Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today by unanimous consent the House approved H.R. 3121, a bill that will make a real contribution to increasing transparency and improving congressional oversight over arms transfers. In taking this action, the House accepted the Senate-passed amendments, obviating the need for a conference and clearing the bill for signature by the President. Since no report was filed with the bill in the Senate, I would like to take this opportunity to explain some of the changes that were made in the Foreign Relations Committee, and the rationale behind them. First, we deleted a section that would have raised the thresholds above which arms sales must be notified to Congress. The current levels--$14 million for major defense equipment, $50 million for any defense articles or services, and $200 million for design and construction services--cannot be raised without reducing effective oversight, particularly since many of the most serious abuses of human rights take place with less sophisticated weapons systems. Second, we lengthened the notification period for grant transfers of excess defense articles to 30 days, which is the current standard under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. H.R. 3121 streamlines the existing excess defense article authorities, giving the administration added flexibility in many areas in exchange for a tight cap on the value of weapons that are provided to foreign countries without cost. Although it would have been preferable that this new cap of $350 million be calculated according to original acquisition cost rather than current value, the important point is that the cap is a firm one. I remain concerned, however, about procedures for determining the current value of excess defense articles. In January 1994, a GAO report found that ``irregularities in pricing/valuing EDA's compromise the reliability of EDA data.'' It concluded that ``the military services did not always adhere to guidelines for pricing/valuing EDA's, and as a result, the acquisition and current values of the EDA program were understated.'' According to pricing directives now in effect, equipment may be valued at anywhere between 5 and 50 percent of its original acquisition cost, depending on its age and condition. Over the past 4 years the current values have averaged about 25 percent of acquisition costs. It is the congressional expectation that, in implementing this provision, the Secretary of Defense will instruct the military services to adhere consistently to pricing directives that accurately reflect the value of the article to be transferred. Pricing decisions must be made without regard to the recipient of the article or to the amount of equipment that could be transferred within the statutory ceiling. A third change to the initial version of the bill is a renewal of the requirement in current law that excess defense articles be offered to Greece and Turkey at the same ratio that applies to foreign military financing. The purpose of this provision is to promote peace and stability in the eastern Mediterranean by maintaining the military balance and restraining arms transfers to the region. Fourth, we have reinstated an annual report that will show all the defense articles and services the United States provided to each foreign country in the previous fiscal year. There is growing concern about the proliferation of authorities under which the United States provides military aid, weapons and training to foreign countries. In addition to traditional sources such as grant military aid, international military education and training, leases and loans, and commercial sales, there have now been added such authorities as excess defense article transfers, drawdowns, cascading under the CFE Treaty, the defense export loan guarantee facility, and the military-to- military contacts program. Obviously it is important that, in making foreign policy decisions, we have a complete picture of all the ways in which we are providing arms or military assistance to other countries. Fifth, a provision was added repealing the sunset clause on the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. The NPPA, which refines and expands sanctions against countries and companies that help non-nuclear weapon states to acquire nuclear weapons, would otherwise expire with the enactment of the next State Department authorization bill. Finally, two new sections increase transparency in reporting of arms sales. Section 155 requires that certifications of government-to- government arms sales, which are submitted under section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act, and notifications of commercial arms sales, submitted under section 36(c), are printed in the Federal Register. Section 156 ensures that at least the name of the country and the type and quantity of equipment for which commercial export licenses are issued be publicly disclosed, unless the President determines this would be contrary to the national interest. This reverses the burden of proof that applies under current law, where commercial licenses are revealed only if the Secretary of State determines it to be in the national interest to do so. Both of these provisions are of particular interest to the arms control and human rights communities, who have experienced unnecessary difficulty in obtaining information about unclassified arms sales.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to add an additional point. That is, I think many employers are supportive of an increase in the minimum wage. In fact, the employers who spoke at this press conference this morning indicated they were in favor of raising the minimum wage. One of the press people said, ``If you are in favor of it, why do you not just go ahead and do it, and voluntarily raise it in your business?'' This lady had an immediate comeback, right on point. She said, ``If all my competitors will raise their wages, their payrolls, then I am quite prepared to do it. Otherwise, I am placed at a competitive disadvantage.'' In effect, under the current system, the only employer who is not responsive to the needs of his employee, in effect, dictates the standard, and it is all brought down to the lowest common denominator. For many employers, this enables them to do what they think ought to be done in any event--that is, give their employees a better wage. It will be done with a level playing field in terms of competition, so that employer--and I think there are not all that many--if they refuse to go up, they can be at a competitive advantage against those people who are more responsive to the needs of their employee and who understand the pressures that are upon them in today's age. This, in many respects, for many employers, means they have an opportunity to do what they think ought to be done, in any event. I want to make it clear, I think there are a great many employers across the country who take that position. They are not opposed to raising the minimum wage. They recognize that by raising the minimum wage, you keep the competition on a level playing field, and therefore they support the measure that is before the Senate. I very much hope, as the Senator from New York said, when we meet tomorrow we will be able to act in a positive manner on this very important matter.

Mr. SARBANES. Actually, the proposal, I think, coming from our colleagues on the Republican side is really a radical proposal.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, is that not exactly what this legislation does?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it. So in the past, in both Democratic and Republican administrations, we have increased the minimum wage. We usually have argued about how much to increase it and when to make it effective, and that usually has been the limit of the debate. Now we are confronted with a situation in which there is an effort to increase it, which, by every survey, commands overwhelming support amongst the American people, and then we are confronted with, as it were, the subterfuges which will erode the meaning of the extension in the minimum wage. The provision that I made reference to of a 180-day period at the old wage for everyone, regardless of age, and for the exclusion from coverage of this increase in the minimum wage of any business with revenues of under $500,000 a year, many of the workers of such businesses are today covered under the minimum wage law. But by the provisions of the amendment to be offered by my Republican colleagues, they would then be excluded. It ought not to be necessary to go through the really heart-rending stories of people trying to make it on a minimum wage in order to see the decency of enacting this modest increase. Forty percent of those at minimum wage salaries are single parents trying to support their children. At a minimum wage today they have a year-round income of $8,500. This places them well below the poverty level. This effort here, of course, to raise the minimum wage and bring additional income to these families would help them to meet their bills and in effect to begin to see some light at the end of the tunnel. I know this measure is opposed by some of the small business associations, although I am interested to note that a number of small businesses are in support of this proposition. As I indicated, at a press conference earlier today, there was testimony by a number of owners of small businesses in support of this measure. The decrease in the value of the minimum wage has served to widen the gulf between the wealthiest and the poorest in our society. In fact, as I indicated earlier, the real value of the minimum wage has deteriorated markedly. It will be at its lowest real value in the last 40 years if Congress fails to take action. In the late 1950's, in fact, the real value of the minimum wage was more than $5 an hour by today's standards. In the mid-1960's it peaked at $6.28. If you were making the minimum wage in the mid-1960's, to have that purchasing power today, you would have to have a minimum wage of $6.28 an hour. So it is not as though we are asking for some extraordinary thing here. It is not as though the increases that are being sought are out of some long-term trend. If anything, they are exceedingly modest. In the late 1950's, the minimum wage available then in purchasing power was better than $5 an hour at today's purchasing power levels. By the mid-1960's it was $6.28 an hour. Congress has failed to respond to the erosion of the value of the minimum wage over time. We now confront the situation where $4.25 an hour in purchasing power is the least it has been in 40 years. More than 70 percent of all minimum wage earners are 20 or above. The vast majority, about 60 percent, are women, many of them single heads of households. The time has come and gone for an increase in this minimum wage. It was last modestly raised in the Bush administration. I think obviously we need to raise it again. We need especially not to support this effort by my Republican colleagues in their amendment to carve out exemptions that, in effect, will render much of this meaningless. I mentioned two things: the exclusion of employees of businesses earning below $500,000 a year, which takes any increases in minimum wage protection away from workers now covered; a substantial number of workers. I also mentioned, of course, the fact that there is a subminimum wage for 180 days, for 6 months. Then, if that worker moves, because often those jobs come and go, they move into another low-wage job and get another 180 days at a subminimum wage. The third thing, which was not mentioned earlier in my references, is the effective date for the application of the minimum wage. The proposal of my Republican colleagues is to delay it until the beginning of next year, delay it for 6 months, in effect. This would obviously cost a minimum wage employee about $875 in the course of that period of time, just deny that increase. I defy anyone to make the case that someone should be able to support a family on $8,500 a year, which is what the current minimum wage works out to, $8,500 a year. So, Mr. President, I very much hope when the Senate comes to the vote, that the Republican amendment will be rejected, that we will support the proposition put forward by the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senate will finally approve an increase in the minimum wage, which is so important for literally millions of workers and their families across our country. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding to me.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment and, of course, in very strong support of the effort to raise the minimum wage. Historically, Congress has acted to guarantee minimum standards of decency for working Americans. The object of a Federal minimum wage is to make work pay well enough to keep families out of poverty and off of Government assistance. It is really an effort to ensure that any individual who works hard and plays by the rules should be assured of a standard of living for his or her family that is above the poverty line. It is very important to understand that this effort to provide a floor has marked our national policy now for almost six decades. I know many people think it is an imposition upon employers, but we had some interesting testimony this morning at a news conference from some small business people who came and testified in favor of the minimum wage. As one of the ladies who was there pointed out, they are caught by what their competitors do. Many of them would like to raise the wages of their workers of their own accord, but they have difficulty in doing this if their competitors do not do likewise. So they welcome a raise in the minimum wage because it, in effect, levels the playing field and ensures that the employer who is not concerned about providing a living wage for his employee will not dictate the standard of the industry. The minimum wage does not lift people very far, but it does lift them far enough so that there is the hope they will be able to work themselves out of poverty and stay off of dependency. It has been a national commitment now, as I said, for almost six decades. I think it is long past time to raise the minimum wage again. The minimum wage was last raised in 1989, if I am not mistaken. The minimum wage increase being proposed now is equivalent to what people got in 1989. In other words, the 1989 increase has, in effect, been used up by the rise in prices over the intervening 7 years. So you, in effect, are no better off at the minimum wage today than you were in 1989, when it was raised. In fact, the current level for the minimum wage in real terms--in other words, in purchasing power--is the lowest it has been in 40 years. Of course, this is at the very time, we are reading newspapers, magazines, and story after story about the incredible compensation the chief executives are receiving. Yet here we are, now, arguing about basic fairness and equity for the lowest paid workers, those at the very bottom of the pay scale. No one asserts that raising the minimum wage will correct everything, but it certainly will make an important difference to those who are on the low end of the income scale. It is argued, of course, that raising the minimum wage is going to cost jobs. Actually, there are studies that go both ways on this. Recently, there have been some very reputable studies that have found no evidence that the increase in wages results in reduced employment opportunities. One study in particular analyzed wage increases that were made in New Jersey and reached that conclusion. Others have found that during the late 1980's, moderate legislative increases did not reduce employment and were, if anything, associated with higher unemployment in some locales. Robert Solo, a distinguished Nobel laureate, distinguished professor of economics at MIT, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: The main thing about minimum wage research is that the evidence of job loss is weak and the fact that evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small. So I want to try to lay to one side this constant assertion that if you raise the minimum wage, you are going to cost a lot of people jobs. The counter to that, in addition to not costing them a lot of jobs, is that you will significantly improve the living standards of people receiving the minimum wage. Of course, as I have indicated, this is a two-step increase that is proposed in the Kennedy amendment, a 45-cent increase from $4.25 to $4.70 now and another 45-cent increase from $4.70 to $5.15 in the middle of next year. So you would have a two-step process to take the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour. Mr. President, I do not think we need a long argument about the equity and fairness of doing this. The statistics are very clear on that point. We know that people have been, in effect, slipping backward as a consequence of not raising the minimum wage now for 7 years, going on 8 years, this is the situation we are now confronting. But the real difficulty occurs in the amendment that is going to be offered by my colleagues on the other side, the Republican amendment, which they portray as their having a commitment to raising the minimum wage, but they just want to make some fine-tuning of it. Let us take a look at the fine-tuning, because it really is a shell game and the consequences of it would be very detrimental. First of all, they propose an exemption for employees who are on the job in the first 6 months. In other words, the first 180 days, you would get a subminimum wage. That is for workers of all ages. Previously, we have had a lesser wage for a very limited period of time for young workers; very limited, both in time and to the age group to which it applies, a so-called training wage. Unfortunately, a lot of training never took place, but, in any event, that was the theory of it. Now we are confronted with an exemption that would deny a minimum wage increase to all workers--all workers--regardless of age or experience for the first 6 months of their employment with any employer. In effect, you could begin to create a permanent class of subminimum wage workers. In fact, at the lower wages, workers are often changing jobs. They would be recirculated during this 180-day exemption. They would be kept at $4.25. This is a very bad concept, and it opens up an incredible loophole that could be exploited in the law to violate the very spirit of raising the minimum wage. The other proposal, as I understand it, in the Republican amendment which will be offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is to deny a minimum wage increase to employees in any company with less than $500,000 in annual revenues. So anyone who works in a company that has less than $500,000 in annual revenues--that is $10,000 a week in annual revenues, and we are talking now about a number of small businesses, well over 10 million employees--would be excluded altogether. They would just be exempted. Now, that means that many employees now covered by the minimum wage provisions--in other words, who receive the benefit of current law that requires they be paid the minimum wage-- would then be placed outside of the parameters with respect to any increases in the minimum wage. So, in effect, while asserting that they are extending the minimum wage on the one hand, they are taking it away on the other with respect to employees now covered in businesses that have revenues of less than $500,000 a year, and there are a significant number of such employees-- in the millions, in the millions. So, for the first time since the minimum wage was instituted in the 1930's, we are actually reducing coverage in a significant and substantial manner. That is why so many of us are asserting that what we really ought to do is have a clean minimum wage bill, and that is what the President has indicated he very much wants. We have done that in the past in Republican and Democratic administrations.

Mr. SARBANES. I see the Senator from North Dakota on the floor as well. Ten minutes?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Suppose someone takes a job and he gets the below wage for, say, 5 months, and then they let him go because they do not need him anymore. When that man or woman goes to another job, do they get the below minimum wage for another 6 months in the new job, as well?

Mr. SARBANES. If fortune should strike them that they are moving from one job to another, they could be kept below the minimum wage for successive periods of time, is that correct, for successive 180-day periods of time?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Do I understand under the proposal that our Republican colleagues want to put forward with respect to the minimum wage, as I understand it, you have an initial period when you are paid at below the minimum wage, is that correct, for 6 months?

Mr. SARBANES. If this exclusion of below $500,000 that the Senator made reference to--exclusion, I take it if you work for a company that has below $500,000 in sales, you are not covered by this increase in the minimum wage. As I understand it, that is a great many of the people. Many of the people who now work for such companies are, in fact, covered by the minimum wage. There are some such small companies that are only intrastate commerce, not interstate, but many are in interstate commerce and are now covered by the minimum wage, as I understand it. Under this proposal they would no longer be covered by the minimum. At least they would not receive this increase in the minimum wage. I take it they would still receive the current coverage, but they would not get this increase in the minimum wage. In effect, they would be dropped out from this legislation by this proposal, is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join the citizens of Maryland in honoring a distinguished public servant, and a respected role model, Lucille Maurer, who died earlier this month. I am proud to have served with Lucy Maurer in the Maryland House of Delegates after her appointment in 1969. While Lucy was selected to serve the people of Montgomery County, her interests and efforts extended far beyond parochial concerns, encompassing all the citizens of Maryland, especially the children. A formula that she was instrumental in devising--and in fact bears her name--the Lee-Maurer formula, is still used by the State of Maryland to determine the amount of State educational assistance that each county receives, and ensures those jurisdictions most in need received the state assistance they require to assure educational opportunities for all of Maryland's children. In addition to her commitment to the children of our State, Lucy was gifted with a keen grasp of State finances and budgeting issues which served her well as Maryland's first female treasurer. Elected to this position in 1987 by the State legislature, Lucy brought to the treasurer's office the same commitment and competence which characterized her service in the House of Delegates. Throughout her 35-year career in public service, as well as in her work with organizations such as the PTA and the League of Women Voters, Lucille Maurer was a person who effectively brought people together for worthy purposes and with commendable results. She was a positive and unifying force in our State and her quiet competence and pleasant demeanor will be deeply missed. She was a good friend and respected colleague in the public service, and I would like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to her husband, Ely and her sons, Stephen, Russell, and Edward. Mr. President, in testimony to Lucy's exceptional efforts on behalf of the people of Maryland, I ask that the following articles from the Baltimore Messenger, the Baltimore Sun, and the Washington Post, which pay tribute to this respected and honored individual be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the Baltimore Messenger, June 26, 1996] State Owes Maurer Debt of Gratitude The death of Lucille Maurer is a sad reminder of how far Maryland government has come since the days when bankers controlled the state treasurer. Or, more accurately, when you had to be a banker to become state treasurer. Partly because of reforms instituted by Maurer and the late Billy James, her immediate predecessor as state treasurer, those days are gone. For decades before they came along, the office was a fiefdom of Baltimore bankers favored by the General Assembly. This flowed from the quaint practice of letting the House and Senate elect the treasurer by joint ballot. Because a delegate's vote in this process is equal to a senator's vote and because delegates outnumber senators, this is one of the few situations in which the House holds the upper hand. Until 1966, the treasurer's post paid only $2,500 a year but was still one of the most prized jobs in Maryland politics. The reason? Banks paid little or no interest on the hundreds of millions deposited in them by the state, and the treasurer decided whose banks got this bonanza. He--it was always a man; Maurer was the only woman elected to the job in its 221-year history--also decided which politicians or other insiders got the juicy casualty insurance business on state property--schools, office buildings, even the State House and the governor's mansion itself. One state treasurer insisted that any qualified agent could play in this little game. When I tried to pry the list of participants from him to check this, he refused and threw me out of his office. There was no freedom of information law then, but the game began to fall apart when his refusal was reported. An indignant legislator made him cough it up. This led to more equitable distribution of the state insurance business. Then, with James and Maurer, came reform of the no-interest bank-deposit system. James, a highly respected former Senate president, was the first to require that banks pay interest on state accounts. Maurer refined the practice to include offsets of some banking services in exchange for interest. Both ran the office responsibly and never confused the banks' interests with the public interest. James, and now Maurer, are gone. But because they abolished an obsolescent, putrescent practice, the state owes lasting tribute to the memory of both.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment directing the Secretary of the Army to submit a comprehensive plan for basic repairs and stabilization measures needed throughout the historic district at the Forest Glen Annex of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, MD. This plan would also include funding options for the implementation of such plan. The Walter Reed Army Medical Center Annex at Forest Glen, MD is a 190-acre complex located just north of the Silver Spring business district. It was a former women's seminary known as the National Park Seminary. Acquired by the Army in 1943 by authority of the War Powers Act of 1942, it has served as a rehabilitation center and psychiatric facility for soldiers from World War II through the Vietnam war. The former college campus also contains approximately two dozen historic buildings on approximately 24 acres which comprise what is now referred to as the National Park Seminary Historic District. The site was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972. The site contains a number of historic or unique buildings, including houses shaped like a Dutch windmill, an English castle, a Japanese pagoda, a French chateau, and an Italian villa. Unfortunately, over the many years, many of these buildings have suffered substantial deterioration and neglect. The Army has sought unsuccessfully to excess the property for several years and has continued to plan for its eventual disposal. The National Trust has continued to work with the Army to assist in its assessment of options for the reuse of the property. During this time, even the most basic repairs to the buildings were not undertaken. Reports prepared by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Save Our Seminary and other organizations have found that, in general, the property is poorly maintained and insufficiently secure. Routine preventative maintenance, such as cleaning out gutters, is not being performed. Repairs to obvious deficiencies, such as holes in the roof and broken windows, are not being made in a timely way. On site security is lax. Fire alarm and fire suppression systems are not being adequately maintained. The military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1990 contained a provision directing the Department of the Army to provide up to $3 million for necessary repairs at the annex and to work with the Montgomery County government and local citizens groups in the planning process for this site. Although we understand that $2 million was allocated by the Army for the repair and maintenance of historic buildings, all of this money was apparently used for architectural planning and design of roof work. However, to date, no funding has been provided for these major repairs and the buildings are deteriorating at a faster rate than ever. The Army developed a master plan for the site which called for the existing historic buildings to be maintained and occupied by the Army as long as it retains ownership to ensure their maintenance and security. The master plan also identified specific maintenance priorities with work on repair and replacement of deteriorated roofs at the top of the list. In addition, a previous commanding officer at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center submitted a letter stating, ``WRAMC will continue to request funding for maintenance of the historic district and make every effort to halt the deterioration of these structures.'' Despite the findings of the master plan and the statements of support by Army officials, no work has been done to repair or maintain these buildings. In 1994 following the burning of the historic Odeon Theatre resulting in its destruction by arson, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Save our Seminary jointly filed a lawsuit against the Army claiming that the Army's neglect of the buildings violated the National Historic Preservation Act. The lawsuit is still pending. My amendment directs the Department of the Army to develop and submit a plan with appropriate funding options to implement such a plan for basic repairs and stabilization measures throughout the historic district at the Forest Glen Annex of Walter Reed Army Medical Center within 30 days of the enactment of this act. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am glad that the Senate today will complete action on S. 1815, the Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996. This is a reasonable bill, and appropriately so, for the Federal and State laws governing our securities markets and the participants in those markets are not in need of wholesale changes. All the evidence suggest that the U.S. securities markets are functioning well. Companies continue to raise capital in the U.S. markets in record amounts. In addition to established businesses, new companies have been raising capital in record amounts. Individual investor confidence in the securities markets, measured by direct investment in securities and investment through mutual funds and pension plans, remains high. The U.S. securities markets retain their preeminent position in the world. Still, where improvements to the securities laws are in order they should be made. This bill has two major themes: First, improvement of mutual fund regulation, and second, reallocation of responsibility between Federal and State securities regulators. It is appropriate to review the regulation of mutual funds, given the tremendous growth in this segment of the financial services industry. Mutual fund assets now equal insured bank deposits in size. The legislation contains a number of provisions supported by the SEC that are intended to allow mutual funds to operate more flexibly. With respect to the role of the States in securities regulation, let me say that the current system of dual regulation does not appear to place an undue burden on our securities markets. Not only are our markets a vibrant source of capital for established businesses and new businesses alike, foreign businesses also consider our markets attractive places to raise capital. State securities regulators play a crucial role in policing our markets. Still, dual regulation need not mean duplicative regulation. The State regulators themselves have convened a task force to recommend how securities regulation can be made more efficient and effective by dividing authority between the Federal and State level. I hope we will have the benefit of their thoughtful work before we complete action on this legislation. I am pleased that the managers amendment offered by Senator D'Amato at committee markup made some important improvements to the bill. In the mutual fund area, the managers amendment added two provisions that were recommended by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These allow the SEC to require mutual funds to provide shareholders with more current information, and to maintain additional records that will be available to the SEC. Given the importance that mutual funds now have as an investment vehicle for millions of American households, it is crucial that information be available for mutual fund shareholders, and these provisions address that need. The managers amendment also clarified the SEC's authority with respect to preemption of State laws regarding registration of securities. The SEC may preempt State laws only with respect to securities traded on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ, or other exchanges with substantially similar listing standards. The provision in the bill as introduced could have preempted State law for all exchange-traded securities, regardless of size or reputability. As modified by the managers amendment, the provisions in this bill strike a reasonable balance. They received unanimous support from the Senate Banking Committee. I would note that in some respects, particularly in the area of preemption of State law, the House bill goes further. We will have to craft a final product very carefully, so that any bill Congress might send to the President does not go too far in limiting the authority of the State regulators, thereby exposing investors to sharp practices.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Headquarters' Program Direction subaccount which is funded under the fiscal year 1997 DOD authorization. The House passed version of the fiscal 1997 Defense authorization cuts the Environmental Management Headquarters' Program Direction subaccount by $71 million. This office under the EM program boasts some of DOE's most technically savvy, highly trained employees--each of whom provide critical oversight for our Nation's extensive Defense Nuclear Safety and Waste Management initiatives. It is my understanding that the House's reduction in this subaccount was made precipitously-- without hearings or any other discussion of its long-term impact on the Department's ability to administer such an essential function. The Senate version of the DOD authorization retains funding for this important function and I urge my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to work to ensure that funding for the Environmental Management Headquarters' Program Direction subaccount will be upheld at the Senate level when the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization is taken up in conference. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the nomination was confirmed.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment which would establish a voluntary food donation pilot program at the service academies. The amendment would provide the academies with the necessary authority to donate surplus foods to nonprofit organizations for hunger relief efforts in their local communities. With the need for food assistance escalating, especially among our working poor, this additional source of food which might otherwise go to waste, could help to alleviate hunger in these surrounding communities. I look forward to the academies' voluntary participation in and the overall success of this program.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on May 9, 1996, Dr. John Brademas, Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy [NED], delivered a very thoughtful address to a conference on ``The Greek-U.S. Relationship and the Future of Southeastern Europe,'' organized by the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. I was fortunate to be able to attend a portion of that conference, at which some very important and difficult issues were discussed relating to the future of democracy in the Balkans. As my colleagues know, the National Endowment for Democracy is our Nation's premier institution for assisting in the transition from closed, authoritarian, and totalitarian systems to free and open systems of elected and accountable government around the world. Dr. Brademas, a longtime friend and former colleague, is one of the Nation's most highly regarded experts on the promotion and expansion of democracy, as well as a longtime observer and analyst of development in Southern Europe. His proposal for a Center for Democracy in the Balkans is therefore worthy of special note, and I commend his remarks to my colleagues. I ask that his remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Remarks of Dr. John Brademas I am for several reasons pleased to have been invited to Washington, D.C. to take part in this conference on U.S.- Greek relations and the future of Southeastern Europe. And I should like to salute the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, the Constantinos Karamanlis Foundation, the International Security Studies Program of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and the Lilian Voudoris Foundation for having brought together so many outstanding authorities on the subject. That the distinguished President of the Hellenic Republic, His Excellency Constantinos Stephanopoulos, as well as Foreign Minister Theodoros Pangalos and Education Minister George Papandreou and other prominent leaders from both Greece and the United States should be participating in these discussions is a mark of their great importance. And that both President Clinton's meeting with President Stephanopoulos and this conference come only one month following the visit here of Prime Minister Costas Simitis is but further indication of the close ties between our two countries. Another reason I am glad to have been asked to join you is that, as most of you know, I am a child of both Greece and the United States. My father was born in Kalamata and my mother in Indiana. As the first native-born American of Greek origin elected to the Congress of the United States, where I served for twenty-two years, I naturally had a particular interest in issues concerning Greece. But it was an interest deeply rooted in my commitment to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. For example, I was openly and strongly critical of the military junta of 1967 to 1974, and I opposed US military aid to Greece during that period. And, 22 years ago this summer, in company with my valued friend, now the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, Paul S. Sarbanes, and others, I was deeply engaged in the struggle between Congress and the White House following the unlawful use by Turkey of American weapons to invade and occupy the independent Republic of Cyprus. The failure of the executive branch of the US government of respect the Constitution and the rule of law contributed to the bitter legacy that, we all know, is with us still. The National Endowment for Democracy I must cite one more reason I'm pleased to be with you and that is to speak in my capacity as Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy. For one of the most important bonds between Greeks and Americans is that we have the good fortune to be citizens of lively democracies. Indeed, it is about our common commitment to the institutions and practices of democracy, of self-government, that I want to offer some brief comments this afternoon. For I believe that we in the American and Greek democracies--and the European democracies in general--have an obligation--this is not only a moral question but it is in our respective national interests--to promote free, open and democratic societies. Let me tell you a little about the National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, because it relates directly to my talk. Founded in 1983 by Act of Congress, the National Endowment for Democracy is a nonpartisan, non-governmental organization that champions, through grants to private entities in other countries, the institutions of democracy. NED grants are made to organizations dedicated to promoting the rule of law, free and fair elections, a free press, human rights and the other components of a genuinely democratic culture. I must add that a time when the political atmosphere in Washington is even more partisan than usual, NED is unique in enjoying strong support across party and ideological lines. Promoting Democracy in the Balkans As all of us here are profoundly concerned about developments in the Balkans, let me report to you on efforts of the National Endowment for Democracy to address some of the obstacles to democratization in that region. Albeit with modest funds, NED has supported programs to encourage the resolution of inter-ethnic conflict, greater political pluralism and economic reform as well as to strengthen the independent organizations necessary to form the basis of civil society in the area. For example, in Albania, NED is assisting a project of the American Federation of Teachers and the Albanian Teachers' Union to conduct ``Introduction to Teaching Democracy'' workshops. In Bulgaria, NED sponsors the Bulgarian Association for Fair Elections (BAFE), a network of community centers to stimulate civic participation at the local level. In Romania, NED has helped the League for Europe, which presses for better relations between Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania. The Endowment also supports several media outlets that produce impartial news on developments in the former Yugoslavia. Only a few weeks ago, our board approved grants to five independent media operations in Serbia/Montenegro (FRY). Now who can deny that the challenges to building democracy in this part of the world, especially in the areas ravaged by war, are immense, indeed, daunting? But, in my view, the enormity of the challenge is all the more reason for us to act. Certainly, it seems to me, the encouragement of free, open, stable and democratic societies throughout the Balkans must be of direct interest to the people of Greece. Not only would such developments contribute to Greek national security but to the Greek economy, too. I've already discussed with Greek business leaders the opportunities they see for expanding their markets in the region as well as enhancing the climate for foreign investment in Greece. In fact, even today Greek investments in banking and other private sector activities in the Balkans and throughout Southeastern Europe generate economic growth and ties that can, spur the democratic process. Remember, too, a consideration important to American policymakers, that Greece is the only country in the region that is a member of the European Union, Council of Europe and

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on Friday, May 3, I had the honor of joining with Secretary of State Christopher and the American Foreign Service Association [AFSA] in paying tribute to Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 32 other Americans who were tragically killed in Croatia while in service to our country. A plaque was also dedicated to three diplomats who died seeking peace in Bosnia less than a year ago. On the occasion we were reminded not just of the individuals who lost their lives in these terrible tragedies, but of the risks and sacrifices that members of our Foreign Service undertake on a daily basis in an effort to support peace, democracy and freedom around the globe. During the ceremony, held on the 31st annual Foreign Service Day, very moving speeches were delivered by Harold Ickes on behalf of President Clinton, by Secretary of State Christopher, and by F. Allen ``Tex'' Harris, president of AFSA. I believe their remarks bear repeating to a broader audience and thus ask that they be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Remarks by Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Harold Ickes, and F. Allen Harris Mr. Harris. Dear Family Members, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen and colleagues: The American Foreign Service Association has the sorrow- filled responsibility of honoring those members of the Foreign Service and our colleagues serving abroad who lost their lives under heroic or other inspirational circumstances. Today, we have the very sad duty of adding six names to the traditional Memorial Plaque: Samuel Nelson Drew. Robert C. Frasure. Joseph J. Kruzel. Ronald H. Brown. Lee F. Jackson. Stephen C. Kaminski. We have the deep sorrow of honoring all those who died with Secretary Ronald H. Brown: Gerald V. Aldrich. Niksa Antonini. Dragica Lendic Bedek. Duane R. Christian. Barry L. Conrad. Paul Cushman, III. Adam N. Darling. Ashley J. Davis. Gail E. Dobert. Robert E. Donovan. Claudio Elia. Robert Farrington, Jr. David Ford. Carol L. Hamilton. Kathryn E. Hoffman. Lee F. Jackson. Stephen C. Kaminski. Kathryn E. Kellogg. Shelly A. Kelly. James M. Lewek. Frank Maier. Charles F. Meissner. William E. Morton. Walter J. Murphy. Lawrence M. Payne. Nathaniel C. Nash. Leonard J. Pieroni. Timothy W. Shafer. John A. Scoville, Jr. I. Donald Terner. P. Stuart Tholan. Cheryl A. Turnage. Naomi P. Warbasse. Robert A. Whittaker. I now have the honor of introducing the personal representative of the President of the United States of America, Mr. Harold Ickes, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff. Mr. Harold Ickes. Secretary Christopher, Secretary Perry, Secretary Kantor, members of Congress, men and women of the Foreign Service, ladies and gentlemen. President Clinton asked me to be with you today as we honor an extraordinary group of Americans who gave their lives in service of their country and in the service of humanity. Before reading the President's dedication, let me say to the families and loved ones of Bob Frasure, Joe Kruzel, Nelson Drew, and to those of Ron Brown and his entire delegation, I know that this is a day of very, very mixed emotions. You've lost a father, a mother, a husband or a wife, a son or a daughter, a friend. The American people have lost some of their finest. On a very personal note, with the death of Secretary Ron Brown, I lost one of my closest friends and wisest advisers. Ron Brown was in his service and in his life a spring day. He let himself and all of us to believe that making a difference was a joy as well as a duty. He was an achiever of potential. His grace, his intelligence, his self-confidence without a trace of arrogance, and his abilities to motivate, to lead and to bridge were a rare combination of qualities. I am very proud and very fortunate to have had him as my friend. To Alma, Michael, Tracy, we will all miss him greatly. Let me now read the President's dedication. Each year on Foreign Service Day, hundreds of active and retired Foreign Service employees come together to discuss foreign policy initiatives. It is also a day of remembrance when the foreign affairs community honors its many colleagues who have given their lives in service of our country. ``As we pay tribute to the memory of those who we have lost, let us rededicate ourselves to the goal for which they lived: maintaining America's leadership in the fight for peace and freedom throughout the world. ``In today's increasingly interdependent world, our nation's future is linked more than ever to events that take place beyond our borders, to strengthen our security, promote our prosperity and advance our interests. As we move towards the 21st century, America must stay engaged. ``Whether supporting peace, freedom and democracy and other transnations threats, combating environmental degradation, opening markets and expanding of trade, the American Foreign Services has a critical role to play. ``Our Foreign Affairs men and women serve on the front lines, often in demanding and sometimes dangerous surroundings. I'm committed to do all I can to insure that Congress provides the funding we need to support your essential work. ``This year, our nation has lost some of its best and brightest public servants, and I have lost a very dear friend. The American people will not forget the contributions made by Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and the 34 members of his delegation who died in a plane crash on a fog-shrouded mountainside in Croatia. ``They were on an important mission to bring development and economic stability to a wartorn region far from home. Unfortunately, theirs is not the only recent tragedy in that part of the world. We finally and respectfully remember our colleagues, Robert Frasure, Joseph Kruzel and Samuel Nelson Drew who lost their lives in Bosnia. ``These men, who represented the Department of State, the Department of Defense and the National Security Council and the United States Air Force, embodied the spirit of service that sets our nation apart. Their heroic efforts helped bring an end to four years of bloodshed and gave the children of Bosnia a chance to grow up in peace. ``To all Foreign Service professionals, active and retired, and their family members in the United States and abroad who support America's values worldwide, I send my deepest thanks and appreciation.'' Bill Clinton. Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. I now have the great honor of introducing a distinguished American with a long, long successful record of service to this nation and to his community. Family members, distinguished guests, ladies, gentlemen, colleagues, the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. Secretary Christopher. Thank you, Tex, Harold, Senator Kassenbaum. Senator Sarbanes, Secretary Perry, Secretary Kanter, and other distinguished guests here today. Let me extend a special welcome to the families of the men and women we are honoring today. You will always be a close part of the State Department family. As the President has said, we come together every year on this day to celebrate the dedication and the accomplishments of the Foreign Service. But this is often a sad day as well because it is the day we add names to the memorial plaques in remembrance of our colleagues who gave their lives in service to their country. Thirty years ago there were 72 names on this wall, covering all of American history since 1780. Now the list has grown to 188. And in the last year, two terrible tragedies have reminded us again that in this dangerous world, duty and sacrifice often go hand in hand. We often say that we must take risks for peace. Today we see that the risks are all too real. To our sorrow, we learn that peace cannot be made through telephone or fax. It usually can't be made in Washington or in Geneva. It can only be made by people who are willing to fly where the bullets fly, to go where roads are treacherous and where safety and security are often missing in action. Sadly, we can't take the danger out of diplomacy. But we can and must honor the peacemakers and their deeds. And we can make sure the American people know of the sacrifices the peacemakers make for our sake. Last August in Bosnia three American diplomats were on their way to the besieged city of Sarajevo when they lost their lives on a muddy mountain road. Bob Frasure, Joe Kruzel, and Nelson Drew believed that peace was possible in Bosnia. And they were certainly right. Indeed, they were the path-finders who made peace possible. Just a month ago, Ron Brown and a team of government officials and business leaders were on a journey to Croatia. They lost their lives trying to make sure that the peace our diplomats had forged would endure. They were convinced that American capital and American know-how could help rebuild that shattered land, that it could give the people of that country a reason to resist the temptations of war. And they, too, were right. As I have travelled the world in the weeks since these two tragic events, I have received a chorus of condolences from leaders all around the world who understand the sacrifices made by the families of the men and women who died in those tragic events. A short time ago, when I was in Sarajevo and in the compound of our Embassy, I planted two dogwood trees in honor of Bob Frasure. But by far the most eloquent tribute to his work, and to Joe's and to Nelson's and to Ron's and all those we honor today, has been the return of normal life that I could see all around me in Sarajevo. Every school reopened, every family reunited, every road and factory rebuilt is a monument to the service of these brave Americans. That monument, of course, is a work in progress. It is being shaped by countless hands--by our diplomats, our soldiers, by our civil servants, and by the people of the region. The memory of our fallen colleagues impels us not to rest--not to rest at all--until this work is completed. The men and women we honor today, as the President said, will always represent what is best about America. They were generous enough to share their talent and spirits with others. They were dedicated enough to make sacrifices in the cause of public service. They were realistic enough to know that America's fate is inseparable from the fate of the world. And they were optimistic enough to believe that the difficult problems can be solved but only solved when America is determined to overcome them. Thinking of them, I was reminded of something that one of our visitors this week, Shimon Peres, once said: ``Nobody will ever really understand the United States . . . You have so much power, and [yet] you didn't dominate another people; you have problems of your own, and [yet] you have never turned your back on the problems of others.'' Anyone who knew these wonderful friends and colleagues understands something very important about America. Anybody who passes through this hall and who pauses to think about the lives behind the names of the people on these plaques will understand something about the American ideal. Here, in the presence of these names, there is not an ounce of cynicism about the country or about the people who represent it. So even as we mourn, let us keep alive the spirit that gave these lives such meaning. And let these names be a reminder to us all--a reminder of the risks and hardships that dedicated Americans endure for their country, and let it be a reminder of the constant need to carry on their work, our work, until it is finally finished. Thank you very much.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the chairman of the committee and of the ranking member of the committee. I just want to say at the outset what an outstanding job I think the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, has done with respect to the budget that we are now considering. I was privileged to be very supportive of his position in the committee, and continue to be so. I want to thank him for the leadership that he provided on our side of the aisle. Mr. President, I want to take just a moment or two to sound what may be an alarm bell in the night and take what is perceived as not the most popular position. But I want to talk a little bit about the 150 account--that is the international affairs account in this budget--and to simply sound a warning that I think we have been reducing that 150 account in successive years in such a way that we are now impeding upon our ability to perform as a great power in the world. The budget that is before us and that has been brought out of committee would cut the international affairs portion of the budget by more than $1 billion from the President's request. The President requested $19.2 billion, and the bill reported from the committee cuts it to $18.1 billion. The actual international affairs spending in this particular account in the budget, which covers all of our responsibilities abroad other than the military, was $20.8 billion in fiscal year 1994, and $20.1 billion in fiscal year 1995. It is estimated at $18.5 billion for fiscal year 1996. So we are making a very significant cut from historical levels. In other words, international affairs spending has been brought down from $20.8 billion in fiscal year 1994 to $18.1 billion in fiscal year 1997, which is a cut of almost $3 billion just in that short period of time. That represents a cut of about 15 percent in the budget that we have to carry out our responsibilities internationally. In fact, our international affairs budget has been reduced by 50 percent in real terms over the last decade. In other words, if you adjust for inflation and take a 10-year period, we, in effect, are cutting by 50 percent our ability to carry out programs in the international arena. We are in the process now of asking the international affairs budget to do more and are providing less with which it can be done. During the 1980's, we did not have democratic, market-oriented regimes in Eastern Europe. At that time we were building nuclear weapons instead of trying to help the Russians destroy and dismantle them. We had one Embassy to cover a country, the Soviet Union, where we now have 15 separate countries. At that time neither Jordan nor the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist, so we had no stake in their economic vitality. We had economic sanctions against South Africa; now we are trying to help South Africa rebuild. All of these are new responsibilities and opportunities over the last few years. So, in fact, our responsibilities increased rather than diminished, and particularly if the arena of competition or concern shifts from the military into the political and economic arena. Only about 1 percent of the Federal budget is spent on foreign aid, and less than half of that goes to humanitarian and development programs. In fact, the United States ranks dead last among 21 industrialized members of the OECD in the percentage of GNP that we spend on development assistance. All of these other countries have made the judgment that they have an important interest in helping the rest of the world to develop; so much so that they are prepared to commit a larger percentage of their GNP than we are to development assistance. I know these are not popular facts to bring before the country, but I think it is important for those of us who carry the responsibility which comes with being Members of the U.S. Senate to stop and consider it because we have to square the rhetoric about being the world's leader with the reality of how that is accomplished. In fact, there is, apparently, a great deal of misconception across the country. A nationwide poll done last January by the University of Maryland found that a majority of Americans, when asked what percentage of the budget they think is spent on foreign assistance said 15 percent or higher. The majority said 15 percent or higher. When they were asked how much they thought should be spent, they said on average about 5 percent. In fact, we spend about 1 percent. There is a tremendous disparity in perception. The majority think we spend more than 15 percent of our budget for this purpose when we in fact spend about 1 percent. I am very frank to say to my colleagues that if the United States is going to continue to be a great power, we have to commit the resources to carry out our responsibilities as a great power. This is particularly true in the post-cold-war era, when a range of complex problems faces us. That means coming up with adequate funding for the conduct of our foreign affairs. In my view, we have already cut well below the minimum level that is necessary to sustain American leadership in the world. I really want to sound that warning. I am persuaded that over time, if this trend continues, it will become obvious to everyone what we have done to ourselves. But I think we need to apply some analysis and attention now in order to ascertain that situation, and I am frank to say I think we have crossed the danger point and are now in the zone where our leadership ability is being eroded and undermined. The various cuts have very detrimental effects on our ability to conduct an effective foreign policy. It would be one thing if people were saying we want a little America, something with which I do not agree. But if they say we are going to have a little America and we are going to shrink back from the responsibilities and, therefore, we are going to shrink resources, that at least would be a consistent position. But to articulate a rhetorical position in terms of America being the world leader and playing the first and foremost role in exercising international responsibilities, and then have a huge gap between that statement and the resources with which to carry out those responsibilities, is illogical and inconsistent. The United States now is the largest debtor at the United Nations. As the Washington Post put it in a recent editorial, we are the ``global deadbeat.'' We are so far behind in paying our assessments to some of the international financial institutions that our arrearages exceed our scheduled annual payments. We are, indeed, exasperating and disappointing our friends and allies who desire and support American leadership. They desire and support American leadership. But we continually dictate ever longer lists of demands and provide ever shorter resources with which to carry them out. Aid to the poorest countries has been reduced by nearly 30 percent from last year, jeopardizing the progress we have made in reversing environmental degradation, slowing population growth, preventing the spread of deadly disease, building economic self-sufficiency, promoting democracy, resolving conflicts peacefully, stemming the flow of illegal drugs and countering the threat of nuclear proliferation. All of these are very important objectives. Consulates have been closed and embassy staffs reduced all over the world, making it impossible to provide the services that Americans abroad expect and deserve. We have closed 30 posts abroad since 1993, and 13 more are slated for closure this year. Some of this scrubdown of posts needed to be done. But once again, I think we have gone beyond the point of diminishing returns and we now are really eroding our capacity to carry out an effective foreign policy. While some question the importance of ambassadors and embassies in an era of CNN, supersonic travel, and instant global communication, I think this skepticism is misplaced. We need to have our ambassadors and their embassy teams on the ground, around the globe promoting human rights, conflict resolution, antiterrorism and counter- narcotics cooperation, U.S. economic interests and U.S. exports, for example. Many of the embassies have significantly improved their performance by working with the American business community in a very significant and substantial way. We need consular officers to assist U.S. visitors and business people, to issue visas, replace lost passports and cut through redtape when Americans run into difficulties abroad. We need them to spread good will, to exemplify American values and to deal with sensitive situations before they become full-blown emergencies. This experienced corps of professionals is the face of our Nation around the world. Yet our diplomatic service is forced to rely on computer software, office equipment, buildings and services that are outmoded, unreliable, inefficient, and sometimes even unsafe. Diplomacy in the 1990's is being carried out on the technology of the 1960's and 1970's, and no relief is in sight. These cuts are particularly troubling when juxtaposed to very large, unrequested increases in defense spending. The budget adds almost as much for defense, over and above the amount the Pentagon asked for, than is spent on the entire foreign aid budget for a year. In other words, we are cutting substantially the 150 account, our diplomacy account, our political and economic interest account, at the same time that we are increasing the military account over and above what the Pentagon sought. It seems to me a matter of common sense that by investing a little bit in preventive diplomacy you may be able to address situations while they are amenable to economic and political solutions rather than wait until they become full-blown crises and require the presence of our military. By sacrificing investment in preventive political and economic measures, we will only be postponing and probably escalating the ultimate costs. Of course, effective diplomacy is enhanced by a strong military and the readiness to apply it, but our military strength ought not to become our prime recourse for influencing situations in the international arena. In fact, I think the task of the next century will be to hone our diplomatic, economic, and political skills so that we can protect our interests without having to put our troops in harm's way. It is increasingly clear that in the 21st century American interests in the world will be heavily economic and political. We need to ensure open markets and fair trade to promote American prosperity. We need to avert conflicts that will cause human suffering, refugee flows, environmental destruction, and economic dislocation. We must combat international terrorism and prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. None of these goals can be achieved on a unilateral basis. None of them can be undertaken by military action alone. And none of them can be achieved without sufficient resources. The 150 account is important to meeting our responsibilities as a world leader. By not allocating adequate resources, we may indeed encounter disastrous consequences. Further cuts are not just ill-conceived; they are downright dangerous to our national security and to achieving American objectives around the world. I urge my colleagues, although I know it runs against a perception of popular sentiment, to examine carefully what we are doing to our ability as a nation to carry out our responsibilities as a world leader. It cannot be done if we do not commit the resources with which to do it. And we now have reached the point where I think we have so drastically reduced our commitment in this area that we are markedly affecting our ability to act as a world leader. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the significant efforts of the Congressional Fire Services Institute, including those of Executive Director Bill Webb and others, in organizing the Eighth Annual National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner last night. Due to the tireless commitment of CFSI, this terrific event provided a highly appropriate opportunity to honor and thank the men and women of the fire service who risk their own lives every day to protect the lives and property of others. In the 8 years since its inception, the annual dinner has grown beyond expectations, attracting an increasingly large number of friends and members of the fire service from across the country. It has attracted scores of dignitaries over the past 8 years including President Clinton who spoke at last year's dinner. Last night's program featured Vice-President Al Gore and majority leader Dole and a number of Congressional Caucus members from both sides of the aisle demonstrating a continued bipartisan commitment and expression of gratitude to the fire service. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to commend the Congressional Fire Institute for its efforts in promoting fire related issues and in honoring the men and women of the fire service in a way that reflects the grace and valor with which they protect us all.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in commemorating the 81 years since the tragedy of the Armenian genocide unfolded. Today we pause to remember the victims of this great tragedy and to pay our respects to the survivors. Indeed it is important that we take this occasion to educate ourselves about the events that constituted the Armenian genocide, and to resolve never to remain indifferent in the face of such assaults on humanity. Respect for the memories of the Armenians who were martyred in this great tragedy demands that humanity never forget this day. It also represents an opportunity for people of goodwill to honestly confront the past and move to genuine reconciliation. We are also pleased that after centuries of oppression, the Armenian people are again now free and independent. The Republic of Armenia is proof that the Armenian spirit is alive and vibrant and, despite enormous outside pressures, is making progress and flourishing. As Armenia struggles to reenter the society of nations, it is instructive for us to recognize the sacrifices of the victims of the genocide. The anniversary of this tragedy holds special meaning to Armenians everywhere and, in spite of a history of many hardships, difficulties and adversity faced by the Armenian people, the community has strengthened its resolve to survive and prosper. Armenian-Americans are one of the best examples of an indomitable human spirit. The contribution of the Armenian community to the cultural, social, economic, and political landscape of America is a source of great strength and vitality in our Nation. Americans of Armenian origin have kept alive, and not let tragedy shatter, the rich faith and traditions of Armenian civilization. As we recall the Armenian genocide, it is important to recognize that it was the culmination of an abhorrent pattern of persecution against the Armenian community living in the Ottoman Empire. During the period 1894-1896, and again in 1909, tens of thousands of Armenians lost their lives. On April 24, 1915, 300 Armenian intellectuals, religious and political leaders, and professionals were rounded up by Ottoman authorities and taken to remote parts of Anatolia from where they never returned. At least 250,000 Armenians who loyally served in the Ottoman army were expelled and forced into labor battalions where executions and starvation were common. Men, women, and children were deported from their villages and obliged to march for weeks in the Syrian desert where a majority of them lost their lives. The unfortunate campaign against this community earlier in this century resulted in widespread deportations and death. More than 1.5 million innocent men, women, and children, out of a total of 2.5 million Armenians living within the Ottoman Empire, lost their lives. Entire families were destroyed, and thousands of survivors were scattered around the world. In fact, contemporaneous newspaper accounts in the United States describing these atrocities inspired Americans to contribute $113 million in humanitarian assistance from 1915 to 1930 to help the survivors. Americans eventually adopted 132,000 Armenian orphans into this country. One of the most prominent and reliable accounts of the Armenian genocide is provided by the distinguished United States ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time, Henry Morgenthau. In an article published in the Red Cross magazine in 1918, Morgenthau described the wide-scale and systematic attempts by the Ottomans to crush the Armenian community as, ``the Greatest Horror in History.'' Abram Elkus, Morgenthau's successor, also cabled the State Department that the Young Turks policy against the Armenians was an ``unchecked policy of extermination through starvation, exhaustion, and brutality of treatment hardly surpassed even in Turkish history.'' Both the German and Austrian ambassadors, apprehensive about the attacks against the Armenians, conveyed their concerns directly to the Ottoman leadership. In July of 1915, Hans Von Wangenheim, the German Ambassador to the Ottomans, advised his own government to distance itself from the Ottoman leadership for what he viewed as a campaign to rid ``the Armenian race in the Turkish empire.'' Extensive evidence, documentation, and first hand accounts have been collected over the years regarding this dark period, much of which is held in our own National Archives. In 1987, it was fitting that the Holocaust Council expressed its support for making the Armenian genocide part of the permanent exhibits at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In its statement, the council declared that ``the fate of the Armenians should be included in any discussion of genocide in the twentieth century.'' Several years ago, Elie Wiesel spoke at a Holocaust memorial service here in the Congress and expressed the importance of recognizing the Armenian genocide. He stated, ``Before the planning of the final solution, Hitler asked, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' He was right. No one remembered them, as no one remembered the Jews. Rejected by everyone, they felt expelled from history.'' Mr. President, we must never forget the moral lesson of the Armenian genocide and honor it by renewing our commitment to human rights and democratic principles.