opinion as we moved this bill from introduction through the committee and now to the floor. He has proven to be responsive to serious concerns and has shown the willingness and ability to build coalitions in the interest of getting legislation passed. I greatly appreciate his willingness to work with me and my colleagues to produce this important piece of legislation. Likewise, I want to thank Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee. Senator Kerry has long been one of the chief advocates for public and assisted housing in the Congress of the United States. This public housing bill, particularly in it efforts to target assistance to those most in need, reflects Senator Kerry's indelible stamp. Finally, I greatly appreciate the skill with which Senator D'Amato has managed this bill and other important legislation, such as the mark-to-market proposal. He has been an important partner in the success we are achieving here tonight. Mr. President, public housing is the program everyone loves to hate. It is easy to understand why; bad high-rise public housing projects are easy targets for the press. These projects are magnets for crime and drugs. They stick out like sore thumbs and ruin whole neighborhoods. But the fact is that most public housing is good housing. In fact, in most communities around the country, public housing cannot be distinguished from the private housing stock that surrounds it. Most people don't even know when public housing is in their neighborhoods. Many of the provisions of S. 462 will help make the public housing program a more effective program. It will give local housing authorities greater autonomy, and greater responsibility, to meet the housing needs in their communities. It will provide for a broader, more economically diverse mix in public housing, which experts universally agree is necessary to create healthier communities. The bill includes important provisions to encourage public housing residents to go to work by delaying any rent increases that would otherwise accompany income gains. The bill will expedite the demolition of bad public housing, which has been a point of emphasis for both Secretary Cuomo and former Secretary Cisneros. It will enable HUD to set aside bad public housing management more quickly and replace it with the type of professionals that can turn these agencies around. Many of the reforms in this bill will result in spending taxpayers dollars more efficiently and effectively, and in residents benefiting from imported conditions. Again, I want to thank my colleagues for their cooperation, and I look forward to continuing to move forward to conference in a bipartisan spirit. I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. As you know, one of the most important principles of this public housing bill is resident empowerment. To this end, the legislation mandates that resident advisory boards assist in the development of public housing agency [PHA] plans. It also requires that PHA's: first, conduct public hearings to collect input on their proposed plans; second, make a copy of their proposed plan available for public inspection at least 45 days prior to the public hearing; and third, provide notice of the date of the public hearing at least 45 days in advance of the hearing. Given this emphasis on resident participation, I would anticipate that PHA's would make every effort to ensure that each resident is aware of his or her opportunities to provide input. I would expect PHA's to prominently display, at each of their assisted housing developments, information about the hearings, as well as information about where residents can view copies of the proposed agency plans. I would also expect that PHA's, to the maximum extent practicable, will contact resident groups directly to inform them of this information. Is this how you anticipate the process will work?