Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Are we limiting everyone to 5 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator from Washington, as I understand it, will speak for more than 5 minutes. We have no objection to that.

Mr. SARBANES. We understand that.

Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry be recognized after the completion of Senator Gorton's statement.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I question this whole idea of linkage. I do not think it has legitimacy. I have never seen it used to this degree, or in this manner, in the 19 years that I have been in the Senate, and I think it is very harmful to the national interests of the United States. Now all of us have bills we would like to see get enacted. There is a process one goes through in order for that to be accomplished. Senators can oppose that, and of course under the rules of the Senate, if enough Members are in opposition you may be required to gain 60 votes in order to limit debate, in order to get to the consideration of the legislation. Now, the reorganization plan for the foreign policy agencies of the Government is highly controversial. It has very severe and significant foreign policy implications. Some support it, some oppose it, some are in between. They support some parts of it, oppose other parts of it. Many objective outside groups who deal in the foreign policy field are critical of one or another aspect of the proposal embraced in the plan put forward by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Now, that bill was not a bipartisan product out of the Foreign Relations Committee--just to the contrary. It has been highly controversial ever since it has been brought out of the committee, in my judgment. Now, that is one problem: what is to be done on the reorganization. A different problem has been raised by the linkage of the reorganization with every other matter in the foreign policy field. Now, it is graphically demonstrated at this particular time because we have the situation of holding up the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, which expires at midnight tonight and needs to be extended. Of course, failure to extend the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act could cause serious harm to U.S. national interests and to the cause of peace in the Middle East more generally. I will not go into all the provisions of the MEPFA because it is a matter that has been considered here before. It has been moved through by overwhelming support in the Congress. If the United States fails to play its role in that process, other nations will cease to play their part. Of course, the efforts to move towards peace will be severely hampered. It is clearly a matter of vital national interest and it ought not to be held hostage. Now, this is not the only hostage that is being held. In fact, the list is very, very long indeed. I do not intend tonight to address all aspects of that. I do want to make the point that in effect everything on the Foreign Relations Committee agenda is being held hostage in the insistence that capitulation be made in order to gain their way on a substantive piece of legislation. The ambassadors are being held up, the START II treaty is being held up, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Law of the Sea Treaty, more than a dozen bilateral investment treaties, mutual legal assistance treaties and extradition treaties are being held up. Some of these treaties may well turn out to be controversial. Others are not. In any event, we ought to be able to deal with them. We ought to have a business meeting of the committee and address them, report them out, amend them, turn them down--whatever the will of the Members may be on the substance of the matters that are before the Senate. Now, I have seen ambassadors held up on occasion--usually one or two of them--but I have never seen this unprecedented situation. There are currently 18 ambassadorial nominees in the committee who have had their hearings and are waiting to be reported. Some have had their hearings as far back as early and midsummer. They have been waiting for months now for movement on their confirmation. Others have their files completed and are awaiting hearings. There is also a large number of Foreign Service officers whose promotions are being held up. This situation is very disturbing for three related reasons. First, it is unfair to the individual nominees and their families who have absolutely nothing to do with this consolidation proposal. The play of the game is that the chairman and others support a certain consolidation proposal, and they in effect say if we do not get our way on it we are not going to allow any other business to be transacted. We will not act on these ambassadors. We are not going to act on these treaties. We are not going to act on any other matter before the committee. It has been highlighted here of course because we have this pressing issue of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act which expires at midnight tonight. These nominees that are being held hostage--our Foreign Service officers--are not being held hostage by foreigners; they are being held hostage right here in the U.S. Senate. It is very unfair to the individual nominees and their families. They are being punished for reasons completely unrelated to their nominations. Secondly, I think it is symptomatic of a very disturbing trend towards disparaging and undermining the professionals in the Foreign Service. Finally, I think it is clearly contrary to the national interests of the United States. Now, many of these nominees have families. They have children who should have started school in the places to which they are expecting to be sent. They have made arrangements in their personal lives to undertake this responsibility and they are being taken hostage not for an issue that involves their nomination--that is a different matter. None of this involves the nominee or the nominee's record. It is an issue totally unrelated to the nominee. They are being used as hostages in order for people to gain their way on a completely unrelated issue. Now, U.S. interests also suffer, and I think suffer severely by our failure to send these ambassadors out to assume their jobs. I do not know that I need remind my colleagues about the danger connected with this line of work. The fact of the matter is in the last 25 years more ambassadors have lost their lives in service to their country than have generals in the armed services. There is an honor roll in the State Department of the men and women who have lost their lives serving the Nation. Not having these ambassadors out there at their posts only can hurt the United States. They are not there promoting U.S. interests such as human rights, conflict resolution, antiterrorism, counternarcotics cooperation, encouraging U.S. exports. They are not there to assist U.S. tourists or business people. They are not there to deal with sensitive situations. They are not there to promote U.S. good will and to represent American values and ideals. Some of these are countries like Malaysia, South Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, China, Lebanon. Let me just quote from a letter that was sent by the American Academy of Diplomacy. The American Academy of Diplomacy is chaired by the former Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger. Lawrence Eagleburger is cited by the chairman of the committee in support of his reorganization proposals. In fact, he testified in front of our committee in support of certain aspects of the reorganization proposal which the chairman now is trying to leverage through. He will not take it on its own and deal with it through the regular process. He wants to hold all these other things hostage to it. Let me quote from the letter the Academy sent on this very issue: The Academy has taken no position on the authorization bill which is currently in contention. But it does not believe the country's larger interests are served by linking action on that bill to the ambassadorial nomination process. Doing so would leave the United States without appropriate representation in these countries at a time of dramatic, historical, global change. We believe that decisions on America's diplomatic representation abroad, including both the timing of such action and the qualifications of those nominated, should be made strictly on the basis of our interests in the country involved. I think that is very well put. I commend the entire letter to my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record at the conclusion of these remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. In addition to holding these Ambassadors hostage, the chairman is refusing to take action on a number of other very important matters before the committee, a number of very significant treaties. We have completed hearings on the START II treaty. Agreement has been reached on all the substantive issues relating to that treaty, but no business meeting has been scheduled to consider it. We have not moved on the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Law of the Sea Treaty. More than a dozen bilateral investment treaties, mutual legal assistance treaties and extradition treaties are being held. So, Madam President, I will not go on at greater length. It is late into the evening. There are a number of other observations I would like to make on this ambassadorial issue because I think we are being terribly unfair to a lot of people, people who really put their lives on the line and are disparaged, often, here in the Congress in the course of debate, in a very unfair way. These attacks on these professionals are extremely unfair. They are losing their lives. Then we are told that they wear long coats and high hats and live in marble palaces. Ambassador Robert Frasure lost his life in Bosnia. He was not wearing a long coat and high hat. In fact, as State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns put it, ``he was riding in an armored personnel carrier and wearing a flak jacket, not striped pants.'' His wife recently wrote a very moving letter to the editor of the Washington Post, in the course of which she said, in defense--it should never have been necessary for her to have to defend--but she said: Our diplomats are some of the finest, bravest, most courageous people I have ever met. In the past 10 years alone, my husband and I mourned the death of seven of our friends and embassy colleagues. She then goes on to list them. She says, commenting about these remarks that have been made, about the long coats and the high hats and the marble palaces: I am outraged also because I remember the dangers as well as the many hardships our family endured in Bob's 20-year career. So, Madam President, I just took the floor to challenge the fundamental premise of the legitimacy of this linkage. I have never seen it done in this manner or to anything approximating this degree. It is my strongly held view that very important national interests of the United States are being sacrificed. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 The American Academy of Diplomacy, Washington, DC, August 9, 1995. Hon. Jesse A. Helms, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Academy has noted, according to press reports of August 2, that following a deadlock in the Senate on the State Department authorization bill, a hold would be placed on 17 ambassadorial nominations and that committee action was being canceled or postponed on 22 other nominations subject to Senate confirmation. The Academy has taken no position on the authorization bill which is currently in contention. But it does not believe the country's larger interests are served by linking action on that bill to the ambassadorial nomination process. Doing so would have the United States without appropriate representation in these countries at a time of dramatic, historic global change. We believe that decisions on America's diplomatic representation abroad, including both the riming of such action and the qualifications of those nominated, should be made strictly on the basis of our interest in the country involved. Sincerely, L. Bruce Laingen, President.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the chairman yield on that point? When did the former chairman, if I may say, the very distinguished former chairman, go on the Foreign Relations Committee?

Mr. SARBANES. So the Senator has been on it more than three decades?

Mr. SARBANES. Has my colleague ever seen anything comparable to what is now taking place?

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President. I rise today to recognize and congratulate Capt. Timothy A. Brown, international president of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, ILA, AFL-CIO, on being awarded the Silver Mariner Award and the Outstanding Professional Achievement Award by the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY. Captain Brown was presented with the award on October 12, 1995, at an awards dinner held at the Merchant Marine Academy Officers Club. The Silver Mariner Award is given every 5 years to individuals who have attained and sailed on their master's license and who have at least 25 years sailing experience. Individuals receiving the Outstanding Professional Achievement Award are selected because of their achievement within the maritime industry. Captain Brown's labor efforts on behalf of the maritime industry as president of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots led to his nomination and subsequent selection by the review panel. The International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots is the International Marine Division of the International Longshoreman's Association, AFL-CIO. With 6,800 members, it represents licensed deck officers, State pilots, and other marine personnel on U.S.-flag commercial vessels sailing in international trade and the inland waterways of the United States, the Panama Canal, and Caribbean, as well as crews sailing civilian-crewed military vessels of the United States. Captain Brown richly deserves the great honor which has been accorded him. He has been associated with the maritime industry since graduating from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Points, NY, in 1965. Captain Brown continued to associated himself with the maritime industry; from 1983 to 1991 he sailed as a ship's master with SeaLand Service, Inc. In February 1991, he was elected president of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots on an interim basis and was subsequently reelected in 1992. During his tenure as president, Captain Brown devoted a great deal of time and energy toward legislative initiatives designed to promote the U.S.-flag merchant marine in a competitive world market. Working at both the grassroots and national levels he took the opportunity to explain the importance of the U.S. merchant marine to the national defense and the economy. Captain Brown serves as an international vice president of the Masters, Mates & Pilots parent organization, the International Longshoremen's Association. He is also a member of the Council of American Master Mariners and the American Merchant Marine Veterans. Mr. President, again, I congratulate Captain Brown on his accomplishment and for being held in such a high regard by his colleagues in the maritime industry.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues the activities that are underway to commemorate the consecration celebration of the St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church of Baltimore, MD. This indeed is a major achievement for this community and culminates 25 years of dedication, hard work, and energetic involvement. His Excellency Metropolitan Silas of New Jersey will join with Father Ernest Arambiges, pastor of St. Demetrios, and the parishioners and friends of the community to celebrate the ancient ceremony of consecration. This signifies that the church is formally dedicated to its spiritual mission. Founded in 1970, St. Demetrios is one of three centers of worship for the Greek Orthodox community in Baltimore. Located in northern Baltimore County, St. Demetrios is a product of the love and labor of its parishioners. It took the 300 families of St. Demetrios almost 8 years of fundraising before they had the means to build their church's edifice. Before that, they worshipped in the auditorium of Parkville High School. The community has worshipped in the present edifice for over a decade and has found itself a permanent and lasting home. The consecration marks a new chapter in the history of Orthodoxy in Maryland as the St. Demetrios community is the first in the Baltimore area located outside the central city area. It is a focal point for wholesome community life where young and old can pray, learn, and grow together both socially and spiritually. I want to congratulate the entire St. Demetrios family for their dedication and for enriching our Baltimore community with this inspiring church building. Mr. President, I request that an article from the Baltimore Sun which records this important event be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Baltimore Sun] St. Demetrios Consecration Planned Sunday In what Greek Orthodox clergy say is ``a once-in-lifetime event,'' Baltimore County's St. Demetrios Church will be consecrated this weekend by two of the denomination's revered leaders, who will encase relics of three early Christian saints in the altar table. His Eminence Archbishop Iskovos and His Excellency Metropolitan Silas will preside at the consecration service at 9 a.m. Sunday, the culmination of a series of ancient rites this week at the domed church at 2504 Cub Hill Road. Construction of the church, decorated in the Byzantine style, began in 1983 on a 30-acre site in the Cub Hill section of the county north of Carney. Bones of Saints Boniface, Cyril of Alexandria and Panteleimon will be brought to the church tomorrow and set on a paten. The relics will be covered with a veil until Sunday morning, when they will be interred in a 1,600-year-old ceremony. During the services Sunday, Archbishop Iakovos, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, will be assisted by Metropolitan Silas, who has immediate jurisdiction over the parish. They will carry the relics around the church three times in a procession of the congregation. Water and oil will be used in the consecration service, which will include the lighting of the vigil lamp before the tabernacle. The congregation's worship and celebrations this week began with the St. Demetrios Feast Day Vesper Service and a reception Wednesday evening, and continued with a Divine Liturgy yesterday morning. The Great and Solemn Vespers of Consecration at 7 p.m. tomorrow will be followed by another reception in the church's Fellowship Hall. The congregation has planned a third reception and a dinner-dance beginning at 5 p.m. Sunday at the Sheraton Baltimore North Hotel, 903 Dulaney Valley Road, Towson.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. On the same day, October 24, Senator Dole made a speech. Listen to this. ``I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare--1 of 12--because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.'' So you have the Republican leader in the Senate and the Republican leader in the House, both of whom have been trying to portray themselves as helping Medicare, now bragging about the fact that they are against Medicare or that this is only the first round in getting rid of it.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the very distinguished Senator from North Dakota. What is the date of that speech the Speaker made when he said that this is only round one to get rid of Medicare?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my Democratic colleagues in opposition to the Republican proposal to replace the joint Federal-State Medicaid Program with a block grant to the States. Medicaid currently guarantees that 36 million low-income pregnant women, children, disabled, and elderly Americans have access to hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, and other basic health care. The Republican plan would eliminate this guarantee and cut Medicaid by $182 billion by the year 2002. What the Republicans are proposing is to cut Medicaid and then lower the standards States must meet because they know that the standards cannot be met with the lower level of funding. In a recent letter to Members of the Senate, the National Association of Counties expressed quite correctly the natural consequence of this proposal. I quote from that letter: We do not believe that States will find enough budgetary efficiencies without reducing eligibility. The flexibility given to States in the operation of the proposed restructuring will trickle down to counties in the form of flexibility to raise property taxes, cut other necessary services or further reduce staff. The Republican plan endangers the future health, well being, and productivity of millions of low-income pregnant women, poor children, and disabled Americans. It jeopardizes the long-term care of millions of our elderly. And these sweeping policy changes have been proposed, passed out of committee--and may well be passed by the Senate--without one official public committee hearing. Because of this, I joined with a number of my Democratic colleagues earlier this month in convening several hearings on the Medicaid and Medicare programs. We wanted to hear from the people who will be affected by the proposed changes. During those hearings, we heard some very moving testimony regarding the impact the Republican plan to cut Medicaid will have on the lives of average, hard working middle-class Americans. Since many Members were unable to hear this very moving testimony, I would like to insert in the Record one of the more compelling statements presented at these hearings by Ms. Mary Fitzpatrick from Dickson, Tennessee.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, Ms. Fitzpatrick laid out before us in detail commonly found nursing home conditions before passage of Federal nursing home minimum quality standards. The Republican plan we are considering would repeal the minimum quality standards for nursing homes. In my view, such a proposal is mean spirited and illogical. Morton Kondracke in a recent column described the consequences of this proposal: The Republicans need to face up to the fact that, if they go through with their planned reforms in poor people's healthcare, instances of abuse, neglect, broken bones, urine- soaked beds and filthy surroundings will multiply in the years to come. Mr. President, those were the very conditions that led to the enactment of the 1987 legislation. And now they want to repeal these standards. They want to repeal them because they know that without them some nursing home--some, not all--but some nursing homes will be able to absorb the reduced funding by lowering their standards of care. They will return to the old days of mistreatment and nontreatment which Mary Fitzpatrick and Morton Kondracke described as a means of cutting costs to respond to the slashed funding. Other nursing homes--the ones that do not lower their standards--may simply stop serving those families which cannot afford to pay $50,000-$60,000 a year for nursing home care. And who will this affect? The 4 million elderly who depend on Medicaid for their nursing home care and their families. Mr. President, our Government should not renege on its commitment to ensuring that millions of needy, disabled, and elderly Americans receive essential basic health care. The Republican proposal, which would eliminate such guarantees, could have disastrous consequences for many citizens, and I would strongly urge my colleagues not to go down this path.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my Democratic colleagues in expressing deep disappointment and outrage at the way in which those on the other side of the aisle have chosen to handle this critical issue. Several weeks ago, I participated in hearings organized by Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller because it was--and remains--my view that the public ought to have the opportunity to review and understand what is being proposed by congressional Republicans with respect to the Medicare Program. During these hearings, we heard testimony from the trustees of the Medicare Trust Fund. We believed it was important to hear from the trustees in order to give them the opportunity to clarify any misrepresentation of their annual report on the future solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and to get their analysis of the Republican proposal to cut $270 billion from the Medicare Program. What we found was that the Medicare trustees do not even suggest that $270 billion is required to address the problems of the trust fund. In fact, the trustees made it very clear that $89 billion over the 7 years is all that is required to address short-term solvency issues of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. In a recent letter to Republican leaders Dole and Gingrich, Secretary Rubin specifically states, and I quote him: No member of Congress should vote for $270 billion in Medicare cuts believing that reductions of this size have been recommended by the Medicare Trustees or that such reductions are needed now to prevent an imminent funding crisis. The amendment offered by Senator Rockefeller gets right to the heart of this issue. Senator Rockefeller's amendment would recommit the Medicare portion of the reconciliation bill with instructions to the Finance Committee to eliminate cuts beyond the $89 billion that the Medicare actuaries certify is necessary to ensure solvency of the trust fund through 2006. Now, we find out that we will not be permitted a straight up-or-down vote on this amendment. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you believe as you say you do, that a $270 billion cut is needed to save the Medicare Program, then this vote should be simple and we should all have the opportunity to make our position clear on this important matter. The effort to prevent a clear, recorded vote on Senator Rockefeller's motion is even more distressing in light of the absolute refusal of the Republican leadership to hold the kind of open, public hearings that an issue of this magnitude requires. What they have done is spring the legislation on us and then immediately move to mark it up and report it to the floor without any chance for careful examination or thought as to what its implications are for our senior citizens. They try to move it so fast that people cannot, in effect, identify what is being done. The best description of what they are doing was given, in my judgment, by the Republican political analyst, Kevin Phillips, in a recent radio interview where he was quoted as saying--now this is not me talking; this is the Republican political analyst Kevin Phillips. And he said, and I quote him: This revolutionary ideology driving the new Republican Medicare proposal is all so simple. Cut middle-class programs as much as possible and give the money back to private-sector business, finance and high-income taxpayers. Rhetoric about the cuts being to save Medicare is politics, not underlying GOP motivational reality. Remember, at the same time as the Republicans propose to reduce Medicare spending by $270 billion over seven years, they want to cut taxes for corporations, investors and affluent families by $245 billion over the same period. This is no coincidence. The fact of the matter is, the Republican Medicare reform proposals are not about saving Medicare or about protecting senior citizens. They are not about true reform. To reform, by definition, means to make better or improve by removing faults. I submit that this entire reconciliation package is driven by an insatiable desire to give further large tax benefits to very wealthy people. Mr. President, it would be truly irresponsible for the Congress to approve sweeping and drastic changes to the Medicare system without a thorough discussion of what those proposals mean to our Nation's health care system, and to the people it serves. We have not been afforded the opportunity for such a discussion and I regret that we will also not be afforded the opportunity to have straight up-or-down vote on this amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, our colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski, was robbed Sunday evening in front of her home in Fells Point in Baltimore. She was knocked to the ground in the course of this robbery and injured her hand. We expect she will be back tomorrow, and she asked that I share with our colleagues this statement of hers: I regret that I will be necessarily absent today, as I recuperate from Sunday's unfortunate experience. While I share the pain and anger of other victims of this type of crime, I have been heartened by the many good wishes I received from my friends and colleagues. I look forward to returning to duty tomorrow. I know my colleagues look forward to having her return to duty tomorrow, and I know they join me in wishing Senator Mikulski a very speedy recovery. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this week is National Fire Prevention [[Page S 15064]] Week, a time for us to look back on the year's efforts to prevent fire- related deaths, injuries, and property damage, and an occasion to reflect on the important role of the brave men and women who comprise our national fire service. Mr. President, as you know, fire is a serious problem in the United States--an average of 4,000 Americans die from fire annually and nearly 30,000 Americans sustain fire-related injuries every year. Fire Prevention Week falls on the anniversary of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 which tragically killed 250 people, burned 17,000 buildings, and rendered over 100,000 people homeless. As a Nation, we have made significant progress in our efforts to improve firefighting and prevention methods since then, but we still have a long way to go. More recently, the Happy Land Social Club fire of 1990 in New York City which claimed the lives of 87 people reminds us of the massive destruction that can be caused by fire. Increasingly, however, the efforts of our fire service and organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association, the annual sponsor of National Fire Prevention Week, are making a difference. Due to a thoughtful, multipronged attack, in which battles are won by not having them fought in the first place, fire-related deaths are at an alltime low--reduced to 4,275 last year from 8,900 deaths in 1913 when standardized recordkeeping began. No one is immune to the dangers of fire. On February 26, 1994, nine Marylanders were killed in a single family home simply because a candle was placed too close to a sofa bed. In order to avoid tragedies like these, members of the fire service, the National Fire Protection Association, and others use National Fire Prevention Week each year to renew and strengthen their commitment to fire-related education programs, construction and engineering improvements, and more effective fire regulations. In line with a recent escalation in efforts to minimize fires caused by carelessness or neglect, the theme of this year's Fire Prevention Week is ``Watch What You Heat.'' I salute the American Fire Service on the occasion of National Fire Prevention Week and I join in their call to make our country as fire safe as possible.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to call to the attention of my colleagues the establishment of a scholarship at Towson State University's School of Communications in honor of my good friend Lou Panos, dean of Maryland's journalistic community. The scholarship marks this distinguished Marylander's 70th birthday and I can think of not more fitting way for him to be honored. Anyone who has had the good fortune to have worked with Lou in his many public capacities would immediately describe him as a solid professional and an unusually civil practitioner of his craft. He has combined with these sterling personal qualities his thoughtfulness and a sense of fairness which has consistently singled him out among his contemporaries. Lou Panos' long and distinguished career reflects his longtime commitment to public service. He has been involved in a wide range of public service: as a sergeant at arms in the U.S. Army, 1944- 46, as a journalist, as press secretary to Gov. Harry Hughes, and as the director of public affairs for the Maryland Shock Trauma Center and the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems. In view of Lou Panos' commitment to high personal and professional standards, this scholarship represents his dedication to opportunity and education. It is my hope that this scholarship will provide the chance for deserving young people to follow in his path. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who were involved in instituting this scholarship, Pautuxent Papers and Towson State University's School of Communications, and the friends and colleagues of this most amiable Marylander. I know that all of those involved in this tribute share in my deep appreciation for Lou's outstanding leadership over the years. On this important occasion, I am pleased to join in saluting Lou Panos for his renowned service and in wishing him the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his statement and also for printing in the Record this joint letter by seven former Secretaries of State. I say to my colleague that the reason the NED will not go away is because it does good work. That is plain and simple the reason it will not go away. It has done some extremely effective work around the world in strengthening and developing democratic institutions and protecting individual rights and freedoms. We have had any number of people come through the Halls of the Congress recognized as fighters for human rights, fighters for freedom, fighters for democracy who have manifested their support for NED and the support which gave them and made them possible in their own countries to lead this effort. So I know a longer debate is coming, and I am prepared and look forward to that debate, but these Secretaries are right when they say ``the strong track record in assisting significant democratic movements.'' It does have a strong track record, and it serves an important role, because it can operate as a nongovernmental entity and support nongovernmental entities which provide opportunities that would not otherwise be available if these activities were undertaken by a governmental agency. So I strongly support the NED, and I hope when we actually get to the real amendment, the Members of this body will support it as well.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Commerce, Justice, and State Department appropriations bill before the Senate today. This measure eliminates or cuts many programs which help to preserve our natural resource base, promote economic and business development, invest in research and development and protect American consumers. In my view, it fails to provide the resources necessary to meet our National priorities and to enable federal agencies to fulfill their important missions. I want to point out just a few examples where the measure is particularly inadequate, unfair and unbalanced. First, the bill cuts the Economic Development Administration by $310 million--or 75 percent--below the current funding level and 71 percent below the level recommended by the House. The proposed appropriation would cripple EDA's ability to continue helping communities in Maryland and other States throughout the Nation adjust to severe jobs losses and economic dislocations such as the recent round of base closures, build public facilities essential to commercial and industrial growth, and plan and implement comprehensive economic development programs. In Maryland alone, the agency has pumped $151 million into the economy over the past 30 years, creating thousands of jobs, stimulating local growth and generating revenues from the eastern shore to Western Maryland. Moreover, it is estimated that each EDA dollar invested has generated more than $3 in outside investment. The cuts contained in this bill will deprive our communities and business of this investment potential, and in the long run will exact a painful cost in lost growth and opportunity. Second, the bill cuts the budget of the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] by $377 million--or more than 50 percent--below current funding levels, and $80.8 million below the level recommended by the House. It drastically reduces--by over 80 percent--NIST's industrial technology services which help develop and commercialize high risk technologies. It also rescinds $153 million in funding appropriated in previous years for the comprehensive, multi- year effort to modernize NIST's laboratory facilities in Gaithersburg and Boulder, CO. These cuts would essentially eliminate all currently planned and future upgrades and construction for NIST laboratory facilities and severely impact upon the agency's ability to perform its important mission. Reports issued by the General Accounting Office, the National Research Council and others over the past five years have identified an urgent need for repairs and upgrades of NIST's 35 year old lab facilities to meet the measurements and standards requirements of the 21st century. John W. Lyons, the former Director of NIST, perhaps said it best in an April 28, 1992, letter to the Washington Post, laboratory facilities are the infrastructure--the roads and bridges--of science and technology. Funding for science without funding for facilities is a losing game. Third, while the measure is a vast improvement over the House- recommended funding levels for NOAA, it still cuts the agency's funding by $230 million below the administration's budget request and some $45 million below current levels. It does not provide the resources necessary to meet all the statutory requirements of the Marine Mammal Act or for living marine resources research and protection programs. It cuts NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Program by $390,000 and provides no funding for oyster disease research in Chesapeake Bay--programs which are essential to the efforts to restore the vitality of the Bay. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote against this bill and I hope my colleagues will join in rejecting this measure and sending it back to committee for substantial rewriting and reordering of priorities. [[Page S 14693]] post-conviction defender organizations

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. First of all, I am very responsive to the Senator's personal plea. It strikes me this may be in the way of being an autopsy in order to find out why these bills are corpses, and that is the process we are engaged in, trying to discover what it is about these bills that made them corpses.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to a distinguished Marylander, committed environmentalist, and model citizen--Judith Colt Johnson. Judy recently stepped aside from a long and distinguished career as president of the Committee to Preserve Assateague Island. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for her many years of hard work and dedication to the environment and the stewardship of Assateague Island's ecosystem. Judy Johnson founded the Committee to Preserve Assateague Island in 1970, the year I was first elected to the U.S. Congress, and served as its president for the past 25 years. Over the years, Judy worked tirelessly to preserve the natural beauty and unspoiled character of Assateague Island. Her accomplishments are many and remarkable. Among other things she: Led the successful campaign to amend the organic act for the National Seashore to remove provisions calling for construction of a road the length of the island and 600 acres of development; developed a grass-roots membership of over 1,300 people representing 38 states; blocked construction of a sewage outfall pipe across the island; sponsored an annual beach cleanup marshalling larger volunteer efforts each year; and convened the first-ever conference on the condition of Maryland's coastal bays which initiated the current efforts to protect these sensitive waters; Judy not only organized and led these efforts, but gave selflessly of her time and energy to make Assateague a better place for all of us. She has done this through activities such as cleaning trash from the beach and helping plant stems of beach grasses and seedlings to protect valuable wildlife habitat. She also contributed substantially to the development of the master plan for Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge--now considered a model for other wildlife refuges in coastal areas--and actively participated in hundreds of public meetings, hearings and workshops on issues affecting Assateague and the surrounding areas. Her monthly newletters have provided invaluable information on potential threats to the natural habitat and ecology of this fragile barrier island as well as the many noteworthy events and special values of this area. I have had the privilege of working closely with Judy and her organization on a number of issues affecting Assateague Island and can attest that Assateague Island would not look as it does today had it not been for all the hard work of Judy Johnson over the years. Judy's indefatigable energy, spirit and determination are renowned. Mrs. Johnson's activities and interests were not limited to her involvement with the Committee to Preserve Assateague Island. She also served on numerous national and State conservation organizations including the Maryland Wetlands Committee, the Maryland and Virginia Conservation Councils, the board of the Coast Alliance, the advisory council to the National Parks and Conservation Association and the Garden Club of America. In recognition of her outstanding service and dedication, Judy has received numerous awards and commendations including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commander's Award for Public Service, the Izaak Walton League of America Honor Roll Award, the Take Pride in America Award given by the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the National Parks and Conservation Association's Conservationist of the Year Award. The efforts of Judy Johnson over the past 25 years have earned her the respect and admiration of everyone with whom she has worked and the visitors to Assateague Island will benefit from her labors for years to come. I join with her many friends in extending my best wishes and thanks for her leadership and commitment.