Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as I think most of our colleagues know, Mrs. Christine Mikulski, the mother of our dear friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski, passed away on March 31, during our Easter recess. My wife and I were fortunate to know ``Miss Chris,'' as she was known to all, for many years, and were privileged to call her our friend. Miss Chris was enormously proud of the accomplishments of her daughter, our colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski, as indeed are we all. Miss Chris played a key role in all of Barbara's campaigns, and a key role in Barbara's life, to really be very explicit about it. She was an effective and enthusiastic volunteer in Senator Mikulski's constituent service office in her home neighborhood of Highlandtown in east Baltimore. Indeed, she became known as Miss Chris, the First Lady of Highlandtown. And, indeed, she was a first lady. Miss Chris was an extraordinary woman beloved by her family and friends. She was part of that immigrant generation--her father was born in Poland--that built our Nation over the early decades of this century. She reflected that determination of spirit, courage and strength of character, which are exactly the values we hold out to our young people to emulate today. In an eloquent and heartfelt tribute at the funeral service on Wednesday, April 3, Senator Mikulski spoke movingly about her mother and about the many ways in which her mother was so special to her family, her community, her church, and all who were privileged to know her. I simply wanted to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues Senator Mikulski's eloquent tribute to her mother on that occasion. I ask unanimous consent that her tribute be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 1028, The Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995. While S. 1028 is not the comprehensive reform of our health system which would be necessary to guarantee quality health care for all Americans, it does make important strides in reducing the barriers to coverage for over 25 million people in this Nation. The legislation before us today, S. 1028, would attempt to make modest incremental reforms in the health insurance market by addressing only those provisions upon which there is broad bipartisan agreement. In fact, the President and over 65 of my Senate colleagues are in agreement, supporting this legislation which would have an immediate impact on the lives of over 25 million people. For these Americans who are unable to change jobs, who cannot leave their jobs to start a new business, or who lose their jobs, S. 1028 would provide an assurance of continued access to health insurance coverage. It would end the incidence of job lock in this country by limiting the ability of health insurers to deny coverage for people with preexisting medical conditions. Once an initial exclusion period of no longer than 12 months was exhausted no preexisting condition exclusion could ever be applied to a policy holder again. It would also guarantee that a group or individual who purchased an insurance policy and faithfully paid their premiums, could never have their coverage taken away from them or canceled. Mr. President, the health care debate is one that goes to the heart of the quality of life of all Americans. Access to quality health care is a fundamental human need and is in my view a fundamental right in a democratic society. Our challenge is to achieve a situation in which every American has access to affordable, quality health care. While there is much more that I would like to do to ensure that each and every American is guaranteed the same high quality comprehensive care, the bill before us today makes important steps toward accomplishing this goal and improving the lives of over 25 million Americans and I urge its immediate passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to join the people of Maryland in celebrating the tricentennial anniversary of the founding of Prince Georges County on April 23, 1696. Over the centuries the residents and leadership of Prince Georges County have demonstrated a remarkable commitment to preserving their rich historic legacy, while encouraging economic growth and cultural enrichment. While evidence suggests that the first human settlements in the area later to be called Prince Georges County existed over 10,000 years ago, the first documented visit to the region occurred in 1608 when Captain John Smith sailed up the Potomac River to map the Chesapeake Bay region and search for food for the fledgling Jamestown Colony. Captain Smith paid only a brief visit to this region which, less than a century later, would be home to about 1,700 Marylanders. This rich land extending from Mattawoman Creek in the south all the way to the Pennsylvania border was proclaimed a self-governing county by the colonial Governor in 1696, and was named Prince Georges County in honor of Prince George of Denmark, husband of Princess Anne, heir to the throne of England. Due to the abundance of fertile farm land, agriculture dominated the local economy in colonial times, contributing to the livelihood of almost every Prince Georges County inhabitant. Preservation of this important aspect of colonial life has remained a priority to the residents of Prince Georges County who, through groups such as the Accokeek Foundation, work to maintain the National Colonial Farm, displaying to all a continuum of American farm life from the 1600's through the 18th century. Evidence of the importance of the agricultural economy in southern Maryland remains in many aspects of Prince Georges County life, including the Maryland higher education system. In 1856, in order to educate the sons of colonial farmers and to foster the exchange of new ideas, the Maryland Agricultural College--the first of its kind in the Nation--was established in Prince Georges County. Today we know the Maryland Agricultural College as the University of Maryland College Park, the flagship institution of the University of Maryland system. While agriculture was the predominant force in the Prince Georges County economy, the push for western expansion in Maryland led to the growth of thriving commercial and trading centers such as Upper Marlboro, Laurel and Bladensburg. Cotton mills, steamboats, and railroads resulted in increased commercial development, strengthening the county's ties with Europe and other American colonies and leading to increased economic development. This early entrepreneurial spirit continues to flourish and thrive today. Prince Georges County is now home to over 13,600 businesses which employ over 223,700 workers. Major employers including Giant Food, United Parcel Service, and Dimensions Health Corporation serve to make Prince Georges County a prime example of a large and prospering business community, while the Prince Georges County Economic Development Corporation has been nationally recognized for its programs to assist individual entrepreneurs and small minority-owned businesses. The county's close proximity to the District of Columbia has been another factor in its evolution and maturation. Over the years towns and cities have sprung up to meet the needs of a growing community of Federal employees who increasingly choose to live outside the Federal city in suburban Maryland. Towns such as Takoma Park, New Carrollton, Greenbelt, and District Heights are home to the over 87,000 Federal employees who work both in the District and at the many Federal installations which are located in modern Prince Georges County. Prince Georges County is today one of the Nation's largest and most vibrant subdivisions, winning widespread acclaim and national recognition for its success in promoting diversity and opening up the doors of opportunity for all of its citizens. This well-deserved reputation as a national model is due to a strong sense of community and cooperation among its residents and to enlightened and visionary leadership. In the forefront of these efforts have been our respected Governor and former Prince Georges County Executive Parris Glendening, two of my distinguished colleagues in the Congress, Representatives Steny Hoyer and Albert Wynn, and the present dynamic County Executive Wayne Curry. Such citizens and leaders throughout history have guided Prince Georges County from a region of frontier wilderness and rural plantations to today's modern urban communities and advanced agricultural centers. Prince Georges County has adapted to meet the changes wrought by the centuries, while preserving the evidence of 300 years of growth and progress. This tricentennial celebration pays tribute to the rich legacy of our Maryland ancestors and bears testament to the limitless promise and potential of Prince Georges County.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to our wonderful colleague and dear friend Ed Muskie who passed away late last month. A distinguished public servant, an accomplished legislator, and a man of great integrity and humanity, Edmund Sixtus Muskie represented the best of the Senate and of the Nation. Throughout his career in public service Senator Muskie exhibited a rare and remarkable gift; his extraordinary ability to see opportunities where others could not and to translate those opportunities into positive changes for the people of Maine and the Nation. Ed Muskie began his career of dedicated public service in the Maine Legislature where he initially served as part of a small Democratic minority. From this modest beginning, he assumed the reins of the Maine Democratic party and revitalized it by exercising the vision and leadership necessary to involve people more fully in the political process. His efforts led to his own election as Maine's first Democratic governor in 20 years, and in 1958, he became the first popularly elected Democratic Senator in Maine's history. But the depth and breadth of Ed Muskie's vision extended far beyond Maine politics. Upon his arrival in the U.S. Senate, he continued to exhibit the same straightforwardness and independent thinking that won him the trust of the citizens of Maine. These traits enabled him to make the Environment and Public Works Committee the forum which produced this Nation's landmark environmental protection legislation, the Clean Air Act and the Water Quality Act. These critical environmental statutes changed the way Americans view our precious natural resources and his work provided the foundation upon which all subsequent environmental protection statutes have been built. In addition, his efforts were instrumental to the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, establishing the beginnings of the modern coordinated Congressional budget process. As the first chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Ed Muskie was committed to the effective disciplined Federal spending; demonstrating that promoting fiscal responsibility and meeting the needs of our people were complementary objectives. Throughout his lifetime of public service, Ed Muskie was a man his country could turn to in a time of crises. As a U.S. Senator, a vice- presidential and then presidential candidate, and as Secretary of State, he demonstrated an unsurpassed commitment to improving the welfare of all Americans. In his candid, forthright and honest way, he encouraged the free exchange of ideas within the democratic process, working to transcend partisan boundaries and foster what he called a ``politics of trust'' in this Nation. One of his many legacies to our country is the large number of former Muskie staff members who under his leadership made such extraordinary contributions to our Nation's welfare. Many of these individuals continue to render dedicated public service and they constitute a national asset which is yet another tribute to Ed Muskie's sterling qualities. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity not only to honor the life and service of Edmund Muskie, but to extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to his wife, Jane, and to his children, Stephen, Ellen, Melinda, Martha, and Ned, and their families. We thank them for sharing their husband and father with the Nation--America is a far better place for Ed Muskie's contributions. On Saturday, March 30, 1996, an exceptionally moving service for Ed Muskie was held at the Church of the Little Flower in Bethesda, Maryland, followed by burial at Arlington National Cemetery. At that service, eloquent and heartfelt eulogies were delivered which greatly moved all of us who were present. In testimony to Ed Muskie's life of quality and honor, I ask unanimous consent that these eulogies be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, let me say that the resolution which has just been passed represents a great deal of effort over a considerable period of time and obviously encompassed accommodations and adjustments on both sides and from many parties. I believe the resolution provides us now with the framework for the completion of the work of the special committee on Whitewater. The resolution requires the submission of the special committee's final public report by the 17th of June, and provides a budget to carry forward this work which we believe is adequate for the task. It provides for the hearings to end by the 14th of June. I must say, I hope, as the chairman has stated, that we are able to conduct through this period of time fair and thorough and objective hearings. The chairman is right, an effort has been made to do that in the past, I think with a fair amount of success, although as he observed we have had on occasion perhaps strayed off that path somewhat. I hope we do not, as we move forward now from today into the middle of June. Many people contributed to making this possible. I want to recognize the contributions of the colleagues on my side, Senators Dodd and Bryan and Boxer and Murray and Moseley-Braun and Kerry and Simon and, of course, the chairman and his colleagues who have worked on this. And, of course, the two leaders have been involved to some extent in order to bring this matter to this point. The committee back in January, pursuant to the previous resolution, was required to report to the Senate about whether additional time was needed. At the time, there was a difference of opinion about that. The majority said additional time was needed; the minority felt not. We had a sharp difference about that. The minority leader made a proposition for an extension. The majority, of course, had a resolution before us for an unlimited extension. This, of course, is not an unlimited extension, and I think it is very important to recognize that. I simply close by saying that I hope in the weeks to come, now as we approach the 17th of June for the submission of the final report, that we will be able to move ahead expeditiously with our work. It is the intention of the minority to seek to work in a constructive way with the majority to carry out these hearings in a responsible manner, not really to explore allegations, not to make allegations, but to carry out the kind of hearings for which the Senate can take some measure of comfort that it has been done according to appropriate standards. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join the citizens of Maryland in honoring a distinguished public servant, an accomplished trial lawyer, and, above all, a courageous man, Victor Crawford, who died earlier this month after a long battle with cancer. I first met Vic in January 1967 as a newly elected member of the Maryland House of Delegates. He was an articulate and skilled master of the legislative process who, throughout his years in the Maryland Legislature, enjoyed a deserved reputation as a dazzling orator and tenacious advocate for the people of Maryland. But Vic's crowning achievement came not in the legislative arena, but in his nationally acclaimed battle for stronger antismoking laws. After years as a heavy smoker and a period spent as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, Vic became a staunch and vocal advocate for antismoking legislation and education and prevention efforts. Vic dedicated himself wholeheartedly to this important mission which he conducted with the same skill and determination that characterized his legislative career. Vic's indomitable efforts in this area brought him to the attention of President Clinton who believed Vic's strong antismoking message should be shared, not just with Marylanders, but with all Americans, and invited him to address the Nation on his weekly radio broadcast. It was among his finest hours and Vic's words inspired citizens throughout the Nation to work for stronger antismoking laws. His last years were not easy, but with humor and determination Vic lived out his life in dignity and exhibited the same courage and strength we had all come to expect from this remarkable man. Vic Crawford was a good friend and a valued counselor. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to his wife, Linda, and to his children, Charlene and Victor Junior. Mr. President, in testimony to Vic's exceptional service on behalf of all Americans, I request that obituaries from the Baltimore Sun, the New York Times, and the Washington Post which pay tribute to this respected and honorable man, be printed in the Record. The obituaries follow: [From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1996] Former Lawmaker, Lobbyist Is Remembered by Friends; Glendening Eulogizes Antismoking Activist Victor L. Crawford, the former Maryland legislator and tobacco lobbyist who turned into a national voice against smoking after he was found to have throat and lung cancer, was honored yesterday at a memorial service in College Park attended by nearly 1,000 mourners. Crawford, who died March 2 at age 63 after a two-year bout with cancer, was remembered fondly by people who had contact with him at various points of his life, from Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening to Carl Nuzman, 23, a student at the University of Maryland who is attending classes on a scholarship Crawford helped establish during his years in Annapolis. The service at the nondemoninational University of Maryland Chapel drew a host of state legislators and politicians from Montgomery County, which Crawford represented in the House of Delegates and Senate for 16 years. Even the pastor, the Rev. Charles W. Gilchrist, was a former Montgomery County executive. Crawford also was remembered as a skillful lawyer who could charm juries with his smile and affable nature. ``Vic's legacy was that he had the boldness to do something that many of us find difficult,'' Glendening said during his eulogy. ``That is, he came out and he said that he had made a mistake in his life. He took personal responsibility for that.'' But it was his unyielding crusade against smoking that everyone recalled with the greatest admiration. After spending several years of his post-legislative career working as a lobbyist for the Tobacco Institute, Crawford, a longtime smoker, was found to have terminal cancer two years ago. Knowing death was coming, he spent those two years using his skills as a politician and a lawyer to fight the very people he once represented, even though he had been severely weakened by the disease. ``I got the sense that he'd never felt so close to his own mortality before,'' said Gail Ewing (D-At Large), president of the Montgomery County Council, recalling the day Crawford told her about his cancer. ``He really wanted to do something that mattered.'' County Executive Douglas M. Duncan said: ``He was a great senator for Montgomery County. He was one of the few who could influence the state on important issues. If you wanted something done in Annapolis, he was the one you called.'' And although his political career never left Maryland, he took his last battle across the country by lobbying in many states and appearing on network television. Despite the sadness of the occasion, the service had an air of Crawford's good-natured spirit about it. As the gathering assembled, Dixieland music filled the vaulted chapel, and sunlight streamed through the windows. ``I walked up the steps, and I heard music. I walked to the door, and I said, `This must be the place,' '' said Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, who became friends with Crawford during his campaign against the tobacco industry. ``Every time I saw Vic Crawford, I felt good about myself. Today I was feeling kind of down, but I felt better when I walked in the door.'' It was that same ability to make people feel good about themselves that Wendy Satin, a Rockville lawyer who began her career under Crawford's tutelage, remarked upon in her recollection of a law career that grew to fabled dimensions within Rockville's legal circles. She remembered how Crawford's good nature would win juries over to his side. ``The jurors felt that they knew him because, by the end of the trial, they did. They were charmed by him, and they wanted to be on his side. The lesson,'' she said, ``is to always be yourself.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, to address the serious threat posed by nonindigenous aquatic species entering the U.S. waters from the exchange of ballast water. I want to thank and commend my colleague, Senator Glenn, for his leadership in crafting this very important legislation. The introduction of nonindigenous species through the exchange of ballast water is a serious national and international problem with potentially profound economic and environmental consequences. These invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, have already caused millions of dollars in damage to municipal and industrial water intake pipes, and valuable fisheries throughout the United States and Canada. By the turn of the century, damage to aquatic ecosystems and public and private infrastructure is expected to be in the billions of dollars from the zebra mussel alone. In the Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary, the threat of these invading species is particularly acute due to the extensive release of ballast water from foreign ports. Over 3 billion gallons of ballast water a year--more than any other east or west coast port--is released into the bay from ships calling at the ports of Baltimore and Norfolk. This water originates from 48 different foreign ports. An on- going study by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, one of foremost authorities on this issue, found that nearly 90 percent of the vessels sampled arriving at Chesapeake Bay ports had living organisms in their ballast water, placing the bay at very high risk from these potentially harmful species. Indeed, some scientists speculate that the diseases that devastated oyster stocks in the bay were introduced through the exchange of ballast water. It is estimated that there more than 100 exotic species now established in the bay, some of which are recent arrivals via ballast water discharge. The interstate and international nature of ballast-mediated invasions make it impractical for the individual States of the Chesapeake region to address this risk alone. Various interests in the Chesapeake Bay community, as well as the State legislatures of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, are, in fact, seeking increased Federal action to address this important concern. I want to particularly commend the Chesapeake Bay Commission for focussing attention on this very important issue. Mr. President, this measure is an important step forward in understanding and managing the risks of ballast-mediated invasions. It incorporates provisions of legislation I introduced last year, S. 938, to study and manage ballast water releases in the Chesapeake Bay. It establishes national voluntary guidelines for vessels entering U.S. waters to reduce the probability of ballast transfers of these exotic species. It authorizes research, demonstration, and education programs to help prevent the introduction and spread of these species into our lakes, rivers, and bays. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, to address the serious threat posed by nonindigenous aquatic species entering the U.S. waters from the exchange of ballast water. I want to thank and commend my colleague, Senator Glenn, for his leadership in crafting this very important legislation. The introduction of nonindigenous species through the exchange of ballast water is a serious national and international problem with potentially profound economic and environmental consequences. These invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, have already caused millions of dollars in damage to municipal and industrial water intake pipes, and valuable fisheries throughout the United States and Canada. By the turn of the century, damage to aquatic ecosystems and public and private infrastructure is expected to be in the billions of dollars from the zebra mussel alone. In the Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary, the threat of these invading species is particularly acute due to the extensive release of ballast water from foreign ports. Over 3 billion gallons of ballast water a year--more than any other east or west coast port--is released into the bay from ships calling at the ports of Baltimore and Norfolk. This water originates from 48 different foreign ports. An on- going study by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, one of foremost authorities on this issue, found that nearly 90 percent of the vessels sampled arriving at Chesapeake Bay ports had living organisms in their ballast water, placing the bay at very high risk from these potentially harmful species. Indeed, some scientists speculate that the diseases that devastated oyster stocks in the bay were introduced through the exchange of ballast water. It is estimated that there more than 100 exotic species now established in the bay, some of which are recent arrivals via ballast water discharge. The interstate and international nature of ballast-mediated invasions make it impractical for the individual States of the Chesapeake region to address this risk alone. Various interests in the Chesapeake Bay community, as well as the State legislatures of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, are, in fact, seeking increased Federal action to address this important concern. I want to particularly commend the Chesapeake Bay Commission for focussing attention on this very important issue. Mr. President, this measure is an important step forward in understanding and managing the risks of ballast-mediated invasions. It incorporates provisions of legislation I introduced last year, S. 938, to study and manage ballast water releases in the Chesapeake Bay. It establishes national voluntary guidelines for vessels entering U.S. waters to reduce the probability of ballast transfers of these exotic species. It authorizes research, demonstration, and education programs to help prevent the introduction and spread of these species into our lakes, rivers, and bays. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report. I regret that should be the case, because I really do think we should make a very strong effort here to develop a bipartisan approach toward our foreign policy. But this bill takes us in so many of the wrong directions that I simply cannot support it. First of all, we must understand that we are in a new period with respect to foreign policy. Now that the cold war is over, in my judgment the United States needs to bolster its diplomatic, economic, and political capacities to influence events around the world. We need to anticipate and prevent conflicts through mediation and negotiation. We need to promote sustainable development and support human rights in order to avoid conflicts, which would then lead to even larger economic and human costs. We need to protect our citizens--indeed, all of the world's citizens--from disease, environmental degradation, exhaustion of natural resources, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and trafficking in narcotics. These are all issues that transcend national borders. They are sapping the vitality and strength of societies all across the world. And as the focus shifts to economic matters, we need to expand markets for U.S. goods and services and to create a level international playing field for American workers. Frankly, I think that these things often can be accomplished more safely, more effectively, and at lesser cost through carefully designed foreign assistance programs and skillful diplomatic engagement than by retreat back to our shores, to a new form of isolationism, or by resorting routinely to unilateral military intervention. The reliance on military force is, of course, our ultimate protection. But many of the problems we are now dealing with are amenable to resolution or subject to influence well short of that. This is a major change from the cold war. This legislation undertakes, in effect, to impose on the executive branch a reorganization of the foreign policy functions of the Government. I am very frank to tell you that I think if the political situation were reversed and there were a Democratic Congress trying to impose this upon a Republican President, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be protesting very loudly that this was an inappropriate intrusion into the functions of the Chief Executive, an improper effort to limit the executive's ability to determine the organization of the foreign policy agencies. Unfortunately, there is not a shared approach on this bill. It was reported out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. It confronted a similar situation on the floor until some concessions were made. Unfortunately, when we got to conference, most of those concessions were abandoned. So the bill now before us is markedly different than the bill that passed the Senate. I did not support the bill that passed the Senate, and since it has worsened in conference, by definition I would not support the conference report. But for those who did support the Senate bill, I want to underscore the fact that the bill now before us is markedly different from what moved out of the Senate. Moreover, in my judgment, in virtually every instance it is different in the wrong direction. In other words, there is even less reason to support this legislation, and more reason to oppose it. There are many troubling provisions in this legislation. Let me just touch on some of them. I am not going to try to cover them all. I know the hour is late, and others wish to speak. I have talked about the reorganization proposal that provides for mandatory elimination of at least one of the foreign policy agencies. I happen to think that these agencies are doing a good job, particularly under the restructuring efforts that are taking place internally, and in that regard I particularly cite for commendation the efforts at AID. Under the able leadership of the Administrator, Brian Atwood, that agency has been streamlined and energized in order to do its job more effectively. Secondly, this authorization bill would have the effect of providing caps on appropriations--in other words, of setting ceilings on spending--which are far below the levels necessary to conduct foreign policy and to sustain our interests overseas. I think we are going to face important challenges in the coming years. I do not think we ought to hamstring the ability of the Executive to deal with them. I simply offer to my colleagues on the other side the proposition that they have one of their own now seeking to be the Chief Executive, and they ought to stop and think twice whether they would want him hobbled and hamstrung, as I believe this legislation would do. This legislation imposes very severe cuts in terms of U.S. participation at the United Nations. I know for many people, the United Nations is not the most popular agency, but let me simply submit to you, if we did not have the U.N., we would have to invent it. In many instances, the United Nations helps us to achieve important U.S. foreign policy objectives. Often when a situation breaks out around the world, the first reaction everyone has is, ``Well, the United Nations ought to do something about it,'' and, in many instances, the U.N. has done something about it very successfully. We are now the largest deadbeat at the U.N. in terms of meeting our dues and assessments. I think for a Nation which constantly asserts that it is the world's leader, this is a sorry state of affairs. Unfortunately, the conference report before us would only exacerbate this situation. Furthermore, this legislation makes such drastic changes with respect to AID that I doubt very much that that agency would be able to continue to function in any meaningful manner. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 20 religious and faith-based organizations be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. How much time is still available to Senator Kerry?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this is a letter from 20 religious and faith-based organizations urging opposition to H.R. 1561. Let me quote from that letter urging this opposition to the conference report: . . . The bill would eviscerate further the U.S. commitment to self-help development for poor people in the developing world. We are particularly troubled by the bill's proposal to abolish the Agency for International Development. They then go on to say that this would be a misordering of U.S. priorities; that support for poverty eradication and self-help development should be a primary objective of U.S. foreign aid and that it should be administered by an independent agency. They then discuss other matters in the legislation about which they are very concerned. I think this is a very thoughtful letter, and I hope my colleagues will examine it very closely. Mr. President, the administration has indicated that they will veto this legislation, as I think they should. I have not discussed some of the particular regional matters. A number of my colleagues have discussed the Taiwan Relations Act and the impact that this has on the United States relationship with Taiwan and on our relationship with the People's Republic of China. I do not think the provisions that are in this legislation have been carefully thought through, and if they were adopted we could run a high risk of destabilizing the situation and contributing to heightened tensions in the region. Others, I know, have talked also about the family planning implications of this legislation and the fact that it misses an opportunity to correct appropriations restrictions that are having a deleterious impact on women and families in the developing world. This is voluntary family planning services that we are talking about. It is not the abortion issue. I am talking about programs that are designed to make family planning information and services safe and accessible, programs that have had a positive impact around the world. In fact, U.S. foreign assistance does not provide funding for abortion. What we are talking about here are international family planning programs which have been in place for many, many years and traditionally are strongly supported on both sides of the aisle. So, in summary, Mr. President, I think this legislation falls well short of what we should be enacting into law. I very much regret that the end product is, in my view, essentially a partisan affair. We ought not to be formulating our foreign policy that way, but that is what has happened here. I would also like to commend Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, who has made a yeoman's effort to reach out in an inclusive way and to try to shape reasonable legislation. I very much regret that that was not achieved, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 20 Religious and Faith-based Organizations Urge Opposition to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995 Dear Senator: We strongly urge your opposition to the conference report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995, when it is considered by the full Senate. The bill would eviscerate further the U.S. commitment to self-help development for poor people in the developing world. We are particularly troubled by the bill's proposal to abolish the Agency for International Development. The harm posed by such a proposal is not undone by the provision allowing a presidential waiver of the requirement to abolish two foreign policy agencies. While we support the reform of AID, we do not believe that transferring its functions to the State Department would accomplish such reform. To the contrary, we believe strongly that U.S. assistance for development should be administered by an agency separate from the State Department so that the long-term needs for sustainable development are not sacrificed for short-term political objectives. Assistance in support of political objectives already accounts for the majority of U.S. foreign aid. This, in our view, represents a serious misordering of the priorities that should govern U.S. foreign assistance. We believe that support for poverty eradication and self-help development should be the primary objective of U.S. foreign aid and that it should be administered by an independent agency. We are also concerned about the funding levels for a number of programs as authorized in the legislation. We believe that funding for U.S. contributions to international organizations, including the general budget of the United Nations, is inadequate. We also believe that funding for U.N. peacekeeping activities for FY 97 is insufficient. We believe that it is imperative that funding be approved that, at a minimum, will not increase the arrearages in U.S. contributions to the U.N., including peacekeeping activities. Continued U.S. disregard for treaty obligations related to assessed contributions will further undermine U.S. leadership in the world. We oppose the militarization of the international narcotics control program and are especially concerned that funding would nearly double in FY 97 to $213 million. The program has proven largely ineffective in reducing the volume of illicit drugs entering the U.S. At the same time it has strengthened foreign militaries that have engaged in serious and systematic human rights violations. The bill contains a number of constructive refugee and migration policy provisions that deserve support. We regret that these provisions may not be enacted because of objectionable provisions throughout the rest of the bill. We are encouraged by the Administration's statement that the President will veto the bill if it is presented to him in its current form. We hope that there will be sufficient opposition in the Senate to defeat the measure, making such a veto unnecessary. We urge you to oppose the bill. Sincerely, David Bechmann, President, Bread for the World; Mark Brown, Associate Director for Advocacy, Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Imani Countess, Executive Director, Washington Office on Africa; Michael Dodd, Director, Columban Fathers Justice and Peace Office; Bill Dyer, Justice and Peace Officer, Missionaries of Africa; Richelle Friedman, Lobbyist, NETWORK, A national Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Jaydee R. Hanson, Assistant General Secretary, Ministry of God's Creation, General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church; Maureen Healy, Africa Liaison, Society of St. Ursula; Rev. Dan C. Hoffman, Area Executive, Global Ministries of the United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ; Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory, Director, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Washington Office; Kathryn J. Johnson, Interim Director, Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace; Jay Lintner, Director, Office for Church in Society;/ United Church of Christ; Erich D. Mathias, Program Associate, Global Ministries of the United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ; James Matlack, Director, Washington Office, American Friends Service Committee; Timothy A. McElwee, Director, Washington Office, Church of the Brethen; Terence W. Miller, Director, Maryknoll Justice and Peace Office; Richard S. Scobie, Executive Director, Unitarian Service Committee, Lawrence Turnipseed, Executive Director, Church World Service; George Vickers, Executive Director, Washington Office on Latin America; Kathryn Wolford, President, Lutheran World Relief. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 10 minutes of Senator Kerry's time. I am authorized to do that.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. After Senator Pryor?

Mr. SARBANES. Is it possible to continue the sequence of speakers, or does the chairman not wish to do that?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. It could have been any product, for that matter, but the basic point is that we are trying to move Russia toward a market economy, something that the former Soviet Union did not do. That was a command economy. Everyone says Russia ought to become a market economy, and obviously the United States and other countries in the West have a role to play in that. It seems to me this effort of the President was part and parcel of trying to move Russia in the direction of becoming a free market system and of participating in the global economy.

Mr. SARBANES. In fact, the President's efforts, it would seem to me, are part of a strategy to try to bring Russia into the international economic system as a legitimate player like other countries that are playing by the rules of trade. Would that not be correct?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I want to express my very deep appreciation to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for the extraordinary statement which he made earlier today on this issue. It is my prediction that, if this measure passes and is implemented, history will look back on this moment and say that was a critical turning point in our constitutional system and that it was the Senator from West Virginia, above all others, who stood on the floor and warned of what this would bring about; that it was the Senator from West Virginia who understood our existing constitutional system the best and saw the dangers inherent in this proposal. Part of what is happening here is that we are engaged in symbolism, not the reality of addressing important national problems. There is a skilled craftsmanship in addressing problems of public policy which members of a legislative body are supposed to bring to the task. Anyone can get up and holler about problems. The question is, can you formulate an appropriate response? As the distinguished Senator from Louisiana said, this proposal is not really about balancing the budget. You balance the budget by tough- minded decisions on the budget, which the President and the Congress have been making in recent years. What is happening here is an enormous transfer of authority from the legislative branch to the executive branch that completely contravenes and contradicts the Constitution, so much so that I believe when tested in the courts, this measure will be found wanting. I fervently hope that will prove to be the case. This proposal gives the President the power, or purports to give the President the power, once he signs a piece of legislation into law, to then take out of that law various items--actually, as many as he chooses to pick--by what is called rescinding appropriation items--that unmaking of existing law. The Congress then, in order to override that rescission, would have to pass a disapproval bill which the President can veto. Once he vetoes the disapproval bill it takes a two-thirds majority in both Houses to override the President's rescission. Thus, under the proposal before us, the President, as long as he can hold on to one-third plus one of either the Senate or the House--not both bodies; either the Senate or the House--can determine every spending priority of this country. Think of that. The President and 34 Senators, or the President and 146 Members of the House--not ``and,'' but ``or''--can determine every spending priority of this Nation. Obviously this represents a fundamental reordering of the separation of powers and the check and balance arrangements between the legislative and the executive branch in our Nation's Constitution. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to dismiss such broad-reaching constitutional questions. They were, however, very much at the forefront of the thinking of the Founding Fathers when they devised the Constitution in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787; a Constitution that I might observe has served the Republic well for more than 2 centuries. As the able Senator from West Virginia has observed a very carefully balanced arrangement was put into place and it has served this Nation well. Obviously, when we consider changing our Nation's basic charter we need to be very careful and very prudent. Now, I submit it does not take great skill or vision to have a strong executive. Lots of nations have strong executives. In fact, if a country's executive is too strong, we call it a dictatorship. If we review history, even look around the world now, we can see clear examples of this. It is one of the hallmarks of a free society to have a legislative branch with decisionmaking authority which can operate as a check and balance upon the executive. Another hallmark is to have an independent judicial branch which can also operate as a check and balance in the system. It should be noted that we have received a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States expressing their very deep concern about this measure and indicating that they feel it undermines the independence of the judicial branch of our Government. That letter states in part: The Judiciary believes there may be constitutional implications if the President is given independent authority to make line-item vetoes of its appropriations acts. The doctrine of separation of powers recognizes the vital importance of protecting the Judiciary against interference from any President. The Senator from West Virginia, to his enormous credit, is a great institutionalist. He believes in the institutions of our Nation and is concerned with maintaining their strength and vitality and resists the political fad of the moment. Our founders established a balanced Government with independent branches, not only an executive with power and authority, but a legislative branch with power and authority, and a judiciary that is independent. This measure significantly erodes the arrangement which has served the Republic well for over 200 years. I invite all of my colleagues to stop and think for a moment about how this proposal opens up the opportunity for the executive branch, for the President, to bring enormous pressure to bear upon the Members of the Congress and therefore markedly affect the dynamics between the two branches. The President could link--easily link, obviously will link, in my judgment--unrelated matters to a specific item in the appropriations bill. Suppose a Member is opposing the President's policy--perhaps somewhere around the world or on some domestic policy; perhaps a nomination which the President had made--and the President receives a bill which contains in it an item of extreme importance to the Member's district or State, justified under any criteria as serving the Nation's economic interest; for example, the dredging of a harbor, or the building of a road. The President calls the number and says he noticed this item, he certainly hopes he does not have to rescind it. He does not want to do so. He knows it is meritorious. But at the same time, he has this other issue that he is very concerned about in which the Member is opposing him. My friend from Louisiana spoke of how the line-item veto power would be used to directly neutralize congressional policy on a particular issue. A majority is in favor of a certain policy, the President pulls it out and negates it, holds on to one-third of one House, and that is the end of it--even though a clear majority in both Houses of the Congress wanted the policy. The next step beyond rendering the congressional opinion null and void on a specific issue itself, is to link that issue to some other unrelated issue on which the President is seeking to obtain leverage over the Member of Congress. In fact, in the hands of a vindictive President, the line-item veto could be absolutely brutal. I want to lay that on the record today. In the hands of a vindictive President the line-item veto could be absolutely brutal. But you would not need a vindictive President for abuses. Presidents anxious to gain their way, as all Presidents are, will use this weapon to pressure legislators.

Mr. SARBANES. Ten minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. How long do we expect people to speak if we set up this procedure?

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, the Senator from West Virginia made a constructive proposal, which was just tabled, which would have allowed the President to propose rescissions to the Congress for consideration on an expedited basis, with the Congress having to vote on the rescission and with a majority vote required to approve the rescission. This would have enabled the President to spotlight those items of which he disapproved and required a congressional vote on them but would not have altered our basic constitutional arrangements. The line-item veto tool contained in this legislation will not, in my judgment, become a way to delete appropriation items, but rather a tool and a legislative strategy used by the White House and executive branch to pressure Members on their positions on unrelated items. It will become a heavy, coercive weapon of pressure. This is a dangerous departure from past constitutional practice, drastically shifting the balance between the executive and legislative branches. It will fundamentally alter our constitutional arrangement to the detriment of a system of government which has served well our Republic and been the marvel of the world. Madam President, I close by again expressing my deep gratitude to the Senator from West Virginia for so clearly and eloquently setting forth the severe problems connected with this proposal. Exhibit 1 [From the Legal Times, Mar. 25, 1996] Loosening the Glue of Democracy The Line-Item Veto Would Discourage Congressional Compromise (By Abner J. Mikva) There is a certain hardiness to the idea of a line-item veto that causes it to keep coming back: Presidents, of course, have always wanted it because the line-item veto represents a substantial transfer of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Government purists favor the idea because the current appropriations process--whereby all kinds of disparate expenditures are wrapped or ``bundled'' into one bill so that the president must either swallow the whole thing or veto the whole thing-- is very messy and wasteful. Reformer generally urge such a change because anything that curtails the power of Congress to spend has to be good. My bias against the unbundling of appropriations and other legislative proposals has changed over the years. When I first saw the appropriations process, back in the Illinois legislature, it seemed the height of irresponsibility to bundle dozens of purposes into a single bill. It also seemed unconstitutional since the Illinois Constitution had a ``single purpose'' clause, under which bills considered by the legislature were to contain only one subject matter. But the ``single purpose'' clause had been observed in the breach for many years by the time I was elected in 1956. I first saw the bundling process work when a single bill, presented for final passage, appropriated money for both the Fair Employment Practices Commission and a host of other commissions, including one to provide services for Spanish- American War veterans (there were two left in the state at the time) and one to study the size of mosquitoes that inhabited the downstate portions of Illinois. If I wanted to vote for the FEPC, I had to swallow all those other commissions, which I thought were wasteful. So I invoked the constitutional clause. To my dismay, the legislature favored all the other commissions on separate votes, but the FEPC went down to defeat. That is how I learned that there are some pluses to the bundling process. Bundling is very asymmetrical in effect and probably wasteful. But it is also a legislative device that allows various coalitions to form and thus moves the legislative process forward. Consider South America, where regional rivalries and resentments in many countries make governing very difficult. The inability to form the political coalitions that are normal in this country creates enormous pressure on the central government. This pressure is certainly one of the causes of the mini-revolts that perpetually arise. The have- nots feel excluded from the process, while the majority (or the military regime) exercise their power without taking care of the depressed areas of the country. It is more difficult to ignore the have-nots in the United States. First of all, members of Congress are elected as representatives of geographic areas, rather than as representatives of parties. Woe betide the congressman who starts thinking too much like a national legislator and forgets the parochial interests of his constituents. Second, the separate elections of the president and Congress creates the necessity for the two branches to cooperate in setting spending priorities. Floating coalitions that take into account the needs of all the sections and groups in the country become essential. When urban interests wanted to promote a food program for the cities, for example, they formed a coalition with agricultural interests, and food stamps were joined with farm subsidies. It is true that bundling encourages the merger of bad ideas with good ideas, and diminishes the ability of the president to undo the package. A line-item veto, which would allow the president to veto any single piece of an appropriations bill (or, under some proposals, reject disparate pieces of any other bill), makes the whole process more rational. But it also makes it harder to find the glue that holds the disparate parts of our country together. City people usually don't care about dams and farm policy. Their rural cousins don't think much about mass transportation or urban renewal or housing policy. If the two groups of representatives don't have anything to bargain about, it is unlikely that either set of concerns will receive appropriate attention. The other downside to the line-item veto is exactly the reason why almost all presidents want the change and why, up to now, most Congresses have resisted the idea. The line-item veto transfers an enormous amount of power from Congress to the president. For those of us who think that the executive branch is strong enough, and that an imperial presidency is more of a threat than an overpowering Congress, the current balance of power is just right. That has been the gist of Sen. Robert Byrd's opposition to the line-item veto. The West Virginia Democrat has argued that the appropriations power, the power of the purse, is the only real power that Congress has and that the line-item veto would diminish that power substantially. So far, he has prevailed--although last year, the reason he prevailed had more to do with the Republicans' unwillingness to give such a powerful tool to President Bill Clinton. But now the political dynamics have changed. The Republicans in Congress can fashion a line-item veto that will not benefit the incumbent president--unless he gets reelected--and their probable presidential candidate, Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, has recently made clear that he wants this passed. Chances for the line-item veto are vastly greater. There are some constitutional problems in creating such a procedure. The wording of the Constitution suggests pretty strongly that a bill is presented to the president for his signature or veto in its entirety. It will take some creative legislating to overcome such a ``technicality.'' I reluctantly advised the president last year that it was possible to draft a line-item veto law that would pass constitutional muster. The draft proposal involved a Rube Goldberg plan that ``pretended'' that the omnibus appropriations legislation passed by Congress and presented to the president actually consists of separate bills for various purposes. This pretense was effectuated by putting language in legislation to that effect. President Clinton was not then asking for my policy views, and I did not have to reconcile my advice with my policy bias toward the first branch of government--Congress. But I was uneasy enough to become more sympathetic to the late Justice Robert Jackson's handling of a similar dilemma in one of his Supreme Court opinions. He acknowledged his apostasy concerning an issue on which he had opined to the contrary during his tenure as attorney general. Quoting another, Justice Jackson wrote, ``The matter does not appear to me now as it appears to have appeared to me then.'' My apostasy was less public. My memo to the president was only an internal document, and I didn't have to tell him how I felt about the line-item veto. But now that I have no representational responsibilities, I prefer to stand with Sen. Byrd.

Mr. SARBANES. You could absolutely redo the legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of my remarks an article written by Judge Abner Mikva on this very point, called ``Loosening the Glue of Democracy.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those requesting that S. 884, title XX of the pending substitute amendment, be removed from the Presidio bill and be considered as freestanding legislation. Mr. President, on Monday the Senate began consideration of H.R. 1296, legislation developed with the assistance of the California delegation creating a Presidio trust to manage property at the Presidio in San Francisco. The Presidio, a former Army post overlooking San Francisco Bay, was recognized by the Congress in 1972 as a national treasure and was slated for inclusion in the National Park System upon its cessation from military use. The substitute amendment before us, the omnibus parks and recreation bill, contains--in addition to the Presidio bill--approximately 32 public lands titles, many of which have been reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support. However, one title of this amendment, title XX, the Utah Public Land Management Act, does not enjoy the same bipartisan support, and is preventing the Senate from completing action on the underlying Presidio legislation in a timely manner. The Utah Public Land Management Act contains a number of provisions which would have a profound impact on all existing and future wilderness designations, seriously undermining standards of public lands management established by the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defined a wilderness as land where, ``in contrast to those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and the community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.'' Under this definition of wilderness, commercial activities, motorized access, and the construction of roads, structures, and facilities are prohibited in designated wilderness areas. I have serious concerns about provisions of the Utah land bill which would clearly undermine this definition of wilderness. This legislation would allow unprecedented uses incompatible with wilderness including motorized vehicle access within protected areas, construction of communication towers, and continued grazing rights. In addition, I am concerned that the Utah lands bill designates only about 2 million of the Federal Government's 32 million acres in Utah as wilderness. Currently, the Federal Government manages 3.2 million acres of its holdings as wilderness study areas, allowing the Federal agency charged with managing the land the opportunity to conduct a thorough study to determine its suitability for inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System. The legislation before us would direct those Federal agencies to make all land not selected for wilderness available for multiple uses, such as mining, grazing, and development. Hard release language included in the bill would preclude those agencies from managing this land in a way which would protect its wilderness characteristics for the future. Mr. President, the wild and beautiful Utah public lands which are under discussion today are a national treasure belonging to all Americans. In my view, it is critical that we, as a nation, do not allow the destruction of our precious natural resources. Wilderness areas constitute only 2 percent of all land in the United States. We must not fail in our obligation to protect the beauty and integrity of these lands for future generations.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong disappointment that the Republican leadership will not allow a straight up-or-down vote on legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage. The Congress is long overdue in acting upon legislation which would establish a more realistic wage standard for the American worker and I would hope that the Senate has the opportunity to express its will on this matter--one so critical to working families--in the near future. It would seem to me that the issue is a relatively simple one. As many of my colleagues will recall, under the Bush administration, the Senate voted overwhelming to enact an increase similar to the one being proposed today. In 1989, by a vote of 89-8, the Senate approved legislation which raised the minimum wage by 45 cents in 1990 and again in 1991 to bring it to its current level of $4.25 per hour. The proposal being put forth by myself and others would enact the same increase--45 cents this year and another 45 cents in 1997--raising the minimum wage to $5.15. It is my strongly held view that such an action, like that taken in the 101st Congress, would appropriately reflect the values and beliefs at the very core of our society--the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you deserve the opportunity to get ahead. In my own State of Maryland, the city of Baltimore has been at the forefront of efforts to assure hard-working Marylanders receive a decent living wage. Just last year, Baltimore's Mayor Kurt Schmoke signed the Nation's first prevailing wage law which stipulates that all new or renegotiated contracts with the city of Baltimore must provide a minimum wage of at least $6.10 per hour. Baltimore's ground-breaking public policy initiative should serve as an example to cities across the Nation and, in my view, provides an ideal model for the U.S. Congress. As we all well know, the real value of the minimum wage has deteriorated markedly since 1979. At its current level of $4.25 per hour, the minimum wage will fall to its lowest real value in 40 years if Congress fails to take action. In the late 1950's the real value of the minimum wage was worth more than $5 per hour by today's standards and in the mid-1960's it peaked at $6.28. However, Congress' failure to respond to inflation over the past 20 years has resulted in a 27- percent decline in the real value of the minimum wage since 1979 and a 50-cent drop since 1991. Since April 1991, the cost of living has risen 11 percent while the minimum wage has remained constant at $4.25. The decrease in the value of the minimum wage has served to widen the gulf between the wealthiest and the poorest of our society. In an effort to offset this decline, I strongly supported President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC] which raised the income of 15 million households--helping many rise above the poverty line. However, this is not enough. Even with the EITC expansion, a family of three with one full-time wage earner working year round at the current minimum wage brings home $8,500 and could receive a tax credit of $3,400 for a total annual income of $11,900. According to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], the poverty level for a family of three in the United States stands at approximately $12,557. Therefore, at the current minimum wage, workers can work full-time for an entire year, qualify for the EITC and still fall some $657 below the poverty line. While the EITC is a critically important public policy initiative to assist low-income families, it should not be viewed as a substitute for a consistent, decent wage. Opponents of increasing the minimum wage frequently argue that the typical minimum wage earner is a teenager simply working after school or on the weekends to earn a little extra spending money and that the Government should not be supplementing the incomes of this group of temporary, part-time workers. The truth, however, is that more than 70 percent of all minimum wage earners are adults over 19 years of age and the vast majority--58 percent--are women. Clearly, these are hard-working individuals trying to make a living and support a family on a wage that fails to allow them to even meet the poverty standard, let alone surpass it. At a time when salaries of CEO's of major companies have increased by more than 20 percent and the congressional leadership is talking about giving tax breaks to some of the most well-off in our Nation, I find it completely unreasonable that an attempt to increase this basic standard for the working poor would be resisted. Some argue that the economy cannot afford an increase in the minimum wage; that an increase in the minimum wage would ultimately rob the economy of jobs and income as businesses would be forced to pay fewer workers more. This is simply not true. A close review of recent evidence clearly demonstrates that a reasonable increase in the minimum wage does not result in huge job losses. A frequently cited 1992 study in which Princeton economists David Card and Alan Krueger examined the effects of a minimum wage increase in New Jersey found ``no evidence'' that a rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment opportunity. In fact, just the opposite was true. In comparing employment trends in New Jersey with those in Pennsylvania, Card and Krueger found the employment trends to be stronger in New Jersey, the State with the higher minimum wage. Similarly, Harvard economist Richard Freeman found in his 1994 study that ``moderate legislated increases did not reduce employment and were, if anything, associated with higher employment in some locales.'' Mr. President, it is clear that the American economy cannot only afford a reasonable rise in the minimum wage, but could actually benefit from such an increase. In fact, it stands to reason that more money in the pocket of the American worker means that more money is being spent and purchasing power is increased. The minimum wage proposal now before us would give the American worker an additional $1,872 in annual income. In Maryland alone, it would mean an increase in income for more than 131,000 workers. It may not sound like much to some in this Chamber, but it can make all the difference to a family struggling to heat their home, pay for groceries, or provide adequate health care for their children. While economic considerations are an important aspect of this debate, neglecting to recognize the fundamental value of ensuring a living wage for American workers would compromise principles I believe to be integral to the fabric of our society. Historically, Congress has acted to guarantee minimum standards of decency for working Americans. Measures to protect workers from unsafe and unfair working conditions were enacted under the belief that, as a society, we should support a basic standard of living for all Americans. It is in this spirit that minimum wage laws have been updated through the years. As long as we in Congress fail to act, we send the message to working families across the country that hard work and sound living are not enough. Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage earners are adults who are struggling to achieve a decent standard of living for themselves and their families. The objective of the minimum wage is to make work pay well enough to keep families out of poverty and off Government assistance. An hourly rate of $4.25 is not enough to cover the average living expenses of a family of three. It is unthinkable that in what is arguably the wealthiest Nation in the world, there are families out there right now having to choose between food for their children and heat for their homes. If a family of three can barely get by on $4.25 an hour, how can a single mother--trying to stay off welfare--be expected to be able to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care and child care on the current minimum wage? Instead of maintaining barriers to self-sufficiency, we should be helping to tear them down. Mr. President, Americans want to work. They want to be able to adequately provide for themselves and their families. But they are working harder for less and are becoming increasingly frustrated in the process. It is critical that we recognize the reality of minimum wage earners and take steps to help them rise above poverty. President Roosevelt once called for ``a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.'' The American worker deserves no less. Many of those who supported the minimum wage increase in 1989 are here today and I would urge them to join me in calling for vote on this important measure.