Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely correct. Another criterion they had was that your debt, your total debt had to be at 60 percent of your GDP. We are at 50 percent. I do not have a chart on that one. But we are at 50 percent. We easily meet both of the criteria that are being used by the European countries pursuant to the Maastricht Convention guidelines. And everyone is saying, boy, this is a tough job. If you get to it, you are showing tremendous fiscal discipline. We are already well within both of those targets. None of the 15 countries that are members of the European Union have done as well as the United States on these two criteria, with the exception of Luxembourg.

Mr. SARBANES. Any business that borrowed to expand plant and equipment--and virtually all businesses do it--violates the concept of this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I will be very quick. First of all, I commend the able Senator from New Jersey for the very thoughtful and careful analysis he made in his statement upon offering his amendment. One of the difficulties with a balanced budget constitutional amendment generally, of course, is that it is purely symbolic. The real way to balance the budget is to do it when Congress considers and passes the budget, not by amending the constitution. But the Senator from New Jersey has pointed out three, I think, clear difficulties with this particular version of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, Senate Joint Resolution 1. One is that our current Federal process does not provide for a capital budget. Every State and locality has a capital budget. Businesses have capital budgets. Private individuals have capital budgets. People do not go out and pay for a house, or an automobile, or finance a college education with cash the same year that they make these purchases. They make prudent investments in the future, and they borrow and amortize them over a period of time. State governments do exactly the same thing. It is a prudent and sensible way to do business. I will never forget a budget committee hearing at which we had two Governors testifying in favor of amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget. They said, well, our States require a balanced budget, and, as a consequence of our States requiring it, the Governors went on to say, our States get a better credit rating, so that when we borrow in the market we get a better interest rate. Of course, the obvious question becomes, if states have a constitutional requirement to balance the budget, why do they need to borrow money? What does a credit rating matter to these states? So I asked them that question. Of course, their response was, well, you do not understand. We have a capital budget that is separate and apart from the operating budget. We have a capital budget that we fund by borrowing--by borrowing. So I said, well, we do not have a capital budget at the Federal level. I noted that we in the Federal Government do not make a distinction between capital and operating expenses, though it is a wise distinction because then you can fund your long- term investments through borrowing, get the full benefit of the investment, and pay back the debt over the useful life of the capital asset. The Governors' response was that the Federal Government ought to have a capital budget. I note to my colleagues that if you are really serious about trying to write a balanced budget requirement into the Constitution of the United States, the first thing you ought to do, as a minimum, is separate out operating and capital budgets--just the way State and local governments do. So this analogy to State and local government falls of its own weight as soon as you recognize the fact that unlike the Federal Government, State and local governments have capital budgets which they fund by borrowing. We do not have a capital budget at the Federal level, but if we have a constitutional balanced budget amendment, we should. Second, I think the emphasis which the Senator from New Jersey has made on the necessity of being able to respond in a crisis situation involving either the national security of the country or an economic downturn is extremely important. As regards economic conditions, we have managed to ameliorate the business cycle, not to eliminate it, but to ameliorate it. We are able to do that in part because we are now able to conduct countercyclical fiscal policy when we have an economic downturn. The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, without a provision such as is contained in the amendment that has been sent to the desk by the Senator from New Jersey, runs the very great risk of turning economic downturns into recessions and recessions into depressions, because it will not allow us to respond to dire economic circumstances when we are confronted with them. The same thing is true about the national security provisions of the balanced budget amendment as it has been drawn by its sponsors. These provisions are much too restrictive, much too confined, and they run the substantial risk that we will not be able to respond in a national emergency. Now, the response made to this argument by the supporters of Senate Joint Resolution 1 is that if we confront a national emergency we will get the supermajority vote in order to waive the balancing provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 1 and there will be no problem. Well, our own history does not sustain that contention. In 1940, the House of Representatives instituted a 1-year draft. That came up for renewal in the autumn of 1941, literally weeks before Pearl Harbor. They took a vote in the House of Representatives on extending the draft for another year. Speaker Rayburn went into the well of the House in order to plead with his colleagues to pass this extension. It passed on a vote of 203 to 202. But that vote, which is a majority, would not have met the supermajority requirements contained in the balanced budget amendment that has been brought forth from the committee by Senator Hatch. It would have fallen short because it was not a majority of the whole membership of the body, which required 218 votes, and which under this amendment is necessary to avoid the balancing requirements in Senate Joint Resolution 1. There we have a classic example of a crisis situation, right out of our own history. This is not a hypothetical. Looking at our own history, we can see that we would not have been able to respond and meet the requirements of the time, when we were facing this crisis situation, under the provisions of the balanced budget amendment as currently drafted. I want to strongly commend the Senator from New Jersey for the very careful analysis that has brought forth these proposals pending before us. Clearly, at a minimum, if this constitutional amendment is to move forward, it requires the adoption of the Senator's amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Three minutes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, for more than 70 years, February has been designated as the month in which we honor the achievements and contributions of African-Americans to our history, our culture and our future. One remarkable African-American leader, W.E.B. DuBois, made an observation in 1903 that bears great significance for this celebration. ``Herein lies the tragedy of the age,'' he said, ``that men know so little of men.'' Since 1926, Black History Month has challenged us to mitigate that tragedy, encouraging us to study the lives of both our most noted heroes and those whose stories have remained untold. As it does each year, the Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History has selected a theme for this month's celebration. It's theme for 1997, ``African-Americans and Civil Rights: A Reappraisal,'' focuses on the pioneers, leaders, and venues in the civil rights struggle that are often unrecognized. In light of this, I want to pay tribute to an extraordinary group of African-American artists from my State of Maryland who, despite their undeniably significant contributions to our culture, nevertheless remain relatively unknown. Yet, given their landmark accomplishments, these individuals would be important role models for aspiring artists of all backgrounds. By pushing the limits of their artistic mediums, the international respect earned by these artists advanced the struggle for the equal recognition of all people, both in our society and under its laws. I salute the association for selecting a theme that focuses on more of our Nation's unsung heroes. At the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon, there sits a memorial chair dedicated to Ira Aldridge, one of the greatest Shakespearean tragedians of his day. Born in Baltimore in 1805, Aldridge's performances were so popular with heads of state that he was the first African American to be knighted. He drew praise from New York to Prussia, with a diverse repertoire of roles that included Othello, Macbeth, Shylock, Lear and Richard III. Known as ``The Celebrated African Tragedian,'' Aldridge was called ``without doubt the greatest actor that has ever been seen in Europe,'' by a Viennese critic, and ``the most beautiful male artist that one can imagine,'' by a Prussian. Pioneers like Aldridge made possible careers like those of Sidney Poitier, Lawrence Fishburne and Denzel Washington. From offstage, inspiring women of every color, we find Frances Ellen Watkins Harper. This poet, writer, and lecturer was the first African- American female novelist to be published in this country. She was born in Baltimore, in 1825, and attended a school for African-Americans on the present site of the Baltimore Convention Center. A writer of paperbacks and pamphlets on topics from abolition to the Bible, her popularity has been well documented. Records show that two of her poetry collections had sold 50,000 copies each by 1878. Her talents and perseverance were such that she was also the first African-American woman to have her work published in the Atlantic Monthly. Without someone like Harper, we may never have seen a Gwendolyn Brooks or an Alice Walker. Joshua Johnson was the first African-American artist in the United States to earn his living as a professional portrait painter. A freed slave, Johnson worked in Baltimore for more than 30 years and painted more than 80 portraits of Baltimore's sea captains, shopkeepers, and merchants, and their families from 1795 to 1825. Described as a ``self- taught genius,'' Johnson's subjects were mostly white and his style, quite realistic for the age in which he lived. While little is known of Johnson's personal history, the success and historical significance of his professional endeavors are clear. Johnson's portraits are still widely displayed in museums across the Nation, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the National Gallery here in Washington. The Broadway classics, ``I'm Just Wild About Harry'' and ``Memories of You'' are the works of another Baltimorean, Eubie Blake. The famous vaudevillian, ragtime pianist and composer of more than 3,000 songs was the cocomposer of the first all African-American Broadway musical, ``Shuffle Along.'' After its 1921 debut on Broadway, ``Shuffle Along's'' successful 2 year run in New York paved the way for a continued African-American presence on Broadway's brightly-lit strip. ``Shuttle Along'' also influenced other composers, including Gershwin who, many critics say, might never have written ``Porgy and Bess'' had Blake never written his musical. At age 86, Blake astonished the entertainment world by coming out of retirement to join the ragtime revival of the 1970's, inspiring a whole new generation of listeners. Two years after receiving the Medal of Freedom from President Reagan in 1981, Blake was honored at galas across the country that marked his 100th birthday with evenings of his own music. Baltimore is proud to claim another musical legend. Raised as Eleanor Fagen, Billie Holiday rose to outstanding levels of acclaim and popularity for her unique approach to jazz singing: She was as able to alter the rhythm and tone of her voice as the players accompanying her were able to do on their instruments. In the course of her 26-year career, so-called Lady Day recorded with musical giants including Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Artie Shaw and Teddy Wilson. Frequently called the greatest jazz singer ever, she inspired audiences from New York's Cotton Club to Baltimore's Royal theater, with ballads such as ``Strange Fruit,'' a song protesting lynching and discrimination. Baltimore is also home to the Afro-American newspaper group, the Nation's oldest continuously published African-American newspaper chain. Founded in 1892, the chain has produced as many as 13 editions, and served readers from New Jersey to South Carolina. The pages of the Afro-American have borne the bylines of the paper's many reporters who later became national figures in the struggle for civil rights. One such individual was Clarence Mitchell, Jr., the Baltimore lawyer and activist who ultimately became director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP. Today, the Afro-American publishes editions in Baltimore and Washington DC as well as a Wednesday weekly. First knight, first novelist, first painter, first composer, first lady of jazz, the list goes on and on. Maryland is very proud of these great men and women. In succeeding against enormous odds, only did they inspire us, but they laid the groundwork upon which other African- American actors, painters, writers, and musicians have followed. Like Maryland's history, the history of this country is replete with the contributions of African-Americans, many of which have gone unrecognized. The names I have mentioned today are but a small sample, a reminder that Black History Month is also a time to silently honor those heroes whose names we may never know. It was another writer who often worked in Maryland, Langston Hughes, who wondered, What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up. Like a raisin in the sun? The accomplishments of the African-Americans I have recognized today prove that some dreams can surmount even the most difficult obstacles. A 100 years ago, who could have imagined the success of writers like Hughes and Toni Morrison? Who would have dreamed of public servants and leaders such as Maryland's own Parren Mitchell, Thurgood Marshall, and Kweisi Mfume? The achievements of these as well as the outstanding individuals who had the courage to take the very first steps, individuals like Joshua Johnson and Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, challenge us to ensure that today's budding artists and leaders will never have to confront the barriers that faced earlier generations. Given the extraordinary achievements of the artists and activists who did overcome those barriers, one can only imagine the wealth of poems, paintings, and compositions that never made it into our libraries, museums, and concert halls. Let us create an America that is America for all Americans, and let us make our history, our culture, and our future that much richer.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to convert eight remaining excepted service positions at the U.S. Fire Administration to competitive service status. During its first few years of operation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency used an excepted service authority provided under the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 in order to quickly staff the National Fire Academy with personnel who were uniquely qualified in fire education. In the early 1980's, after the Academy's original vacancies had been filled and the Academy was up and running, it became FEMA's policy to fill openings at the NFA through a competitive civil service hiring system. Today, 91 of the NFA's 99 employees are under the general schedule with only eight employees who were hired in the 1970's and early eighties remaining in excepted service status. As a result, these remaining eight are subject to significant limitations within the USFA. Although they each average over 17 years of Federal service and were hired solely because of their strong backgrounds and unique qualifications in fire education, they are legally barred from competing for management positions within the Fire Administration. The remaining eight excepted service employees are not even allowed to serve on details to competitive service jobs--even within their own organization--without an official waiver from the Office of Personnel Management. Mr. President, I am proposing to remedy this situation. The legislation which I am introducing will enable the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to convert any employees appointed to the Fire Administration under the Federal Fire Protection and Control Act, to competitive service--without any break in service, diminution of service, reduction of cumulative years of service, or requirement to serve any additional probationary period with the Administration. Those converted under this legislation shall also remain in the Civil Service Retirement System and retain their seniority. This practice is consistent with other federally supported training academies. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that there would be no cost for this conversion, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I agree absolutely with that. We at the moment have the best unemployment situation in 20 years; the best performance on inflation in 30 years. We have now brought the deficit down as a percent of the gross national product to the best ratio in 25 years. We are making progress on all of these fronts. We have the strongest economy in the world. People come in with this radical notion of amending the Constitution of the United States. All we need to do is continue to make the hard decisions that are made with respect to the budget. It is one thing to balance the budget. Those are the tough decisions. Those are the ones we ought to make and not put an amendment into the Constitution of the United States which is going to deny us the ability to deal with economic downturns and recessions when they occur. The amendment they are talking about putting into the Constitution of the United States does not abolish the business cycle. It does not eliminate economic ups and downs. Yet with this amendment, we run the risk of going back to economic cycles with very deep downturns when our people are really suffering through depression. We have not had that since World War II. And I for one don't want to go back to it.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, as the Senator has noted, as economists across the country have commented, and as the chart beside me shows, since World War II we have been able to ease the business cycle because we experience automatic stabilizers during an economic downturn. We start running deficits because we are not collecting taxes and we are paying out unemployment. If you try to balance the budget, or if you are required to do so by constitutional amendment during an economic downturn, you are going to return our economy to these boom-and-bust cycles that we experienced throughout the first part of this century and we are going to lose the ability to have this kind of movement in the business cycle, which is much better for our people. The Senator is absolutely correct. With this amendment, we are going to be dooming ourselves to going back and turning economic downturns into recessions and recessions into depressions, as the Senator has pointed out.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I commend the very able Senator from California for her very fine statement. She clearly understands the pitfalls that are involved in a balanced budget amendment and, I think, has spoken eloquently to the issue. She has also spoken with a very deep personal knowledge of the situation confronting her and her State when she has had to deal with these natural disasters. I simply want to underscore, again, for those who say, ``well, we will easily get a supermajority in order to waive the provisions of this amendment in an emergency situation,'' that I saw the Senator working literally day and night just to get a majority in order to deal with a natural disaster and, as she pointed out, coming up with close votes in order to do it. She succeeded, which is very much to her credit and reflected her very effective advocacy. But had a supermajority been required, she would have fallen short. So I want to thank her for her very strong statement. Mr. President, I know it is late into the evening, and I am not going to take long, but I want to take just a few minutes to speak to the issue before us, and I hope at a later point to make a longer statement. First of all, I want to point out, as we deal with this amendment to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, it is very important to understand that the budget we are talking about balancing, the U.S. budget, does not have a capital budget to it. Everyone gets up and says, ``well, the State governments do it, the local governments do it, private individuals do it, corporations do it, why shouldn't the Federal Government do it?'' None of those other entities balance a capital budget as well. They all provide for capital budgets that are financed by borrowing. That is what State governments do. They have a requirement to balance the operating budget, but they then sell bonds. Why do States and municipalities issue bonds? Why is there a municipal bond market? Because they borrow in order to fund the capital budget. We don't have a capital budget at the Federal level, and anyone who is really serious about trying to write requirements into the Constitution, which, by the way, I think are extremely difficult to do because you can't provide for every contingency, but if you had any degree of seriousness, would first provide for a capital budget. You would set capital investments apart and say, ``all right, we recognize we make investments in the future and we capitalize them, and we borrow to fund the capitalization.'' That is what people do when they buy a home. Although it is said that everybody has to balance their budget, people don't balance their budget every year. It is wise and prudent financial policy, if your income is adequate to the task, to borrow in order to buy a home, to borrow in order to buy a car. If individuals had to operate under this amendment's balanced budget requirement, the vast majority of people in this country would not be able to buy an automobile and they would not be able to buy a home, because they couldn't produce the cash with which to make the full payment in the year they incur the obligation, which is what this amendment is requiring of the Federal Government. So that is the first point to make. You are talking about trying to balance a budget that includes within it your capital expenditures, instead of setting them aside and funding the capital expenditures through a capital budget, which is financed by borrowing and which makes prudent economic sense. After all, the highway or the building is going to last you for 20, 30, 40 years, and it makes sense to borrow, to amortize it over that period of time and have the use of it right from today out into the future. The second point I want to make about the balanced budget amendment is in the post-World War II period, we have used what are known as automatic fiscal stabilizers in order to ameliorate economic downturns. When the economy begins to go soft, the Federal budget automatically shifts toward deficit, for two reasons: First, people are losing jobs, and because they are no longer working, they are not paying taxes into the Treasury; therefore, the revenues into the Government decrease. This happens automatically. We don't take any action around here for that to happen. It just occurs. Because people are no longer working, they are no longer earning, and those people, at least, are not paying taxes into the Treasury. Second, at the same time, automatically expenditures increase, because we pay out unemployment insurance. If you have been working, you become unemployed, you are entitled to draw unemployment insurance. So those payments go up. The consequence of those two things happening--and there are other transfer payments also that go up in the course of an economic downturn or a recession--the deficit widens. But that deficit serves to cushion the economic downturn, because it helps to sustain purchasing power in the economy that would otherwise go into decline. Cushioning occurs because by providing unemployment insurance, you help to hold the economy up and to check the downturn. Now, that happens automatically. It doesn't require a conscious decision. If the recession is bad, we often then go on to make conscious decisions here about ways to try to bring the economy back. But under normal circumstances, this cushioning is sufficient to moderate the economic downturn. Because we have followed this policy essentially since the end of World War II, we have been able to check the boom-and-bust cycle of our economy, which we had previously been experiencing. Of course, that is a very good thing, because you don't put your economy and your people through the absolute wringer of a major economic downturn. The fact of the matter is, as the economy goes soft, you begin to run these deficits. If you try to offset the deficit, either by cutting spending or raising taxes or a combination of the two, in an economic downturn, you would only drive the economy further down. The economy, the business cycle is swinging downwards, and if you compound that swing by a policy of trying to eliminate the deficits which arise from that downturn, you only make the downturn worse, and we have experienced that in our history, during the Great Depression. This is why these automatic stabilizers are so important, and this is why, in many respects, this amendment is so dangerous. This chart beside me measures real economic growth from 1870 to 1995, and it shows the ups and downs in economic growth in our economy, beginning in 1870 and running through until 1995. The essential thing the chart shows is that since World War II, we have essentially been able to avoid deep economic recessions or, indeed, depressions. One of the reasons--not the only reason, but one of the reasons--we have been able to do that is because we have had these automatic economic stabilizers which have kept the economy from coming down into deep negative growth. Only a couple of times have we actually had a downturn that took us into negative growth. Most of the time we get movements, they remain in the positive level, and, as you can see, we have not in recent history experienced the kinds of deep moves we experienced pre-World War II. That is why the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Rubin, in testimony before the Judiciary Committee about this amendment to the Constitution, said he was fearful that what it would do is turn an economic downturn into a recession and a recession into a depression. Amendment supporters say, ``Well, if that happens, we'll get a supermajority around here, we will waive the provisions of the Constitution, and we will take action.'' There are a number of difficulties with that response. First of all, the automatic stabilizers work automatically. No one has to recognize there is an economic downturn. Often, we don't see an economic downturn is happening until much later, until it is well into its cycle. Only a few years ago, Alan Greenspan thought the economy was doing well and said so. Later, it turned out that at the moment he said that, the economy was already into a downturn, but it wasn't recognized, it wasn't seen. Later, when all the figures came in, we went back and saw that we had already gone into a downturn. This amendment is going to cost us these automatic fiscal stabilizers that operate without the need for congressional action, and that cushion a recession that we might not even know to exist. Second, we have a lot of arguments around here about whether we have a downturn, how serious a downturn is, how you have to respond to it. Franklin Raines, the Director of OMB pointed out the other day before the Budget Committee that a lot of our difficulties are regional depressions, not national depressions. Much of the country might be doing all right, but a region of the country may be in severe trouble and needs help in order to address the situation in which to find itself. Of course, then it is going to be extremely difficult to get a supermajority because most communities will not be experiencing a recession or downturn and their representatives will not want to waive this provision. I can remember during the administration of President Bush when we tried to act on extending the unemployment insurance. It took us months, months, months, and months before we were able to do it. And all the time the economic downturn was getting worse. As a consequence, all the time we were falling further and further behind the curve. The fact of the matter is, is that the earlier you can act, and particularly if you can act automatically, through stabilizers, the quicker you can check the downturn. If the downturn gains momentum, begins to build up steam in that direction, the amount of corrective action that has to be taken in order to turn it around is much greater. The prudent thing is to act early on, because then you do not suffer as much damage because you do not go as deep into the decline. But this balanced budget amendment is a virtual guarantee that that kind of early action will not be taken and that we will always be playing catch up with the economic cycle. The many distinguished economists who have spoken out, and to whom my very able colleague from California has made reference, have focused, amongst other things, on this aspect of the situation. We ought not to give away lightly the benefits that have come to us by developing effective fiscal policy to help restrain the movements of the business cycle. We have not eliminated it. I assume my colleagues who are pushing this amendment do not for a moment suggest they somehow have figured out a magical way to eliminate the business cycle. But we have developed policies that have ameliorated the business cycle. I do not want to go back to these deep declines in the economy. We ought not to be in the situation where, as in the 1930's, we would rue the day that we denied ourselves the capacity to respond to that kind of an emergency so that we actually had to experience something approximating economic devastation before we were prepared to take action. Why would you do that? Why would you want to do that? Is the economy not working well? Let us look at that issue for just a moment. The unemployment rate today is 5.4 percent. It has been down in the low range of 5 percent now for many months. It is a very good performance. The last time we had a performance anything like that over a sustained period of time was 20 years ago. What about the inflation rate? The inflation rate is under 3 percent. It has been there now for the last 4 or 5 years--about or under 3 percent. The last time we had a performance on the inflation front that was that good was 30 years ago. So we are doing very well on unemployment and inflation. We have created 11.5 million jobs over the last 4 years. Other countries envy us in terms of what we are doing. But, amendment proponents say, we still have a problem with the deficit? What about the deficit? Let us take a look at the deficit. Are we making any progress on reducing the deficit? Can someone contend that we are not making any progress on the deficit-reduction front and, therefore, we need a constitutional amendment, as risky and as radical as it might be, in order somehow, some way to compel some kind of action? We should note, however, that the amendment does not curb the deficit at all? You are still going to have to make the budget decisions with respect to the budget--your spending and tax decisions with respect to the budget. Have we been doing that already? In 1992, the deficit, in current dollars, was $290 billion. Since then, we brought the deficit down in each of the succeeding 4 years. The deficit now is $107 billion. And the President has submitted a budget plan that will eliminate the deficit by the year 2002. Some have criticisms of that plan. Others praise it. I think it is a pretty good plan but it is not written in stone and it is up to the Congress to deal with it now in consultation with the administration. But in any event, there is a plan to bring it down and eliminate the deficit by the year 2002. I think the President has pretty good credibility in putting forward this plan on the basis of his record. We ran large deficits in the 1980's and into the early 1990's. It was not just the administration that did that, the Congress was complicit in it as well. After all, you do not get a budget unless we in Congress pass it. Although I do want to point out that through those 12 years, in all but 1 year the budget passed by the Congress had a lower deficit figure than the budgets submitted to the Congress by the administration. In other words, in every year but one the Congress was able to do a tighter budget than what the administration had submitted to the Congress. Had we passed the administration's submitted budgets, as proposed to us, the deficits would have been larger, not smaller. We did not increase the deficits. We in fact lowered the deficits. But now in the last 4 years we have made this very impressive progress and we are on the path to a balanced budget. The way you make this progress is you make decisions on the budget each year. None of this progress was made because there was an amendment in the Constitution. And if you put an amendment in the Constitution, the progress still will not be made. The progress can only be made when you vote the budgets, when you make the spending and the tax decisions that are contained within the budget, the consequences of which then give you your deficits or your balance. That is when you make the decisions. And we have been making hard decisions, particularly the 1993 economic plan, which passed this body on the tiebreaking vote of the Vice President. A lot of people criticized that plan. People said ``Oh, this is going to have devastating consequences on the economy.'' It was a combination of spending cuts and some tax changes. But what it produced was a reduced deficit and an economy that has worked exceedingly well over the last 4 years, an economy that other countries look at with a great deal of envy. These are the absolute figures on reducing the deficit. Let us look at the measure of the deficit as a percent of the gross national product, which is a very important measure. It enables us to compare with our own performance over time and with other countries. Because as you strengthen your economy, you can bring your deficit down and it becomes a smaller percentage of the GDP and becomes easier to handle. It is like an individual's situation. If he has more income, he is better able to handle the deficit. If his economic strength grows more rapidly than the deficit he is trying to handle, then he gets stronger and more able to pay off the debt. Let us look at that. This is what has happened. In 1992, the deficit was 4.9 percent of GDP. That is not a good figure. I am prepared to state that right at the outset. The European Community now, which is trying to move toward monetary union, has established some benchmarks which it is pressing the 15 members of Europe to abide by in order to achieve the monetary union. And one of them is that deficit, as a percent of GDP, be under 3 percent--under 3 percent. That is the benchmark they have set out. In 1992 we were at 4.9 percent. As this chart beside me shows, we brought down our deficit as a percentage of GDP to 4.1 percent in 1993, 3.1 percent in 1994, 2.3 percent in 1995, and 1.4 percent in 1996. That is the best performance since 1973, 23 years ago. It is a better performance than all but 3 of the 15 members of the European Union, three of the smaller countries--Luxembourg, Denmark, and Ireland. Our projections out into the future are very positive; according to these projections, we will do even better than 1.4 percent in the future. So we are making very significant progress toward a balanced budget. We really are on the right track. The real place we ought to be focusing on is on the budget process and the decisions that will be made with respect to spending programs, tax programs, tax subsidies, tax expenditure issues, and so forth. Further, our performance of 1.4 percent deficit as a percent of GDP is better than any of the G7 countries, the major industrial countries in the world. I was at a Joint Economic Committee hearing this afternoon where Chairman Stiglitz of the Council of Economic Advisers was presenting the economic report of the President. He talked about how nice it was now to go to international meetings with the performance of our economy and be able to hold out as an example to other countries what we are doing. Look at this chart beside, which compares the deficit as a share of GDP for each of the G7 nations. Here is the United States, down to 1.4 percent. We have a game plan now, by the year 2002 to close that out completely. Now, I know we will have arguments here about the game plan, but I think it is credible. It could be changed, it could be different. I think it is credible. I think it represents a bona fide effort to close this out. Look at this comparison: Here is Japan with 3.1 percent deficit, Germany, 3.5 percent; Canada, 4.2 percent; France, 5.0 percent; the United Kingdom, 5.1 percent. Italy is 7.2 percent. If you make the comparisons, if you do a vertical comparison over our history, we have the best performance now, deficit as a share of GDP, since 1973. That is how we stack up in terms of our past record. If you do a horizontal comparison with other countries around the world, this is how we stack up. Any way you look at that, that is a pretty good performance. Now, let me finally address one other point about this amendment. I want to address this assumption here that you can simply get these supermajorities almost by the wave of the hand if you have any kind of serious problem confronting you. Now there are two kinds of supermajorities required in this proposed resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 1--either a majority of the total membership of the body or three-fifths of the total membership of the body, what they call the whole number of the House. Now, what the ``majority of the whole'' requirement means is in the Senate you would have to have 51 votes-- although there is some argument, legally, about the role of the Vice President's vote in this process, an interesting debate that shows you the complexity of this proposal and its potential for complications. That question has never been resolved. Then there is the three-fifths supermajority requirement, which of course in this body would be 60 votes. I want to make historical reference to one critical vote in the House, which in a historical sense we can look at and say, ``Well, that was a critical vote in the history of this country. That was really a national crisis, and clearly Members should have recognized it and should have acted accordingly. That is the kind of situation which, if it arises again, we certainly would be able to get these supermajorities provided for in this Senate Joint Resolution 1.'' In 1940 the U.S. Congress, on the urgings of President Roosevelt, provided for a draft for 1 year, because President Roosevelt saw the war clouds that were gathering in Europe and felt the United States needed to undertake preparation for what might be coming. A year later, of course the issue arose, since it was only for a year, about extending the draft. We are now talking about the fall of 1941, only shortly before Pearl Harbor. The President asked the Congress to extend the draft so that we could continue this program of military preparedness because the war clouds were even darker and more ominous. The issue was so close in the House of Representatives that Speaker Rayburn, exercising a very rare prerogative of the Speaker, took the floor of the House at the close of the debate to urge extension of the draft. The vote on that issue in the House was 203 to 202, so under the Constitution it carried. You had a quorum present, had a majority of those voting, carrying it 203 to 202. Mr. President, 203 is--and was not then--a majority of the whole number of the House of Representatives, which would be 218 today, and it is certainly not three-fifths of the whole number of the House. These are the two supermajorities required in this resolution. Now, there you were with a crisis situation which certainly, looking back at it historically, you would have said, ``Well, obviously, those Members of Congress will recognize what the country is confronting and vote to carry this forward.'' They barely did it. They cast a vote that would not have worked under the supermajority requirements contained in Senate Joint Resolution 1. I think those who say of course we will achieve supermajorities are being much too sanguine. The amendment says that the debt limit shall not be increased without three-fifths of the whole number. We can hardly put together simple majorities in Democratic or Republican administrations to achieve this goal. I have voted in this body to lift the debt ceiling in Republican administrations at the request of Republican Presidents and Republican Secretaries of the Treasury because I felt obviously we had to do that. We could not put the credit of the United States at risk. But those votes have been exceedingly close and they have not come anywhere near meeting the supermajority requirements contained in this Senate Joint Resolution 1. No wonder the Secretary of the Treasury has voiced his apprehension that we might risk a default on the debt and hurt the creditworthiness of the United States through the passage of this amendment to the Constitution. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about this amendment. It is a very radical proposal. It has a lot of surface appeal, as my colleague from California pointed out when she quoted the editorial in the Los Angeles Times. The easy vote is obviously to be for it, as most people upon hearing it say it is a good idea. You really have to go into it and examine it very carefully and appreciate the real way you bring the deficit down is to make the budget decisions, not to amend the Constitution of the United States. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES. I want to support the very perceptive statement of the distinguished Senator from California about the reduction in the deficit subsequent to the enactment of the 1993 budget, which, as the Senator pointed out, was passed on the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President. In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion. We have brought it down 4 years in a row. It is now at $107 billion. Four years in a row we have had a steady decline in the deficit. We brought it down from $290 billion to $107 billion, and, as a percent of our gross product, the deficit has dropped from 4.9 percent in 1992 to 1.4 percent in 1996. The last time the deficit was this low as a percent of our gross domestic product was in 1973. This is the best performance in 23 years in reducing the deficit as a percent of our gross domestic product. This is a very good record. We are going to continue the progress. We are going to continue to bring the deficit down, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of our GDP. Let me show you a chart which compares what we have succeeded in doing in this country and what is happening in the other major industrial countries. This chart compares various nations' deficit as a share of GDP. The United States is now at 1.4 percent. Here is Japan, 3.1; Germany 3.35; Canada 4.2; France 5; the United Kingdom 5.1; Italy 7.2. We have the best performance of any of the major industrial countries. We have an economy now with 5.4 percent unemployment, the best unemployment in 20 years. We are at less than 3 percent inflation, the best inflation performance in 30 years. The deficit of 1.4 percent of GDP, the best since 1973. That is a vertical comparison with our past performance in this country. Then we look to see how we are competing with other countries. This chart shows we have the best performance of any of the G-7 countries. This economy is working. We ought not now to take this, as the Senator has described it, radical step of trying to amend the Constitution of the United States and perhaps dooming ourselves in some future crisis to be unable to confront the economic circumstances of the time. As the Senator has pointed out, that is what these over 1,100 economists across the country are saying. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator from California asks a very appropriate question. In a sense, she answered it right at the end with the observation that she herself has, as I have, seen instances in this Chamber when we were scrambling to get a simple majority in order to provide disaster relief to one or another State in the country that had been devastated by a natural disaster. And many Members said, ``Well, we don't really want to do that. Yes, it's a difficult situation, but we don't want to make this response.'' I have seen the very able Senator from California personally work the floor of the Senate in order to try to get a majority vote in order to respond to what her State had been stricken with, and she was successful, I must say. But suppose you had to get a supermajority in order to do it. Past experience does not bear out the assumption that you can just get a supermajority willy-nilly. In the past, we have had to scramble simply to get a majority. The amendment contains a provision that states that you cannot raise the debt limit unless you have a supermajority, and obviously unless you can raise the debt limit and borrow additional funds, you are not going to be able to respond to the disaster, and particularly not respond to it immediately, which is often what is required. But time and time again in this Chamber I have seen the leadership sweating bullets in order to get a simple majority in order to deal with a debt limit issue. So it just defies past experience for Members to stand here and say, ``Oh, we will get the supermajority.'' As the Senator from California has pointed out, it is tough enough to get the majority, the simple majority.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator made reference to this earlier, and I think the very able Senator from California is on to an extremely important point here. I want to illustrate it with this chart.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in recognition of the 4-year anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Approved by the Senate on January 29, 1993, this important legislation was the first bill of the 103d Congress signed into law by newly elected President Clinton. Prior to the enactment of the family medical leave law, families already confronting the hardships caused by a seriously ill relative had an additional burden to bear: a fear of losing their jobs should they choose to stay home to care for a loved one. For workers striving to meet the competing demands of home and office, there was no consistent standard of protection. The Family Medical Leave Act provides that basic standard of job security to more than 67 million American workers; guaranteeing employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or newly adopted child or to care for an immediate family member with a serious health condition. In addition, the law enables workers to take medical leave when they themselves are unable to work because of a serious health condition--without fear of being fired or losing their health insurance. After 4 years of successfully helping American families strike a balance between work and family, it is difficult to believe that it was necessary to struggle for many years and overcome two vetoes by President Bush in order to enact this fundamental protection for working Americans. Since its enactment, this law has enabled approximately 12 million men and women to take time off from work to meet the care-giving needs of their families. While opponents of the Family Medical Leave Act raised concerns about the law's effect on business, their fears have been proven ungrounded by the congressionally charged Bipartisan Commission on Leave. The Commission on Leave, made up of business and labor leaders, representatives of women and families, and members of Congress, provided an initial assessment of the family medical leave law in April 1996. The Commission found that while the law has had a significant impact on employers' leave policies and practices, increasing the reasons for which employees can take leave, this impact has come with minimal administrative activities and almost no costs. In fact, a number of employers have reported a positive impact on business performance because of Family Medical Leave Act policies. Mr. President, as a strong supporter and original cosponsor of this significant measure, I am especially pleased with the success of the family medical leave law. Because of this law, millions of Americans, who otherwise may have been forced to choose between the demands of home and workplace, have been able to meet both their personal and professional obligations. As fundamental as the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Social Security Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, this law reaffirms the Democratic commitment to ensuring a measure of job protection to all hard-working Americans.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, for over two decades, the Legal Services Corporation, or LSC, has been the embodiment of the words emblazoned in stone above the Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' In its effort to fulfill this commitment, the Legal Services Corporation has provided critically needed services to millions of poor, elderly, and disabled citizens who otherwise would not have access to the American legal system and the protection it affords the many basic rights we have in this country--protection which so many of us take for granted. The Legal Services Corporation has also proven to be one of the most efficient Federal programs in existence, using only 3 percent of its total funding for administration and management. Yet in recent years, the Corporation's ability to satisfy its mandate has been imperiled by congressional efforts to limit its activities, both by cutting the Corporation's funding and by restricting the kinds of activities in which its lawyers could engage. Some of these efforts have already succeeded, and I suspect that further initiatives in this vein will emerge in the 105th Congress. But Mr. President, before we hasten down this path, let us look at what we have already wrought with respect to the ability of our Nation to provide legal services to the needy. I use as an example the effect of cutbacks in the Legal Services Corporation in my own State of Maryland. Maryland's Legal Aid Bureau receives by far the largest portion of its funding from the Legal Services Corporation, and over the years has done an outstanding job of representing Maryland citizens living in poverty. With the funding received from LSC, the 13 legal aid offices located throughout Maryland provide general legal services to approximately 19,000 families and individuals annually. In contrast to this tradition of effective service, a January 23 article in the Baltimore Sun entitled ``Poor Have Trouble Getting Legal Help'' demonstrates the current state of legal services in Maryland--a state in no small part due to Congress's recent scaling back of the LSC. The article notes that over 1 million Marylanders qualify for legal services, but that volunteer lawyers--the source of the majority of legal assistance with the implementation of Government cutbacks--are barely making a dent in the caseload. In fact, Mr. President, Robert Rhudy, executive director of the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, a State-created organization that administers legal assistance programs in the State, estimates that the Maryland Legal Aid Bureau has the ability to address only 20 percent of the matters that come to its attention. The article also notes that recent studies confirm these estimates, finding that about 80 percent of the State's poor lack access to volunteer lawyers. Mr. President, these developments are shameful, and cannot be tolerated by a society that prides itself on its commitment to constitutional principles of equal protection of the laws and equal access to justice. Part of the solution certainly lies in encouraging and facilitating volunteerism in our legal communities. Pro bono service is part of a lawyer's ethical obligations. At the same time, we in Congress bear real responsibility for the shortage of legal assistance to the poor. Our efforts to cut back LSC funding in recent years have had a devastating impact on the poor, and have tilted the scales of justice in a way that the creators and founders of LSC would have found to be intolerable. Mr. President, I ask that the January 23 Baltimore Sun article be printed in today's Record. I daresay that many other States have stories similar to those in my State, and I urge my colleagues to investigate their States' situation before once again lining up to do away with a program that should be one of the great prices of our Nation. The article follows: [From the Baltimore Sun, Jan. 23, 1997] Poor Have Trouble Getting Legal Help--Few Lawyers Agree To Give Free Service (By Elaine Tassy) Poor Marylanders who need legal help are likely to have trouble finding it, and with federal funding cuts at agencies that handle such cases, the problem is worsening. More than a million Marylanders have income low enough to be eligible for free civil legal services, said Robert J. Rhudy, executive director of Maryland Legal Services Corp. Low-income households often have several legal problems in a year. But volunteer lawyers are barely making a dent in that need. ``Of those problems that could clearly benefit from legal attention, we believe that we currently have the ability to serve the need of less than 20 percent . . .'' said Rhudy, whose organization was created by state legislators to help manage and fund free or reduced-fee services. Only about 5,000 new cases were handled last year by volunteer lawyers serving in programs that keep statistics, according to Sharon E. Goldsmith, executive director of the People's Pro Bono Action Center Inc. And, although the number of volunteers is actually greater because some lawyers provide services without being party of any program--by offering advice to community groups, for example--studies have shown that about 80 percent of the state's poor lack access to volunteer lawyers. ``We have clients on waiting lists all the time . . . We've probably got a couple hundred cases sitting here,'' said Winifred C. Borden, executive director of Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service, the largest of several Baltimore-based agencies that match volunteer lawyers with cases presented by poor people. Those in need often wait months before a volunteer is found, she added. The shortage of lawyers willing to do free, or pro bono, work in civil cases--unraveling family, employment, disability, education and housing disputes--has prompted agencies that recruit volunteers to step up their efforts. ``We all recognize there is this tremendous need,'' said Baltimore County Circuit Judge Dana M. Levitz, who also is seeking new ways to recruit lawyers for such cases. No statistics No one knows how many lawyers do pro bono work. ``We've never been able to come up with a tracking system,'' said Janet Stidman Eveleth of the Maryland State Bar Association. Studies have found that in addition to those doing pro bono work independently, about a fourth of Maryland's 20,000 practicing lawyers volunteer through programs such as the Homeless Persons Representation Project, the House of Ruth Domestic Violence Legal Clinic and the Senior Citizen Law Project. But many experts think the number of volunteer lawyers is still too small. ``I think lawyers like [doing pro-bono work] in principle, and a substantial number of lawyers do it. But at the moment, I think that it's getting harder and harder to find lawyers who are willing to take pro bono cases,'' said David Luban, professor of legal ethics at the University of Maryland School of Law. Lawyers have vigorously resisted proposals to require each of them to do 50 hours of pro bono work a year, he said. No enforceable requirement exists for volunteer legal work. But the rules that govern Maryland lawyers state: ``A lawyer should render public interest legal service . . . by providing professional services at no fee or a reduced fee to persons of limited means or to public service or charitable groups or organizations.'' Demand for such services is rising. Congress has scaled back the services the Legal Aid Bureau--a nonprofit organization providing civil legal services to the poor--is permitted to provide and has trimmed its budget in recent years, creating more demand for volunteers to fill the gap. No free time Some lawyers say they are held back by a lack of free time, conflicts of interest and difficulty in finding cases that match their expertise. Others say they will help but don't follow through. For example, Borden said, from July 1995 to June 1996, 2,017 lawyers signed up to volunteer and 788 took cases. The number of volunteers expressing interest also has decreased in recent years. A statewide survey found that in 1989, almost 1,700 cases new cases were handled by volunteers working with structured programs. The number jumped to almost 6,000 by 1993 but dropped to 5,253 in 1995, the most recent statistics available, said Goldsmith. People with thorny, time-consuming domestic matters such as child-custody disputes are the most likely to request volunteers. But many lawyers shy away from such cases. Criminal-defense lawyer Leonard H. Shapiro, who often handles drunken-driving cases, said volunteering appeals to him, but only in cases in which he has expertise. ``I don't want to engage in an area of the law where I don't think I'm qualified,'' he said. ``I wouldn't want to put the client in jeopardy while I experimented.'' specialties linked Volunteer agencies are working to link lawyers with programs or cases that reflect their specialties. Goldsmith tries to match tax lawyers, for example, with economic development projects such as Habitat for Humanity's in Sandtown-Winchester, where residents need help in acquiring loans and property. Levitz, after seeing dozens of poor defendants appear before him without lawyers, asked the Judicial Ethics Committee whether judges could recruit volunteers by writing letters of inquiry, placing ads in legal newspapers or talking to lawyers at bar association meetings. Two years ago, the committee, most of whose nine members are judges, prohibited such actions. But it reversed its stance in October, saying judges could seek volunteer lawyers in those ways. idea studied At a recent meeting of Baltimore County judges, Levitz presented the idea of seeking volunteers; a three-judge panel is studying the idea. Some lawyers balk at volunteering, but others embrace it. Daniel V. Schmitt is one of the latter. He handles general business and commercial litigation cases at a four-person firm in Towson, and provides 60 hours of free legal help annually to special education students in Baltimore and Harford counties. Using referrals from the Maryland Disability Law Center, he helps students get into appropriate schools and classes, and helps find computers equipped for people who cannot type with their hands. ``I believe that pro bono is a professional and moral obligation,'' said Schmitt, 38. ``As a professional, I feel you need to hold yourself to a higher standard, and a higher standard would include giving back to the community.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise for myself and my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, to introduce a bill crucial to the administration of justice and the economy in our State. This bill provides for two additional bankruptcy judgeships in the Federal Judicial District of Maryland. A look at the conditions currently facing Maryland's bankruptcy judges reveals the critical need for these new judgeships. Recent years have witnessed a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings nationwide. Last year, for the first time in our history, filings during a 12-month period--June 1995-June 1996--exceeded 1 million, a 21.4-percent rise from the prior 12-month period. This trend has many causes, including greater access to credit, a lagging economy in some regions, and public and private downsizing. Such sharp increases in filings strain the ability of bankruptcy judges to administer justice promptly and effectively, and jeopardize the stabilization of creditor- debtor relations that is, after all, the goal of bankruptcy law. No State has been more affected by these trends than Maryland. Bankruptcies there have quadrupled in the past decade. As filings rise nationwide, Maryland rates of increase have significantly exceeded Federal rates. No end appears to be in sight. Maryland filings during January-November 1996 exceeded State filings during the same period in 1995 by 36 percent; in the July-November 1996 period, State filings exceeded by 45 percent filings during the same period in 1995. In 1991, the U.S. Judicial Conference, using a 1990 Federal Judicial Center time-management study, adopted a case-weighting system for bankruptcy judges, under which different types of cases were assigned different degrees of difficulty and overall weighted case-hour goals were established for the judges. Under this system, the average U.S. bankruptcy judge has a weighted case-hour load of about 1,250 hours per year. The Judicial Conference generally does not consider a request for new bankruptcy judgeships by a Federal judicial district unless the average case-hour total for the district's judges exceeds 1,500. Given these yardsticks, the burdens facing the district of Maryland's bankruptcy judges are truly astounding. In 1993, the national weighted case-hour average was 1,362 hours; by contrast, the Maryland average for that year was 59 percent greater-- 2,168 hours. In 1994, the national average was 1,227 hours; the 1994 Maryland average was 75 percent greater--2,143 hours. In 1995, the national average was 1,149 hours; the 1995 Maryland average was 72 percent greater--1,982 hours. In 1996, the national average was 1,272 hours; the Maryland total for that year was 75 percent greater--2,230 hours. So for each of the last 4 years, the average weighted case-hours for Maryland's bankruptcy judges have exceeded by a wide margin not only the national average, but also the 1,500-hour yardstick used by the Judicial Conference to rate requests for additional judges. Other States have faced temporary overloads, but only Maryland can claim the dubious distinction of having one of the Nation's most overworked bankruptcy courts for each of the last 4 years. In fact, only the District of Maryland has ranked in the top 3 among the 91 Federal judicial districts during each of the 8 biannual evaluations of bankruptcy judges' case-hours since September 1992. This situation cries out for remedial action. Recognizing as much, the Judicial Conference recommended to the 104th Congress that Maryland receive an additional bankruptcy judgeship. Unfortunately, this proposal was not enacted into law and, as a result, the problem has worsened considerably. I have cited data on increased bankruptcy filings in Maryland during late 1996. If Maryland received one additional bankruptcy judge tomorrow, the case-hours per judge in the district would still be 1,784, 141 percent of the national average and well in excess of the 1,500-hour mark used to rate a district's need for new judges. In fact, even if Maryland received two new bankruptcy judges, its per judge caseload would still exceed the national average by 18 percent. To place Maryland at the national average, three additional bankruptcy judges would be required. Yet this bill adds only two judgeships, the minimum response according to those most familiar with the problem. This is the number recommended to the Judicial Conference by the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council, and I fully expect the Judicial Conference to include two new Maryland judgeships in its spring recommendations to Congress. New judgeships are essential not only for effective judicial administration, but also for Maryland's economy. Bankruptcy laws are crafted to foster orderly, constructive relationships between debtors and creditors during times of economic difficulty. This in turn results in businesses being reorganized, jobs--provided by creditors and debtors--preserved, and debts managed fairly. Overworked bankruptcy courts have a destabilizing effect on this system. Consider an example. Bankruptcy law provides debtors temporary relief from the claims of creditors, allowing the debtor to adopt a reorganization plan, thereby improving its chances of recovery, and keeping creditors from cutting in line in front of other creditors who have priority claims on debtor assets. But the law also allows a court to grant creditors relief from a stay where the creditor shows that its claim will not receive adequate protection under normal procedures. Under this procedure, a court must hold a hearing 30 days after an application for relief from the stay, or automatically grant relief. Because of the importance of these hearings, Maryland's bankruptcy judges routinely set aside 1 day per week to conduct them. One such judge, on December 6, 1996, had on his calendar 125 motions for relief from stay, a caseload that obviously precludes these cases from being fully heard. Thus, creditors seeking to cut in line, to the detriment of the debtor, other creditors, and the orderly administration of the bankrupt estate, may file for relief from stay, knowing that the case will not likely be heard and that the creditor will receive automatic relief under the law. Failure to hold a timely hearing may result in the inability of a debtor to reorganize, or in the cheating of other worthy creditors. Similarly, the extreme caseloads faced by Maryland's bankruptcy judges allow dishonest debtors to dissipate assets, again at the expense of worthy creditors. In short, the inevitable delays occasioned by the lack of judges harm both creditors and debtors, thereby imperiling businesses and the people employed by them. Is it any wonder that private bankruptcy practitioners and business groups also support additional bankruptcy judges for the District of Maryland? To quote Susan Souder, president of the Maryland Federal Bar Association, ``Maryland citizens, businesses, and lenders should be entitled to the same protection of the courts as their counterparts in other States.'' Currently they do not receive such protection. Two new bankruptcy judges in the District of Maryland are imperative if we are to address this critical problem. In closing, let me commend the dedicated efforts of Maryland's four sitting bankruptcy judges--Chief Judge Paul Mannes and Judges Duncan Kier, James Schneider, and Steve Derby. Their dedication to the administration of justice is especially impressive given the extraordinary burdens placed upon them.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise for myself and my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, to introduce a bill crucial to the administration of justice and the economy in our State. This bill provides for two additional bankruptcy judgeships in the Federal Judicial District of Maryland. A look at the conditions currently facing Maryland's bankruptcy judges reveals the critical need for these new judgeships. Recent years have witnessed a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings nationwide. Last year, for the first time in our history, filings during a 12-month period--June 1995-June 1996--exceeded 1 million, a 21.4-percent rise from the prior 12-month period. This trend has many causes, including greater access to credit, a lagging economy in some regions, and public and private downsizing. Such sharp increases in filings strain the ability of bankruptcy judges to administer justice promptly and effectively, and jeopardize the stabilization of creditor- debtor relations that is, after all, the goal of bankruptcy law. No State has been more affected by these trends than Maryland. Bankruptcies there have quadrupled in the past decade. As filings rise nationwide, Maryland rates of increase have significantly exceeded Federal rates. No end appears to be in sight. Maryland filings during January-November 1996 exceeded State filings during the same period in 1995 by 36 percent; in the July-November 1996 period, State filings exceeded by 45 percent filings during the same period in 1995. In 1991, the U.S. Judicial Conference, using a 1990 Federal Judicial Center time-management study, adopted a case-weighting system for bankruptcy judges, under which different types of cases were assigned different degrees of difficulty and overall weighted case-hour goals were established for the judges. Under this system, the average U.S. bankruptcy judge has a weighted case-hour load of about 1,250 hours per year. The Judicial Conference generally does not consider a request for new bankruptcy judgeships by a Federal judicial district unless the average case-hour total for the district's judges exceeds 1,500. Given these yardsticks, the burdens facing the district of Maryland's bankruptcy judges are truly astounding. In 1993, the national weighted case-hour average was 1,362 hours; by contrast, the Maryland average for that year was 59 percent greater-- 2,168 hours. In 1994, the national average was 1,227 hours; the 1994 Maryland average was 75 percent greater--2,143 hours. In 1995, the national average was 1,149 hours; the 1995 Maryland average was 72 percent greater--1,982 hours. In 1996, the national average was 1,272 hours; the Maryland total for that year was 75 percent greater--2,230 hours. So for each of the last 4 years, the average weighted case-hours for Maryland's bankruptcy judges have exceeded by a wide margin not only the national average, but also the 1,500-hour yardstick used by the Judicial Conference to rate requests for additional judges. Other States have faced temporary overloads, but only Maryland can claim the dubious distinction of having one of the Nation's most overworked bankruptcy courts for each of the last 4 years. In fact, only the District of Maryland has ranked in the top 3 among the 91 Federal judicial districts during each of the 8 biannual evaluations of bankruptcy judges' case-hours since September 1992. This situation cries out for remedial action. Recognizing as much, the Judicial Conference recommended to the 104th Congress that Maryland receive an additional bankruptcy judgeship. Unfortunately, this proposal was not enacted into law and, as a result, the problem has worsened considerably. I have cited data on increased bankruptcy filings in Maryland during late 1996. If Maryland received one additional bankruptcy judge tomorrow, the case-hours per judge in the district would still be 1,784, 141 percent of the national average and well in excess of the 1,500-hour mark used to rate a district's need for new judges. In fact, even if Maryland received two new bankruptcy judges, its per judge caseload would still exceed the national average by 18 percent. To place Maryland at the national average, three additional bankruptcy judges would be required. Yet this bill adds only two judgeships, the minimum response according to those most familiar with the problem. This is the number recommended to the Judicial Conference by the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council, and I fully expect the Judicial Conference to include two new Maryland judgeships in its spring recommendations to Congress. New judgeships are essential not only for effective judicial administration, but also for Maryland's economy. Bankruptcy laws are crafted to foster orderly, constructive relationships between debtors and creditors during times of economic difficulty. This in turn results in businesses being reorganized, jobs--provided by creditors and debtors--preserved, and debts managed fairly. Overworked bankruptcy courts have a destabilizing effect on this system. Consider an example. Bankruptcy law provides debtors temporary relief from the claims of creditors, allowing the debtor to adopt a reorganization plan, thereby improving its chances of recovery, and keeping creditors from cutting in line in front of other creditors who have priority claims on debtor assets. But the law also allows a court to grant creditors relief from a stay where the creditor shows that its claim will not receive adequate protection under normal procedures. Under this procedure, a court must hold a hearing 30 days after an application for relief from the stay, or automatically grant relief. Because of the importance of these hearings, Maryland's bankruptcy judges routinely set aside 1 day per week to conduct them. One such judge, on December 6, 1996, had on his calendar 125 motions for relief from stay, a caseload that obviously precludes these cases from being fully heard. Thus, creditors seeking to cut in line, to the detriment of the debtor, other creditors, and the orderly administration of the bankrupt estate, may file for relief from stay, knowing that the case will not likely be heard and that the creditor will receive automatic relief under the law. Failure to hold a timely hearing may result in the inability of a debtor to reorganize, or in the cheating of other worthy creditors. Similarly, the extreme caseloads faced by Maryland's bankruptcy judges allow dishonest debtors to dissipate assets, again at the expense of worthy creditors. In short, the inevitable delays occasioned by the lack of judges harm both creditors and debtors, thereby imperiling businesses and the people employed by them. Is it any wonder that private bankruptcy practitioners and business groups also support additional bankruptcy judges for the District of Maryland? To quote Susan Souder, president of the Maryland Federal Bar Association, ``Maryland citizens, businesses, and lenders should be entitled to the same protection of the courts as their counterparts in other States.'' Currently they do not receive such protection. Two new bankruptcy judges in the District of Maryland are imperative if we are to address this critical problem. In closing, let me commend the dedicated efforts of Maryland's four sitting bankruptcy judges--Chief Judge Paul Mannes and Judges Duncan Kier, James Schneider, and Steve Derby. Their dedication to the administration of justice is especially impressive given the extraordinary burdens placed upon them.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last week, America lost a public servant and a leader of unusual intelligence and vision. It is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to my former colleague and friend, Paul Tsongas, whose untimely passing has deeply affected both those who knew him well and the millions of Americans who respected and admired his exemplary life. His frank and fearless commitment to a better America challenged us all. As remembered by the Hellenic Chronicle, a Massachusetts publication, Senator Tsongas ``changed the face of politics in the 1990's and reminded us that honesty and the power of ideas can still count for something in American politics.'' He was unwavering in his ideals because he truly believed them. At his funeral, Bishop Methodios of Boston spoke of Senator Tsongas' insight, integrity and intelligence; fitting qualities for a person who, as the Bishop said, ``looked deep within his heart and soul and there discovered his vision for a better America.'' The son of a Greek immigrant, Senator Tsongas went from working in his father's drycleaning store to Dartmouth College, Yale Law School, and the Peace Corps. He won his first bid for public office in 1969, when he was elected to the Lowell City Council, the beginning of an esteemed career that included service as Middlesex County Commissioner in 1973, fifth congressional district representative to the U.S. House in 1974 --the first Democrat to win in his district in a century, and United States Senator from Massachusetts in 1979, an office never before held by a Peace Corps veteran. In the Senate, I was privileged to serve with Senator Tsongas on the Banking and Foreign Relations Committees, where he fulfilled his duties with great capability and distinction. His understanding of the world beyond our borders, gained during his service in the Peace Corps, equipped him to make a significant contribution to a more effective American foreign policy. Senator Tsongas never took the privilege of being a U.S. Senator for granted. He was serious about his work and had high hopes and even higher standards for this country. ``Patriotism is like charity,'' wrote Henry James. ``It begins at home.'' For Senator Tsongas, everything began at home. Whether it was Lowell, the town in which he made his life, or the family that was his life, Senator Tsongas never lost sight of what was most important. He often questioned the legacy he would leave behind for the people and places he cared for most. He should not have been concerned. Due to his efforts both in and out of office, the town of Lowell now claims a national historic park, thousands of jobs, a minor league baseball team, 14 new schools, and a real sense of pride. As the local paper noted, ``We in Lowell need only walk through our city to celebrate-- every day--what Paul Tsongas did for his hometown.'' I will always remember Paul Tsongas, as will his fellow Americans, as a highly principled public servant who, unafraid of any challenge, was exceedingly able to affect the issues of his time. I will also remember him as the individual who inspired us all by confronting his own mortality with extraordinary grace and heroism. His faith in his own instincts not only gave him the courage to step down from office when the time was right, it was also the source of his strength during his distinguished service in the Congress of the United States. Senator Tsongas left an indelible mark on our hearts, which now go out to his wife Niki, his daughters Ashley, Katina and Molly, and his sisters Thaleia and Vicki. They have so much to mourn, but they also have so much of which to be proud. There is a requiem hymn sung in the Greek Orthodox Church which, here, seems apropos: ``Eonia e mneeme.'' It means, ``may he live in our memories forever.'' In the last years of his life, Senator Tsongas struggled with the question of history, with what he would leave us. The answer is, clearly, much. Paul Tsongas will live in the memories and records of his country, his town, and his family, forever.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I yield back any time remaining on this side.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I join my colleague, the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato of New York, in strong support of the nomination of Andrew Cuomo as the next Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In my judgment, Mr. Cuomo is well qualified for this position. In addition to his background, experience, and record of significant achievement, Andrew Cuomo will provide the Department with stability and continuity since he has been an Assistant Secretary at the Department over the past 4 years. As HUD's Assistant Secretary for Community and Planning Development, Andrew Cuomo played a significant role in this administration's efforts to revitalize America's distressed communities and a significant role in their efforts to restructure the Department itself. In that regard, outgoing HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros--who I think deserves the thanks of all of us for the very stellar service he has given to the Nation-- made significant progress in addressing the management difficulties that confronted the Department at the beginning of his tenure. Andrew Cuomo was part of that team, and his familiarity with the way the Department works and the reforms now underway will provide for a smooth transition that will allow this progress to move forward. Mr. Cuomo's activities in the realm of housing and urban development prior to his joining the Department at the beginning of the first Clinton administration demonstrated the initiative and innovation that he has brought with him to the Department. He created HELP, a homeless assistance organization that is now the Nation's largest provider of transitional housing for the homeless. He also developed the alternative approaches to urban revitalization and community development that led to the founding of the Genesis project, a program that has created partnerships between State and local governments and the private sector to provide affordable housing. Mr. Cuomo has put this past experience and the vision connected therewith to work over the past 4 years as HUD Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. His achievements during this period in that office were many. This morning, I want to underscore three achievements, in particular, that indicate his promise as he takes on the larger challenge of stewardship of the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development. First, I want to commend Mr. Cuomo's administration of the HOME Investment Partnership Program. Chairman D'Amato and former housing subcommittee chairman, Senator Alan Cranston, were very much involved in establishing the HOME program. When the Clinton administration arrived, the relatively new HOME program was moving slowly, seemingly mired in regulation. Mr. Cuomo took the initiative in eliminating those regulations that were obstructing the program's progress. He worked closely with State and local governments and the private sector--both for-profit and nonprofit--to identify the features of the HOME program that needed to change in order to allow the program to function better. The result of his hard work is the effective housing program that HOME has become today. State and local governments, in conjunction with private for-profit and private not-for-profit partners, are producing significant results using HOME funds for activities ranging from housing rehabilitation to home ownership assistance. Mr. Cuomo has also earned praise for his tireless work on behalf of the homeless. After 4 years as Assistant Secretary, he can take the credit for changing the way that our Nation's homeless programs are administered at the local level. Under his leadership communities have now instituted a continuum of care approach. The continuum of care is a phrase that Andrew Cuomo coined for a comprehensive system of assistance that provides prevention, outreach and screening, emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, and permanent housing with services to the homeless where needed. I have seen the effectiveness of the service delivery that comes with the local planning and coordination that are at the core of the continuum of care approach. Andrew Cuomo has made these happen. Third, Mr. Cuomo deserves recognition for his direction of the HUD programs that assist local economic development. He has worked hard to make the Community Development Block Grant Program a more effective tool for local communities pursuing new economic development opportunities. He has also expanded the section 108 loan guarantee program, greatly improving that program's use by local government. And, he has served ably as the principal Federal official charged with the implementation of the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Programs. All of these activities will become increasingly important as the Nation struggles with its commitment to move families from welfare to work. Andrew Cuomo reiterated his commitment to his role as HUD Secretary in his statement before the Banking Committee last week, and I quote him: Our goal must be to create a future unlike any that has come before--a future open to all--in which no person is left behind and in which no community is forgotten. A future in which everyone willing to do his or her part will be empowered with the tools to reach as high as their talents and hard work will take them. Mr. President, it is clear why President Clinton has selected Andrew Cuomo as the next Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this very fine nomination. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Connecticut whatever time he may require.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I rise in very strong and enthusiastic support of the nomination of Madeleine K. Albright to be Secretary of State. In my judgment, Ambassador Albright is an outstanding choice for this position. Her experience, both personal and professional, as well as her demonstrated leadership ability, her steadfast adherence to the values and principles that Americans hold dear, and her vast and indisputable knowledge of the many complex issues that will no doubt confront our next Secretary of State, make it clear why President Clinton has selected her. Ambassador Albright's work with the administration over the past 4 years testifies to her ability to excel at two very different aspects of the position for which she has been nominated. She has worked within the administration to craft effective responses to the international challenges we face--obviously a prime responsibility of the Secretary of State. She also during these last 4 years has articulated those policies in a clear and persuasive manner, building support among the American people and winning the cooperation and respect of the international community. Her capability in both the private and public arenas of policymaking is most impressive. It is abundantly clear to those familiar with her record that she represents a very tough-minded and perceptive choice on the part of the President. She has distinguished herself in many institutions and aspects of foreign policymaking, from the executive and legislative branches to the world of academia. Over the past two decades, she has served as a staff member both at the National Security Council and in the Senate, where she worked with our former colleague, Ed Muskie, who himself then later became Secretary of State. As a scholar, she has earned respect in the academic community as a researcher and teacher, consistently drawing high praise from her students--further testimony to her ability both to come up with solutions to complex issues as well as to explain them to the community at large. As president of the Center for National Policy, a nonprofit research organization formed by representatives from government, industry, and labor, she not only gained an understanding of the nonprofit sector but worked to bring together these diverse groups in the interest of domestic and international policy. For the past 4 years she has served in the President's Cabinet as Permanent Representative to the United Nations, where she has addressed issues ranging from economic development to peacekeeping to counternarcotics, and has dealt with conflicts that span the globe. Under her leadership the United States gained Security Council approval for the United States-led, multinational effort to restore democracy in Haiti, for resolutions condemning human rights violations in countries including Cuba, Sudan, Burma, Nigeria, Iran, and Iraq, and for the establishment of an inspector general to crack down on waste and fraud within the U.N. system. That she accomplished these and many other important goals at a time when the United States was the world's largest debtor to the United Nations, thereby undercutting our influence in that institution, bears witness to her formidable diplomatic skills. What Ambassador Albright will bring to this position, however, reaches far beyond the qualifications that are listed on her impressive resume. Her own personal family history of escaping from persecution, first at the hands of the Nazis and subsequently at those of the Communists, has given her a profound understanding of the values and interests at the very heart of U.S. foreign policy. At her hearing, she eloquently reminded us that freedom and democracy can be challenged from both the left and the right of the political spectrum. She told the committee, ``It might be said of America that we have no permanent enemies, only permanent principles. Those principles are founded in respect for law, human dignity and freedom, not just for some, but for all people.'' Referring to the United States as ``the indispensable nation,'' she challenged us to become ``the authors of the history of our age'' by seizing the opportunity to meet the demands of a new century. I think we all agree on the importance of having the President's new foreign policy team in place as quickly as possible, and I am pleased that the Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate are acting upon this nomination in such an expeditious manner. I understand the Armed Services Committee is also moving expeditiously to consider the nomination of our former colleague, Senator William Cohen, to be Secretary of Defense. We have before us a full and pressing agenda: the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and budgeting adequate resources for the effective conduct of our foreign policy, to mention only two. Ambassador Albright's confirmation hearing proved to all of us President Clinton's insight in selecting her for this significant and weighty assignment. He chose her for her demonstrated competence, her broad range of experience, for her consistently sound advice, and her exceptional ability to explain international issues to Americans while conveying U.S. policies and principles to the world. I believe that Madeleine Albright is eminently qualified to become Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues to join with me in approving her nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of the Family Farmer Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 1997. This legislation will provide relief for family farmers from a recent Internal Revenue Service decision regarding deferred payment contracts which could result in sizable and unexpected tax bills for the coming year. For over 16 years, family farmers in Maryland and across the country have used deferred payment contracts to sell their crops and livestock in order to better manage and even out their business income from year to year. The tax code has specifically permitted farmers to manage their business on a cash basis of accounting and use deferred payment contracts without AMT liability. However, a recent IRS decision to enforce alternative minimum taxation on all crop and livestock sales, including deferred payment contracts, effectively repeals farmers' ability to use these contracts to move their tax liability into future years. If relief is not soon provided, many family farmers will face sizable--and unexpected--tax bills for the coming tax year. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the law and ensure that family farmers can continue to receive the tax benefit provided from the use of the cash method of accounting and from installment sales for their deferred payment commodities contracts as Congress originally intended. I hope the committee will schedule hearings on this matter as quickly as possible so that this legislation can be enacted prior to the taxation filing deadline. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of the Family Farmer Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 1997. This legislation will provide relief for family farmers from a recent Internal Revenue Service decision regarding deferred payment contracts which could result in sizable and unexpected tax bills for the coming year. For over 16 years, family farmers in Maryland and across the country have used deferred payment contracts to sell their crops and livestock in order to better manage and even out their business income from year to year. The tax code has specifically permitted farmers to manage their business on a cash basis of accounting and use deferred payment contracts without AMT liability. However, a recent IRS decision to enforce alternative minimum taxation on all crop and livestock sales, including deferred payment contracts, effectively repeals farmers' ability to use these contracts to move their tax liability into future years. If relief is not soon provided, many family farmers will face sizable--and unexpected--tax bills for the coming tax year. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the law and ensure that family farmers can continue to receive the tax benefit provided from the use of the cash method of accounting and from installment sales for their deferred payment commodities contracts as Congress originally intended. I hope the committee will schedule hearings on this matter as quickly as possible so that this legislation can be enacted prior to the taxation filing deadline. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.