Which in fact has been strongly urged by a number of the community groups that are supportive of CRA. They in effect want to extend it out. If that were to be done, I would recognize that as an expansion, and we could fight that issue, as it were. But that is not what is in this amendment. This amendment puts the requirement only on the bank, if it seeks to go out and do those activities. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. In fact, it seems to me failure to do that is really a setback or an erosion of CRA. I ask the Senator his view on that question.
John Sarbanes: “Which in fact has been strongly urged by a number of the community groups that are supportive of CRA. They in effect…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment related to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).
Share
More from John Sarbanes
Congress gave EPA this role more than 50 years ago under the Clean Air Act and reaffirmed that responsibility in 2005 under the Energy Policy Act.
The health of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed can only continue to improve through robust Federal, state, and local partnerships.
But these are dramatic changes that can bring us to a new place and, I think, have given many people a sense of hope instead of despair in the face of what we are seeing with a warming planet.
Without the strong and continued investment the EPA has requested for the Chesapeake Bay Program in fiscal year 2024, the risk is we could jeopardize decades of work in collaboration towards the Bay's restoration.





