Floor Statements

Mr. President, this is a community development block grant amendment. Our mayors, Governors, and county officials are all desperate for this program. This restores the cuts, keeps it in HUD. Bernardi, the Deputy Secretary, said:

We must continue to support and build upon programs that

work, those that have a proven record of flexibility and the

ability to fit in the local determined needs. CDBG is such a

program and ranks among our Nation's oldest and most

successful programs.

This amendment would fund it by using the closing of tax loopholes, which previously passed this body. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, having lost the previous amendment, I support the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. It is not my preference to do an across-the-board cut of other programs, but the CDBG Program is so important that we should adopt this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, will the chairman, the manager of the bill, yield for a question?

I understand in the list you just read was a sense of the Senate by Senator Chafee on clean water, is that correct?

I inform the managers that I have an amendment involving clean water, but I will not offer it.

Mr. President, I was pleased to join with my colleague Senator Chafee in sponsoring a sense of the Senate resolution which sought to restore the Clean Water State Revolving Funds to the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $1.35 billion.

For the past 2 years, Senators Crapo, Jeffords, and I, along with other Members of this body, have offered successful amendments to the budget resolution on the Senate floor seeking to boost funding for this program from $1.35 billion to $3.2 billion.

Unfortunately, these amendments were not accepted by the conference committee for fiscal year 2004, and there was no budget resolution in fiscal year 2005.

There is a tremendous need for increased funding for wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements throughout the country. As we underscore in this resolution, in 2002 the Congressional Budget Office estimated a spending gap for clean water needs between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years. This year we are proposing a very modest amendment simply to hold the line.

All States will be affected by the President's proposed cut in spending, a cut of 33 percent from the fiscal year 2005 enacted funding and a cut of 46 percent from the 2004 enacted level.

This cut will have a devastating impact on the ability of States and communities to continue upgrading their wastewater infrastructure and to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

This request to restore the funding has broad bipartisan support: 41 Senators joined me in a letter seeking this restoration.

Americans overwhelmingly believe that clean and safe water should be a national issue and a national priority. Protecting our Nation's water is an essential Federal role, not just a State and local responsibility.

In a recent poll, nearly three-quarters of Americans agreed that ``clean and safe water is a national issue that requires dedicated national funding.'' More than two-thirds think Federal spending to ensure clean and safe water is more important than tax cuts. Across the Nation, our wastewater systems are aging. Some systems currently in use were built more than a century ago and have outlived their useful life.

Many communities cannot meet water-quality goals with their current systems. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently released its 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure and gave Wastewater systems a D minus, down from a D 2 years ago.

Obviously, I would like to see a significant increase in these clean water State revolving funds, which have been a highly effective means for improving wastewater treatment for communities across the Nation. However, at a minimum, I urge a simple restoration of the funding to the 2004 enacted level.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

As I understand this chart, each column is a 5-year period; is that correct?

There has been no 5-year period since 1950--none during that period--in which the growth of long-term GDP has been at or below the line they are projecting; is that correct?

So we have exceeded it in each of these 5-year periods over that 55-year span?

I know they make very conservative assumptions, but it seems to be clear that their projection is apart from reality. I have seen projections into the future that don't parallel this assumption of the 1.8 percent. They go low in terms of the assumption of what growth is going to be as we move out into the future.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

Not only how big the problem is, but I guess when the problem would occur, how soon it would be upon us.

The better we do on the growth compared to projections----

Madam President, let me begin with the rather obvious observation that the budget resolution is the single most important document we deal with in the Congress. The budget contains thousands of decisions that are critical to our national life, and those decisions reflect our priorities as a nation--both those of the President who submits a budget and those of the Congress that passes a budget.

Are we more concerned about tax cuts for the wealthy or strengthening Social Security? Are we more concerned with tax cuts for the wealthy or funding important safety, housing, community development, education, and health needs? Are we more concerned with giving tax cuts than holding down the deficit?

All of those are decisions that are involved in making the budget. In its composite, the budget is a very important macroeconomic document, because it sets the fiscal path for dealing with the overall economy. Will the budget fund the programs that create jobs and strengthen our economy? Will the budget create longrun structural deficits? What will be the impact of those longrun structural deficits on our economic performance? Will the budget move us toward full employment or away from it?

Now, it is asserted that we have to have these very substantial cuts in a number of important domestic programs because we have this large deficit and we have to address the large deficit. On the road to progress, we need to make investments in health, education, and protecting the environment. But we are told, no, no, we have this big deficit and therefore we cannot do these things.

Where did that big deficit come from? That is the question that needs to be asked, because once you go behind where the big deficit came from, you get a picture of what the priorities are and what the thinking is of those who have established this budget framework.

When President Bush came into office in 2001, he inherited a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10-year period--a $5.6 trillion surplus. In his first budget proposal, which included an excessive tax cut primarily for those at the top of the income and wealth scale, he said:

We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget

deficits.

The following year, with the budget already in deficit, the President advocated for another tax cut while promising that ``Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' In fact, the President's budget that year stated that deficits would be so short term that by today the Government would be back in surplus. How wrong he was.

The President's Office of Management and Budget is projecting a deficit this year of $427 billion. Instead of the $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus projected out when the President took office, when you factor in some of the costs we know are coming, such as the continuing cost of the war in Iraq, the cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax, the cost of some of the President's proposals, including making the tax cuts permanent, and the continuing defense buildup, the projections now are for a deficit over the same period of $3.7 trillion, instead of a $5.6 trillion surplus.

Think of that. We have gone from projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus in 2001, to projecting a $3.7 trillion deficit. That is a deterioration in our fiscal position of over $9 trillion--$9.3 trillion, to be specific.

As a consequence, the Federal debt has skyrocketed. Back in January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting that our net debt to the public would decline to $36 billion by 2008. Now the CBO is projecting that publicly held debt will rise to $5.5 trillion in 2008. Of course, with increased debt comes increased interest payments. Net interest payments on our debt are expected to consume more than $1 trillion over the next 5 years, leaving us less able to invest in other priorities.

There are a number of reasons for this fiscal reversal. Spending to recover from the attacks of September 11 and to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has played a part in creating these deficits. But the deficits are not primarily the result of increased spending by the Congress. By far, the greatest factor contributing to the return of deficits is on the revenue side.

Madam President, 74 percent of the change from the surplus in 2000 to the projected deficit in 2005 stems from revenue loss, of which the President's tax cuts were a major part. Rather than saving the budget surplus he inherited, thereby helping us to meet our long-term obligations, such as Social Security, the President chose to risk our fiscal future through excessive tax cuts targeted to those who need them the least. Make no mistake about it, this is the priority that this administration set and it continues to follow. Now we are living with the consequences of that choice--deficits and debt as far as the eye can see.

These massive and sustained deficits are not simply numbers on paper. They have real consequences in terms of the United States' future economic strength. The structural deficits that are built into this budget will be extremely harmful to the economy as we move ahead. They promise to raise interest rates, reduce economic growth, decrease the number of jobs, and increase our vulnerability to sudden economic crisis.

Addressing these deficits becomes even more critical when you consider our international position. As recently as the early 1980s, the United States was a creditor nation. Other countries owed us. Today the U.S. is the world's largest debtor nation. Our external debt in 2003 was $2.4 trillion. Last year we ran a trade deficit in excess of $600 billion, and once that gets included in the figures, we expect our external debt to be over $3 trillion. This sharp deterioration is proceeding as we continue to run enormous trade and current account deficits. Our current account deficit is projected to reach a record high in 2005.

There was a story just this weekend in the newspaper, ``Trade Gap Widens on Record Imports. Deficit at Record Level. Trade Gap Expands. The U.S. trade deficit widened in January to $58 billion''--for 1 month--``the second highest monthly gap on record.''

We were warned by the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York not long ago about this situation. Let me read what he said:

The size and concentration of external imbalances in the

system are at an unprecedented scale, between 5 to 6 percent

of GDP in the case of the U.S. current account deficit. The

counterpart of this deficit is a large inflow of capital from

the world's private savers and foreign central banks. The

expected trajectory for this imbalance produces a dramatic

deterioration in our net international position and cannot be

sustained indefinitely.

He concluded:

What's new is that we are significantly more dependent

today on the confidence of the rest of the world in U.S.

economic policy for the safety and stability of our financial

markets.

We are losing our financial independence and running the risk of a crisis of confidence in the dollar.

Last summer, the Financial Times in an editorial warned:

Like Tennessee Williams' ill-fated character Blanche

Dubois, the United States has long been dependent on the

kindness of strangers. Foreigners' hitherto insatiable

appetite for dollar assets is what has enabled the U.S. to

keep running on credit for so long. Like Ms. Dubois'

dysfunctional relationships, this one is symbiotic but

potentially hazardous.

I am very frank to say that I believe this budget is seriously out of line with the needs of America's families. The basic thrust of the President's budget proposal is that we should allow tax cuts for very wealthy people to continue, but programs that help middle-class Americans should be cut and the deficit continue to be a major problem.

Let me give a couple of examples to dramatize this contrast in priorities. In 2006, the President's tax cuts are scheduled to give $32 billion to those making over $1 million a year. In other words, all the people making over $1 million a year, who are a very small percentage of our population, will get $32 billion in tax cuts.

What might we be able to do with some of this money that is going for tax cuts for wealthy people? We could bring our first responders back up to the budget baseline with $1.6 billion, or 5 percent of this excessive tax cut. We know the needs and challenges faced by those on the front lines of our efforts to provide greater security to communities around the country. We know they need help. Another $1.9 billion would restore full funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program, a program very important to State and local governments, to carry forward the renewal of their communities; that would be 6 percent of the $32 billion tax cut that will go to the millionaires. We could restore funding for the HOPE VI program at a cost of $500 million. HOPE VI has helped eliminate the worst public housing and replaced it with home ownership and has transformed the downtown areas of many cities in the country.

I could go on with these examples. The fact is, for a portion of that excessive tax cut we could restore many of these programs, and the other portion could be used to bring down the deficit; in other words, we could have a more balanced fiscal policy, one that responds to the needs of our country and that lays the basis for our long-term strength instead of taking us deeper into the hole with these twin deficits, our internal budget deficit and our external trade and current account deficit, which has taken the United States from being a creditor nation--in other words, others owed us--to where we are now the largest debtor nation in the world.

Those are the choices that are being made in this budget. We are being told constantly that we have a deficit; we need to address the deficit. Yet this budget provides $70 billion more in tax cuts for wealthy people, for people who, under any analysis of the case, are not in need of a tax cut. The working people could use a tax cut, but that is not where the tax cut goes. At the same time, when we talk about the programs that are being cut for which there is such desperate need, we are told that we have to do that because we have this deficit problem.

If we have this deficit problem, why do we have to do the tax cuts that are in this budget resolution? What is the rationale for doing that? It is a matter of priorities. Very simply, those who have put this resolution together place a greater premium on further tax cuts for those who have already, in my judgment, received excessive tax cuts, than they do in holding down the deficit or funding some of these very important programs that we need for our people.

So the basic question as we move ahead is, what are our priorities as a nation? How should we invest our resources to get the best outcome in the future? I do not believe that the priorities represented in this budget reflect the right choices for America, and I urge my colleagues to vote to reject this budget resolution.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I want to thank my very able colleague from North Dakota. He has been extremely generous in his comments. For me, it has been a great privilege to serve and work with him and to follow his leadership on the Budget Committee, which has just been extraordinary. Senator Conrad has laid out an analysis that spells out all of these issues that we have been talking about, and if the Nation would only listen to him we would improve our fiscal position and strengthen our economic position.

I say to my colleague, my term still has 22 months, so I want to assure him I am going to be here with him every day of that 22 months to make this fight as we seek to turn back this radical agenda of the Bush administration, which I think contains great harm to our Nation and to its people. I thank the Senator for his comments.

I thank the Senator.

Chairman Shelby, I share your interest in holding hearings on the credit card industry and would hope that we might hear from all those Senators who have expressed an interest and may wish to testify before the committee.

Mr. President, I again commend my able colleague from Vermont for coming forward with this amendment. I am very pleased to join with him in cosponsoring it, and I urge its adoption upon our colleagues.

First, I want to underscore, the Senator from Vermont has tried very hard to work out a very reasonable proposal. The existing law prohibits the investment bankers from playing any part in the bankruptcy, if a company for which they were an investment banker goes into bankruptcy.

They can't come along and then become an adviser to the bankrupt company. The rationale for that is strong because often the investment bankers, because of their own activity, need to be examined and reviewed, and they may be held accountable.

The argument has been made: Well, suppose they were the investment banker 20 years ago and they have not had a connection with this company since. Why should they be precluded from possibly being taken on in the bankruptcy? Recognizing that argument, Senator Leahy's proposal has a 5-year ban period. In other words, if you have been the investment banker in the last 5 years, you can't then be engaged when the company goes bankrupt. The investment bankers are intimately involved in the financial structure of the company. Often, they can be held liable in one way or another for what has taken place. Certainly there is the appearance of impropriety if the very people who were the investment bankers to this company in the recent period, and they then go bankrupt, and they are taken on subsequent to bankruptcy.

Only a while back, Gretchen Morgenson, writing in the New York Times--I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

She said:

Do you think Solomon Smith Barney, the brokerage firm that

bankrolled WorldCom and advised it on a business and

financial strategy that failed rather spectacularly, should

be allowed to represent the interests of the company's

employees, bondholders and other creditors while WorldCom is

in bankruptcy?

She said:

If you answered no, you win a gold star for common sense

and for knowing right from wrong.

Elizabeth Warren, a very distinguished professor at Harvard Law School, commenting about this problem--I understand that financial firms are eager to earn money from bankruptcy advice. There is often very big money to be made. They have been lobbying this issue very hard. This doesn't preclude any investment banker, just the ones who have been providing advice to the company leading up to the company's failure, with the Leahy modified amendment, just in the 5-year period prior to the bankruptcy.

Elizabeth Warren says:

There is reason why the professionals who have worked for a

business that collapses into bankruptcy are not permitted to

stay on. The company must go back after bankruptcy and

reexamine its old transactions. Having the same professionals

review their own work is not likely to yield the most

searching inquiry.

Obviously, having the same professionals review their own work is not likely to yield the most searching inquiry.

Arthur Levitt, former Chairman of the SEC, said:

I haven't read a single argument made by the investment

banks that would persuade

me that the prohibition should be changed. What we are

talking about is a significant potential conflict of

interest, and I think it is outrageous that investment banks

would even try to go down this road.

This prohibition has existed in law ever since 1938, which has been reaffirmed by the Bankruptcy Study Commission, by all the experts in the field, those who have no vested interest in the outcome, who come objective, people who are in favor of modifying the bankruptcy law, people not in favor of it, but they all come together and agree on this issue.

Professor Warren said:

It is not a provision to ensure investor confidence, or to

enhance protection for employees, pensioners, or creditors of

failing companies. This is a provision to enrich an already

wealthy interest group, nothing more.

It needs to be understood that an investor bank that advised on the creation of a company's capital structure before a bankrupt filing may itself be exposed to potential liability. If it is brought in to work out the deal that permits the company to emerge from bankruptcy, you are opening the door that they may be tempted to prefer the creditors who have a potential claim against the investment bank. Don't open this stable door.

The Leahy proposal is an extraordinarily reasonable proposal. It actually is more accommodating than what the experts are telling us because the experts want to continue the complete ban which exists in current law. But what Senator Leahy has done in this proposal--this is a 5-year ban. If you are earlier than the 5 years, you can be considered, but if you are within the 5-year period, it is not going to be permitted because we don't want to run the risk of the inherent conflict of interest which would exist in that situation. When a company goes bankrupt, you need a fresh look at what is going on, and you won't get that from the same investment bankers who represented the company before.

This is the point that has been made by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In fact, as Chairman Donaldson expressed his personal view at a hearing--Senator Leahy and I wrote to him, and he conveyed to us the view of the Commission, saying how cautiously Congress should proceed before loosening any conflict of interest restrictions.

He noted that they were aware of the arguments of proponents of the amendment that the current statutory exclusion is too broad because it covers firms that participated even if it was years ago and the firms have no further involvement with the debtor. However, if the exclusion is eliminated entirely, we are concerned that the general protection in the statute would be insufficient. It may well be insufficient. That is the problem.

I plead with my colleagues, given what we have been through and given what investors have suffered across the country, given the effort now to eliminate these conflicts of interest, don't open this major door to a very severe potential conflict of interest, and the way that we are going to do that is to support the Leahy amendment.

I urge it upon my colleagues.

Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I am pleased to join with him in offering an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act. This amendment addresses a provision in the bill that would drastically weaken the conflict-of-interest protections of the Bankruptcy Code in regard to investment banks.

Section 414 of this bill makes sweeping changes in the conflict-of- interest requirements of the bankruptcy process in regard to investment banks. These changes are opposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, by such legal experts as Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Dean Nancy Rapoport of the University of Houston Law Center. They were rejected by the National Bankruptcy Review Commission of 1997.

In my view, section 414, if allowed to stay in the legislation as it is now written, would significantly raise the risk of abuse and therefore I think it is imperative that we undertake to modify the provision in the legislation. I am pleased to join with my colleague in seeking to do so.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire letter

from Chairman Donaldson, writing on behalf of the Securities and Exchange Commission to Senator Leahy and myself in response to our letter asking for the views of the Commission.

The Chairman writes:

Now I am pleased to convey the view of the Commission,

which is that, while it may be possible to draft language

that would address some of the concerns of the proponents of

the amendment, Congress should proceed very cautiously before

loosening any conflict of interest restriction.

Chairman Donaldson, of course, noted the fragility of investor confidence and the need to be very careful in easing these conflict-of- interest provisions.

The existing provision in the law:

. . . was adopted at least in part in response to a 1938

study by the Securities and Exchange Commission that provided

extensive documentation and analysis of abuses in corporate

reorganizations.

The study concluded that a firm that served as underwriter

for a company's securities should not advise the company

about distributions to those security holders in a

reorganization plan. It further found that such a firm should

not advise the company about potential claims against those

involved with the company prior to the bankruptcy, since this

often would involve an assessment of transactions in which

the firm participated.

We have strengthened, of course, bankruptcy practices and procedures over the years. We now have a dedicated bankruptcy judicial system, the establishment of a U.S. Trustees Office, and strengthening of active creditors committees. But, nevertheless, I think we continue to have a very real conflict-of-interest problem here.

My colleague has pointed out the letter of Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a very distinguished member of the 1997 National Bankruptcy Review Commission. She pointed out that they had been asked to modify the disinterestedness standard in order to accommodate the geographic growth and increasing sophistication of professional firms of all kinds involved in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. She said they rejected that in the Commission by a lopsided majority.

These were expert people on bankruptcy law. It was the wise and prudent way to proceed when we are considering making important changes of this sort. They noted that in order to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy process, it was important to maintain this disinterestedness standard, so you don't have conflicting loyalties that may undermine the fiduciary duties of the creditors.

Furthermore, it was noted--I think this is an important point--that a standard of disinterestedness is necessary to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the bankruptcy system.

We ought not to have a situation in which allegations can be made that the conflict-of-interest situation is preventing a fair, reasoned, and objective judgment as to what ought to be done, and then they end up imputing hidden motives to the actors in the case.

It has been noted by Dean Rapoport, the Dean of the University of Houston Law Center, that one of the duties of the debtor in a bankruptcy case is to take a good, hard look at the pre-petition behavior of those who dealt with or ran the debtor to see whether that behavior contributed to the downfall of the debtor. Another duty is to see how the debtor can raise new post-petition funds in order to finance an effective reorganization. But those are two very important duties or responsibilities of the debtor in the bankruptcy case. Dean Rapoport goes on to state that both of these duties--taking a good, hard look at the pre-petition behavior of those who dealt with the debtor and also a good, hard look at how the debtor can raise new post- petition funds in order to help finance an effective reorganization-- both of these duties would be compromised if the same investment bankers that were involved with the pre-petition debtor were allowed to serve as the ``objective, post-petition investment bankers.''

Stop and think about that for a moment. Clearly, it highlights a potential conflict of a very significant dimension.

There is an argument made that the bankruptcy court would still have to review this and could make a factual finding that there was not disinterestedness present. But she noted, and I quote, ``the current standard saves the bankruptcy court from having to make time-consuming, factual findings regarding the disinterestedness of those categories which by their very nature are rife with conflicts of interest. Removing investment bankers from the exclusion list will increase the time, cost and attorneys fees for every bankruptcy case without increasing the benefits to the estate as a whole.''

The final report of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission pointed out the strict disinterestedness standards are necessary because of the unique pressures in the bankruptcy process. The trustee and his professionals are required to act as a fiduciary to the estate, its creditors, and other parties in interest, and the court. The disinterestedness standard is designed to ensure that all issues relevant to the administration of the estate are properly raised and vented before the court. Therefore, we are trying to avoid a situation in which there could be a perception or an allegation of favoritism to favor one party over another, the charge that they are taking it easy on one group or group of creditors, or to refuse to pursue possible claims or avenues of inquiries because of any indirect or direct pressures.

The proponents of the provision that is in the legislation which we are seeking to modify by this amendment argue

we should simply give the discretion to the bankruptcy judge to allow investment banks to serve as advisers even if those banks underwrote securities with companies that subsequently filed for bankruptcy, leaving it to him to make a determination in that regard.

The SEC in its letter to us on that point said:

If the exclusion is eliminated entirely--

Which is what this legislation does----

we are concerned that the general protection in the statute

which relies on the judge, at the outset of the proceedings,

to forbid those with materially adverse interests to the

estate, its creditors, or its equity security holders from

advising a company in bankruptcy--may well be insufficient.

Dean Rapoport of the University of Houston Law Center pointed out that the current disinterestedness standard saves the bankruptcy court from having to make time-consuming, factual findings regarding the disinterestedness of those categories which by their very nature are rife with conflicts of interest. Removing investment bankers from the exclusion list will increase the time, cost and attorney fees for every bankruptcy case without increasing the benefits to the estate as a whole.

The amendment seeks to address one of the arguments that has been raised by the proponents of section 414, which is that the current per se prohibition on investment banks that have underwritten securities of a company in bankruptcy remains in effect as long as those securities remain outstanding, no matter how many years ago it may have taken place. It may well have been many years prior to the bankruptcy and the investment bank involved might no longer have a close connection to the bankrupt company.

Senator Leahy and I have modified the original amendment which we planned to offer which would simply go back to the current law prohibition, and instead in this amendment we are offering a prohibition on investment banks that have underwritten securities of a company within 5 years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

I was going to say that is absurd, but as far reaching as that sounds, the answer to the question is yes. That is one of the reasons the potential that results from this legislation is so far reaching.

Gretchen Morgenson, on April 6, 2003, had an article in the New York Times headlined ``Advisers May Get Second Chance To Fail.'' She starts the article as follows:

Do you think Salomon Smith Barney, the brokerage firm that

bankrolled WorldCom and advised it on a business and

financial strategy that failed rather spectacularly, should

be allowed to represent the interests of the company's

employees, bondholders and other creditors while WorldCom is

in bankruptcy?

She goes on to say:

If you answered no, you win a gold star for common sense

and for knowing right from wrong.

We are just trying to get a ``no'' answer put into section 414 of this bill.

We have tried to make a reasonable and balanced modification that essentially preserves the basic conflict of interest protection but does allow this greater flexibility for investment banks that have not recently underwritten securities for the company to serve as advisers in the bankruptcy. But to simply remove the existing provision in the law altogether is to open up the possibility for abuses of major dimensions. Therefore, I very strongly support the amendment being sponsored by Senator Leahy and by Senator Warner.

There is no public purpose that will be served by allowing section 414 to remain in this legislation as it is currently written. In fact, to the contrary, it runs very counter to important public purposes.

Other articles of note include one by Alan Sloan in the Washington Post: ``Proposed Changes In Bankruptcy Law Twist Meaning Of `Reform' Beyond Recognition.'' He goes on to point out the potential implications of this change.

There is also an article by Michael Krauss in the Washington Times headed, ``Bankruptcy Reform . . . With a Thorn.'' He goes on to say that he supports bankruptcy reform legislation but does not support section 414 of the bill because it removes from the excluded list of people not allowed to be employed in the bankruptcy the investment bankers who have had a connection with the company.

The amendment before the Senate is a reasoned and balanced proposal. We have tried to listen to the arguments being made on the other side and respond to those that we think have some merit to them without completely doing away with the ``disinterestedness'' standard. You have to have confidence in the integrity of the bankruptcy system. The total elimination of the investment bankers in terms of being precluded because they have a conflict of interest situation is not going to bolster consumer and creditor confidence.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a fair and balanced amendment. It is badly needed. To fail to enact it will carry with it a tremendous risk in terms of how our bankruptcy process functions.

Will the Senator yield on that?

The letter we submitted reflected the opinion of the commission. Chairman Donaldson had indicated a personal view in a hearing, and then I sent a letter asking him for the commission's view.

It begins: ``Thank you for requesting the Commission's views on section 414 of H.R. 975.''

In response to a question from me, he expressed his personal views. He writes:

Now I am pleased to convey the view of the Commission . . .

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to respond to the Senator from Idaho. I think this is important.

Elizabeth Warren, who is a distinguished professor at Harvard Law School and an expert on bankruptcy, has said there is a reason why the professionals who have worked for a business that collapses in a bankruptcy are not permitted to stay on. The company must go back after bankruptcy and reexamine its old transactions. Having the same professionals review their own work is not likely to yield the most searching inquiry.

She goes on to say about the provision in the bill: It is not a provision to ensure investor confidence or to enhance protection for employees, pensioners, or creditors of failing companies.

Let me make one other point which needs to be understood. To the extent an investment bank--and it needs to be understood that an investment bank has been viewed as integrally related to the financial arrangements of the company, similar to creditors, security holders, and insiders--advised on the creation of a company's capital structure before a bankruptcy filing, it may itself be exposed to potential liability. As it works out the deal that permits the company to emerge from bankruptcy, it may be tempted to prefer the creditors who have a potential claim against the investment bank.

Now, that is the very sort of conflict that we simply ought not to permit. We address one point made by the Senator about a connection a long time ago that is no longer relevant in the 5-year provision, and the amendment takes care of that.

Beyond that, I think we would be making a grave mistake to allow this radical change to take place. I very much hope my colleagues will support the amendment offered by Senator Leahy, Senator Warner, and myself.

I yield the floor.

I thank Chairman Shelby and Senator Feinstein. I appreciate their interest in this matter and believe these are serious issues that merit further attention.

I thank Chairman Shelby for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with the Senator on developing a hearing at which the Banking Committee will receive testimony on credit care disclosures and other practices. A number of Senators have raised significant issues regarding the credit card industry and I appreciate the Senator's willingness to examine them and hear all interested Senators.

I will support the Chairman's efforts.

Mr. President, With the death on January 6th, 2005, at the age of 82 of Samuel Thornton Daniels, Sr., my city of Baltimore and the State of Maryland lost a distinguished citizen, a courageous and far-sighted leader, a source of inspiration and, especially, a beloved friend.

Sam Daniels, the Grand Master, was known to his fellow members of the Prince Hall Masons simply as ``The Grand,'' and grand he was. A Baltimorean through and through, he was born in the city and educated at Douglass High School and Coppin State College. He married his beloved wife Gladys, a fellow student at Coppin, and together for more than 60 years they went on to raise a new generation of Baltimoreans. Sam made our community a better place for all its people.

Service to others came naturally to Sam Daniels. He interrupted his college studies to serve in the Army in World War II, returning to Coppin State to receive his degree in 1948. When the Korean War conflict broke out 2 years later, Sam returned to military service, and reached the rank of captain before receiving his honorable discharge. Soon thereafter he joined Gladys as a teacher in the Baltimore public school system.

In the mid-1950s, Sam Daniels set out on the path that was to shape his life's work. It was not just that he joined the civil rights movement; rather, in innumerable ways he shaped it and he led it. His professional commitments tell part of the story: Maryland Commission on Interracial Problems and Relations; Baltimore Community Relations Commission; Baltimore Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and then, starting in 1967 and continuing for more than two decades, the Baltimore Council for Equal Business Opportunity, or CEBO. During the 1960s, in addition to his other commitments, Sam also worked for the AFSCME local unions representing Baltimore's municipal workers. In 1968 he was named to the city's school board by then-Mayor D'Alessandro, where his intelligence, his principles, his clear vision, and his wise and generous temperament all combined to make him, as the mayor was to observe, ``a calming influence on the board during an unsettling time.'' Sam balanced his professional commitments with his role in The Prince Hall Masons, whose Grand Master he was to become and who knew and loved him as ``The Grand.'' Under his leadership The Prince Hall Masons grew to have 5,000 members and to play a major role in the historic movement toward civil rights. When Dr. King came to Baltimore in October 1964, Sam Daniels stood among the leaders who welcomed him to the Prince Hall Masons Lodge. In everything he did he challenged us to make our Nation live up to its ideals.

Of all his many accomplishments, Sam Daniels considered CEBO the most important. It began modestly enough with a grant from the Ford Foundation, but over more than two decades under Sam Daniels' leadership CEBO became one of the first business development organizations in the country, helping to create opportunities for entrepreneurship and business where precious few existed for Baltimore's African-American community and along with those opportunities, new hopes, new plans, and new dreams. Sam Daniels has been described as a ``giant'' and an ``icon,'' and surely these words reflect the critical role he played in expanding the opportunities for African American entrepreneurship and wealth-building, which has meant so much to the city that he served in so many different ways.

Sam Daniels was a giant and an icon in other ways as well in character and temperament. Mayor D'Alessandro, who nearly 40 years ago appointed him to the school board, remembers him as ``an absolutely decent human being,'' and his pastor, the Reverend Marion C. Bascom, calls him ``the most giving human being this city has ever known.'' In the words of George L. Russell, the former city solicitor and judge, ``he was a temperate person who conveyed a great deal of wisdom.'' He was a great man and a great citizen, and he has left us all a magnificent legacy. We will miss him, and our thoughts are with his wife Gladys, his children, and his grandchildren.

The Baltimore Sun paid tribute to Sam Daniels in an obituary published on January 8, 2005. I ask that it be printed in the Record.

The material follows.

[From the Baltimore Sun, Jan. 8, 2005]

Samuel T. Daniels, 82, Leader in Local Civil Rights Struggle

(By Jacques Kelly)

Samuel T. Daniels, a local leader in the civil rights

movement who championed African-American business enterprise

and led the Prince Hall Masons for nearly four decades, died

Thursday at Levindale Hebrew Geriatric Center of

complications from a fall and a brain illness. The Northwest

Baltimore resident was 82.

Mr. Daniels had retired in 1989 after more than 20 years as

executive director of the Baltimore Council for Equal

Business Opportunity, a private organization that encouraged

black participation in business. He was also a past grand

master of the 5,000-member Prince Hall Lodge, an African-

American Masonic organization.

``He was an absolutely decent human being and an integral

part of the Baltimore civil rights movement in the 1960s,''

said former Mayor Thomas J. D'Alesandro III, who named Mr.

Daniels to the city school board in December 1968. ``He was

tough, decent, orderly and competent. He was an articulate

spokesman for the black community.''

``He was the most giving human being this city has ever

known,'' said the Rev. Marion C. Bascom, Mr. Daniels' pastor

and friend. ``Samuel outstretched his hand to just about

everyone I've ever known.''

Born in Baltimore and raised on Druid Hill Avenue, he was a

1940 graduate of Frederick Douglass High School and earned a

bachelor's degree in education from what is now Coppin State

University. He served in the Army in World War II and the

Korean War, attaining the rank of captain.

For eight years, he taught in city public schools,

including the old Henry H. Garnet School at Division and

Lanvale streets.

In 1958, he was named executive secretary of the Baltimore

Community Relations Commission and simultaneously worked for

Baltimore Municipal Employees Local 44 of the American

Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. In 1961,

he attended the Harvard Business School's trade union

program.

Mr. Daniels was a school board member from 1969 to 1971.

``He was a calming influence on the board during an

unsettling time,'' said Mr. D'Alesandro.

Mr. Daniels became head of the Prince Hall Masons in the

early 1960s and was among the leaders who welcomed the Rev.

Martin Luther King Jr. to Baltimore on Oct. 31, 1964. Dr.

King's visit, including an appearance at the lodge's temple

on Eutaw Place, was on behalf of President Lyndon B.

Johnson's election campaign.

In a 1999 article in The Sun, Mr. Daniels recalled that day

and how Baltimore was becoming aggressive in its pursuit of

civil rights. The rally filled the temple.

``They became friends after that visit,'' said Mr. Daniels'

wife of more than 60 years, the former Gladys Eva Wise.

Friends said that Mr. Daniels paid travel expenses so that

young civil rights advocates could attend the 1965 marches in

Selma, Ala.

``He had been central to the advancement of black people in

Baltimore,'' said George L. Russell Jr., a lawyer and former

city solicitor and judge. ``He was a man who carried a great

deal of dignity. He was a temperate person who conveyed a

great deal of wisdom.''

In 1967, Mr. Daniels became director of CEBO, an

organization initially supported by the Ford Foundation. A

decade later, Mr. Daniels told The Sun that his most

important accomplishment had been helping African-American

business owners establish relationships with large commercial

banks.

He also pointed to many black-owned businesses, including

the Super Pride grocery chain, as proof that his council was

working.

In 1982, Mr. Daniels called for voter mobilization in black

communities.

``Legislation, more than anything else, influences our

lives daily, monthly, weekly and eternally,'' he said at a

meeting reported in The Evening Sun. ``If we are not a voting

people, those in office are not going to care about us.''

Mr. Daniels was the recipient of many community honors and

testimonials. A room has been named after him at Coppin, and

Morgan State University awarded him an honorary degree in

2000.

Mr. Daniels was a longtime member of Douglas Memorial

Church.

Mr. Daniels will lie in state from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Wednesday at the Willard W. Allen Masonic Temple, 1301 Eutaw

Place.

Kappa fraternal services will be held at 6:30 p.m.

Wednesday and be followed by Masonic services at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. Daniels will rest in a sanctuary named in his honor.

A family hour wake will begin at 11 a.m. Thursday. The

funeral service begins at noon and will be followed by

interment at Arbutus Cemetery.

In addition to his wife, Mr. Daniels is survived by two

sons, Samuel T. Daniels Jr., chief inspector for the city

liquor board, and Van B. Daniels, a manager for the Maryland

Lottery; a brother, Edward Daniels; and three grandchildren.

All are of Baltimore.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to underscore the statement just made by the chairman of the Banking Committee. This issue embraced in this amendment is very far-reaching. There have been no hearings on it. The chairman has indicated he intends to do some hearings on issues relating to the matter that is before us. It does not seem to me to be a wise or prudent course to consider what would, in effect, be a very major legislative step in the absence of appropriate consideration by the committee of jurisdiction; therefore, I intend to also oppose this amendment, primarily on those grounds.

The substance is a complicated issue, and in any event it is very clear it needs to be very carefully examined and considered. I do not think that has occurred in this instance, and I hope my colleagues would perceive the matter in the same way.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today it is my privilege to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of the Peace Corps as it celebrates its 44th anniversary this week.

Throughout the years, the Peace Corps has endured as one of the most important forces in our Nation's public diplomacy. At its founding in 1961, President Kennedy remarked, ``The initial reactions to the Peace Corps proposal are convincing proof that we have, in this country, an immense reservoir of such men and women--anxious to sacrifice their energies and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress.'' Forty-four years on, the tireless efforts of thousands of Peace Corps volunteers have borne out President Kennedy's vision of service to the global community.

Today, nearly 8,000 Americans serving in 72 nations around the world play a vital role in the advancement of education, health care, HIV/ AIDS education, and community and agricultural development. And because of its volunteers' ability and willingness to fully integrate into their host communities, the Peace Corps has become a leader in implementing new strategies for development, such as promoting community-based small businesses and microenterprise projects. Aided by these innovations, our volunteers continue to succeed in their mission of helping those most in need while promoting goodwill between Americans and the people they serve. In this time of global adversity, we cannot underestimate the contributions of the Peace Corps toward the causes of equality, opportunity, and peace.

As the Peace Corps embarks on its next 44 years, it will no doubt remain in the forefront of our efforts to expand prosperity and mutual understanding. I extend my congratulations to the Peace Corps and wish it every success in the future.

Mr. President, it is especially appropriate that this year the theme of African-American History Month should be the Niagara Movement, for 100 years ago, in July 1905, the Niagara Movement convened for the first time. It brought together a distinguished group of twenty-nine thinkers, writers, educators, attorneys, ministers and businessmen in the African-American community; among them was the Reverend George Freeman Bragg, for many years the pastor of St. James' Episcopal Church in Baltimore and the author of Men of Maryland, a history of African Americans in Maryland from the earliest days of the colony. Although the participants were scheduled to meet in Buffalo they were unable to find hotel accommodations in that city, and as a consequence they moved to Fort Erie, on the Canadian side of the Falls.

The Niagara Movement symbolized a ``mighty current'' of protest against all the disabilities and indignities of second-class citizenship to which African-Americans were subjected. It rejected the pernicious ``separate but equal'' doctrine set out 9 years earlier by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, and all the political, social and economic consequences of that decision. The prospect that African- American citizens of this Nation would at last be guaranteed all the rights and protections of the Constitution had already begun to fade with the end of Reconstruction, in 1876, and Plessy seemed to affirm that although African-Americans might no longer be enslaved, they should never aspire to be full citizens of the Republic. Within the African-American community voices arose urging accommodation and acquiescence; the most prominent, Booker T. Washington's, counseled against seeking political and social rights.

John Hope, an academic who subsequently became one of the founders of the Niagara Movement, offered a ringing rebuttal to this advice:

In this republic, we shall be less than freemen if we have

a whit less than that which thrift, education and honor

afford other freemen. If equality, political, economic and

social is the boon of other men in this great country of

ours, then equality, political, economic and social is what

we demand.

When the Niagara Movement met for the first time, it adopted a manifesto that formally rejected accommodation and courageously asserted:

We claim for ourselves every single right that belongs to a

freeborn American, political, civil and social; and until we

get these rights we will never cease to protest and assail

the ears of America. The battle we wage is not for ourselves

alone but for all true Americans.

The movement faced truly daunting challenges. It was met by the public at large with alarm, skepticism and outright hostility--and on the part of the press, by a wall of silence. The annual meeting shifted from one place to another--from Buffalo to Harper's Ferry, to Boston and then to Oberlin, and in its last year to Sea Girt, NJ. Membership never numbered more than a few hundred; and plans to establish chapters in all thirty States were never fully realized. The movement's financial resources were painfully inadequate to the challenge it faced, and its efforts to organize were met by hostility and, worst of all, silence on the part of the press.

Although the movement sank into obscurity, a small number of scholars and commentators have recognized its importance. Among them is John Bambacus, whose 1972 master's thesis, ``W.E.B. DuBois and the Niagara Movement,'' remains a valuable introduction to the subject. Today John Bambacus serves both as the mayor of Frostburg, in Maryland's Allegany County, and also as a member of the faculty of Frostburg State University, where he is an Associate Professor and Director of Frostburg's Public Affairs Institute and Internship Program.

It is clear today that the Niagara Movement was indeed the beginning one hundred years ago of the ``mighty current'' that became the great civil rights movement of the 20th century and transformed this Nation. And when after a few years the movement faltered, the NAACP emerged in its place.

For Marylanders, the NAACP has very special significance. It is not only that the NAACP, with a membership of some 500,000, nearly 2,000 branch chapters and hundreds of college and youth chapters, has its headquarters in Baltimore. It is not only that the NAACP has worked ceaselessly since its founding 95 years ago to ensure that African- Americans will have access to all the rights and opportunities our country offers, and that by doing so it has made our country a better place for all our people. It is not just the brilliant programs the NAACP has designed and implemented over the years--among them, the historic voter registration projects and the Voter Empowerment Program that grew out of them, the critically important economic empowerment program, and the Academic, Cultural, Technological and Scientific Olympics program that sets a high standard of achievement for young people and challenges them to meet it.

It is also the legacy of Thurgood Marshall, who was born and raised in Baltimore, who received his high-school diploma from Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore, and who returned to Baltimore after law school at Howard University. It was at Howard, where he was class valedictorian, that Thurgood Marshall became a member of the brilliant team that Dean Charles Hamilton Houston assembled for the express purpose of sweeping away ``separate but equal'' and establishing the right of African-Americans to full participation in every aspect of American life. Within a year of returning to Baltimore Thurgood Marshall joined the staff of the Baltimore branch of the NAACP. He went on to become the NAACP's chief legal officer and also director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

In that capacity he led the team that successfully argued the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in the Supreme Court, thereby laying the indestructible foundation for transforming the principles set out by the Niagara Movement into the reality of American life.

Marshall did not rest with his triumph in the Brown case. President Kennedy appointed him to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, where of Judge Marshall's 112 rulings that were appealed, every one was later upheld by the Supreme Court. Subsequently President Johnson appointed him to be Solicitor General, and then to sit on the Supreme Court as the Nation's first African-American Justice. Justice Marshall's colleague on the Supreme Court, Justice Brennan, called him--

the voice of authority . . . the voice of reason . . . [a]nd

a voice with an unwavering message: that the Constitution's

protections must not be denied to anyone . . .

Thurgood Marshall was a leader among the brilliant and courageous members of the African-American community who dedicated their efforts-- and in many cases their lives--to the fundamental principles of equality and respect that were set out in Buffalo 100 years ago by the Niagara Movement. We have come far, but yet we have far to go.

No one has put this more eloquently than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As we approach the end of African-American History Month 2005 we should remember what he told us nearly 50 years ago, in ``Facing the Challenge of a New Age'':

. . . our world is geographically one. Now we are faced with

the challenge of making it spiritually one. Through our

scientific genius we have made of the world a neighborhood;

now through our moral and spiritual genius we must make of it

a brotherhood. We are all involved in the single process.

Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. We are

all links in the great chain of humanity.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a devoted public servant and a former Member of the U.S. Congress, Shirley Chisholm. As a passionate activist, the first African-American woman to be elected to Congress, as well as the first African-American to seek the Presidential nomination from a major political party, Congresswoman Chisholm was a person of exceptional courage and profound impact. She will be missed.

Before her election to the New York State Legislature in 1964, she was a dedicated educator in New York City, serving as a teacher as well as a daycare director. Elected to national office in 1969, Congresswoman Chisholm worked for both gender and racial equality. She was cofounder of New York NOW, the first chapter of the National Organization for Women. In 1969, she became a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and in 1971 she cofounded the National Women's Political Caucus.

She continued her fight for minority representation when she sought the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 1972. Although many criticized her campaign as a futile effort, she tenaciously continued her fight for the nomination and laid the groundwork for future minorities to run for the Presidency. In her own words, she ``ran for the Presidency, despite hopeless odds, to demonstrate sheer will and refusal to accept the status quo.'' And indeed she was instrumental in opening the door for women and minorities to enter Presidential races in the future. As she noted in her autobiography, ``The Good Fight,'' ``the next time a woman runs or a black, a Jew or anyone from a group that the country is `not ready' to elect to its highest office, I believe he or she will be taken seriously from the start. The door is not open yet, but it is ajar.''

Throughout her lifetime, Shirley Chisholm worked to open doors for women and minorities inside and outside of the political arena, and in the process gained the respect and acknowledgement of even her most ardent political foes. By remaining loyal to her own beliefs and steadfastly working to accomplish her goals, Shirley Chisholm truly was what the title of her autobiography declared: ``unbought and unbossed.''

Her vision, her ideals, and her courage are certainly not to be forgotten. I extend my deepest sympathies to her family and friends.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to initiate a study of the feasibility of designating the route of Captain John Smith's exploration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as a National Historic Trail. Joining me in sponsoring this legislation are my colleagues Senators Warner, Allen and Mikulski.

Our system of National Historic Trails, NHTs, commemorate major routes of historic travel and mark major events which shaped American history. To date, 13 National Historic Trails have been established in the National Park Service including the Lewis and Clark, the Pony Express, Selma to Montgomery, and Trail of Tears National Historic Trails. To be designated as a National Historic Trail, a trail must meet three basic criteria: it must be nationally significant, have a documented route through maps or journals, and provide for recreational opportunities. In my judgment, the proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail meets all three criteria.

Captain John Smith was one of America's earliest explorers. His role in the founding of Jamestown, VA--the first permanent English settlement in North America--and in exploring the Chesapeake Bay region during the years 1607 to 1609 marks a defining period in the history of our Nation. His contemporaries and historians alike credit Smith's strong leadership with ensuring the survival of the fledgling colony and laying the foundation for the future establishment of our nation.

With a dozen men in a 30-foot open boat, Smith's expeditions in search of food for the new colony and the fabled Northwest Passage took him nearly 3,000 miles around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from the Virginia capes to the mouth of the Susquehanna. On his voyages and as President of the Jamestown Colony, Captain Smith became the first point of contact for scores of Native American leaders from around the Bay region. His relationship with Pocahontas is now an important part of American folklore. Smith's notes describing the indigenous people he met and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem are still widely studied by historians, environmental scientists, and anthropologists.

The remarkably accurate maps and charts that Smith made of his voyages into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries served as the definitive map of the region for nearly a century. His voyages, as chronicled in his journals, ignited the imagination of the Old World, and helped launch an era of adventure and discovery in the New World. Hundreds, and then thousands of people aspired to settle in what Smith described as one of `` the most pleasant places known, for large and pleasant navigable rivers, heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a place for man's habitation.'' Even today, his vivid descriptions of the Bay's abundance still serve as a benchmark for the health and productivity of the Bay.

With the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown quickly approaching, the designation of this route as a national historic trail would be a tremendous way to celebrate an important part of our nation's story and serve as a reminder of John Smith's role in establishing the colony and opening the way for later settlements in the New World. It would also give recognition to the Native American settlements, culture and natural history of the 17th century Chesapeake. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail,

this new historic watertrail will inspire generations of Americans and visitors to follow Smith's journeys, to learn about the roots of our nation and to better understand the contributions of the Native Americans who lived within the Bay region.

Equally important, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Watertrail can serve as a national outdoor resource by providing rich opportunities for education, recreation, and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 million Americans living in the Bay's watershed, but for visitors to this area. The water trail would be the first National Watertrail established in the United States and would allow voyagers in small boats, cruising boats, kayaks and canoes to travel from the distant headwaters to the open Bay--an accomplishment that would inspire today's explorers and would generate national and international attention and participation. The Trail would complement the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Initiative and help highlight the Bay's remarkable maritime history, its unique watermen and their culture, the diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary.

This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Congress and in the States through which the trail passes. The legislation has been endorsed by the Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The measure is also strongly supported by The Conservation Fund, Izaak Walton League, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the latter two organizations expressing support for the legislation be printed in the Record. I want to commend Pat Noonan, Chairman Emeritus of The Conservation Fund, for his vision in conceiving this trail and urge that the legislation be quickly enacted.

As John Smith wrote four centuries ago and as many Americans today agree, ``no place is more convenient for pleasure, profit and man's sustenance'' than the Chesapeake Bay.