Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I do not understand how you can profess to be a nation that believes in equal justice under the law and not make legal services available to people who are too poor to afford them. How do you make our legal system work, and how do you make the rule of law equitable and have a real system of justice? I very strongly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Texas.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in offering this amendment to save title V of the Older Americans Act. As you are aware, title V authorizes the Senior Community Service Employment Program [SCSEP] which provides senior citizens valuable opportunities to serve their communities by contributing their valuable insight and experience. As a strong supporter and past cosponsor of the Older Americans Act, it is my view that the future of the [[Page S 13493]] SCSEP should be determined during the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, and should not be considered as part of the welfare reform debate. This successful employment program which serves our Nation's senior citizen is not part of the welfare system and does not belong in this bill. The SCSEP is one the most important programs authorized under the Older Americans Act which have been successful in the organization and delivery of support services for senior citizens. For almost 30 years this program has offered low-income persons aged 55 or older part-time paid community service assignments with the goal of eventually obtaining unsubsidized jobs. The only work force development program specifically designed to maximize the potential of senior citizens, the SCSEP has consistently exceeded placement goals established by Congress and the Department of Labor. This clearly illustrates what I have always believed--older Americans want to contribute. They want to work, to volunteer, to participate in their community. It is critical that we recognize this interest and tap the valuable wisdom, insight, and experience that senior citizens bring to all aspects of life. There are several successful SCSEP programs here in Maryland, one of which serves my home community of Wicomico County. The Senior AIDES Program--in cooperation with State employment offices, community colleges, and other federally funded employment and training programs-- helps seniors get the skills necessary to become part of the work force. Let me share with you one of the program's many success stories. Sarah Maxfield of Salisbury finished high school, got married, and raised a family. She had the occasional odd job or part-time work, but never really worked full-time until she had to go back to work to support herself. At age 57, she entered the Senior AIDES Program in Wicomico County. While receiving training in office skills, she also worked with the volunteer office delivering meals to elderly shut-ins. In September 1994, after having received training, she was placed in a subsidized job at Shore Up, Inc., a local community action agency. Shore Up was so impressed with her that I am pleased to report that she was subsequently hired full time. Mr. President, by including the SCSEP in the job training block grant portion of this welfare bill, the program will be forced to compete with other, unrelated programs for a limited amount of funding. The end result will be fewer seniors working and fewer communities benefiting from the contributions of these older Americans. One of the central recommendations of the recent 1995 White House Conference on Aging with respect to seniors in the work force was to make available educational programs to provide skilled trained, job counseling, and job placement for older men and women. This enhances senior citizens' ability to stay in or rejoin the work force or to prepare them for second careers. In my view, Mr. President, it is clear that the proper legislative vehicle for consideration of this important program is not a welfare reform bill. The SCSEP deserves to be debated fully as part of the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last night, September 6, 1995, at Oriole Park at Camden Yards, not far from my home in Baltimore, Cal Ripken broke baseball's most enduring record of consecutive games played. In surpassing Lou Gehrig's streak of 2,130 games, Cal Ripken has secured a place in sports history, and in the hearts and minds of all who love baseball. This accomplishment is much more than an event to be chronicled in the record books; it is a tribute to Cal Ripken's dedication to excellence--excellence in athletics as well as excellence in sportsmanship. In a time bereft of heroes, we admire persons such as Cal Ripken who exemplify high standards. Cal plays for the love of the game. He does not play for the fame; he cares little about the glory. What he does care about is playing baseball to his fullest potential. His affection for the game shines like a beacon in the night. His love of the game and his dedication has led him to this record. Neither money nor fame could have guided him to such a pinnacle in his career. We call baseball our national pastime. But for many of us it is much more than that. It brings us back to an era where the players were larger than life and inspired us to the same greatness. When players like Gehrig rambled out onto the field they were more than men: they were heroes. At a time when people are searching for heroes, Cal Ripken stands proudly and quietly at the forefront of those we have to offer our children. He is a man of dignity, quiet workmanship, and humility. It is in keeping with these qualities that his children, Rachel and Ryan, threw out the first pitches to the game that would assure that their father crossed the threshold from extraordinary player to a legend. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial, lauding Cal Ripken's streak and his character, from the September 6, 1995, edition of the Baltimore Sun, as well as Cal Ripken's statement and excerpts from remarks presented by his teammate Brady Anderson, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of our colleagues celebrations that are underway to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the establishment of the city of Frederick, MD. The mayor of Frederick, Jim Grimes, along with the entire community, has planned several significant events to commemorate this propitious milestone. Throughout its history, Frederick has served not only as a monument to Marylanders, but it has also carved its place in American history as well. Established in 1745, Frederick Town was the home of many great colonial Americans including Francis Scott Key, author of ``The Star Spangled Banner''; Roger Taney, second Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and John Hanson, President of the Continental Congress. The English and German settlers of Frederick Town were ferociously proud of the independence and the liberty they found in the New World. When the British passed the Stamp Act in 1785 requiring colonists to purchase stamps for all legal and commercial documents, 12 Frederick County judges resolved to reject the Stamp Act and approved the usage of unstamped documents. This bold maneuver is believed to be the first recorded act of rebellion in the colonies. According to several historians, it was in Frederick Town, not St. Louis, where Lewis and Clark began their famed expedition across the unexplored Nation. In July 1803, the travelers set forth from the Hessian Barracks in Frederick Town across the unchartered west and into the unknown territory. Frederick Town was incorporated as a city in 1817, thus officially changing its name to Frederick. In the early 1800's, construction of the B&O Railroad and the C&O Canal began. The establishment of these two major avenues of transportation opened a window to the world for the citizens of Frederick. These corridors to Washington and Baltimore would provide access to jobs, to industry, and to trade. But in 1864, Frederick was faced with grave despair. Under the threat of General Jubal Early's torch, city officials had to secure $200,000 in loans from local banks to save Frederick. Three of the five original banks that contributed to that ransom are still open for business. Over the course of the next century, Frederick would mature into a thriving and continuously expanding community. It is the home of a wide spectrum of facilities that include Fort Detrick, high-tech firms that are instrumental in AIDS research, the Frederick Keys baseball team, Hood College and Frederick Community College. And although Frederick is the third largest city in Maryland, it still maintains its small town charm and charisma. Frederick is a model of community spirit and cooperation. The activities that have been sponsored to commemorate this auspicious occasion exemplify the deep devotion of Frederick's residents to their community. The spirit and enthusiasm of Frederick's citizens have been the foundation of its success. These celebrations provide the opportunity to renew the dedication that has supported Frederick throughout its history and helped it to develop into one of Maryland's most attractive communities. We in Maryland are fortunate to have an area as community-oriented as Frederick. I join the citizens of Frederick in sharing their pride in Frederick's past and optimism for continued success in the years to come.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I inquire of the manager of the bill what he foresees the work program as we proceed into the evening. It would be helpful to know.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the manager of the bill yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to get recognition in my own right.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator also think there are real questions with respect to the application of the Pressler amendment with respect to the storage costs and the application of the Pressler amendment to the other arms he was talking about providing under his amendment, as I understand it?

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

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, they got $2.5 billion--over $2 billion from us to buy military equipment. We gave them that $2 billion under a special exception to the nonproliferation law, the Pressler amendment, or, as the Senator from South Dakota pointed out earlier, called the Reagan-Bush amendment. I think the Senator was accurate in doing that. We gave them this money in order to buy weaponry, not to go nuclear. And the premise upon which the money was given was that they would not go nuclear. They took the money and went nuclear anyhow. That is the problem, and that is why President Bush finally, in 1990 said: I cannot do this certification anymore, in terms of waiving the law, because I cannot waive the law because I cannot certify that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device. So they took their money and they went nuclear anyhow. I would like to raise a question, why does Pakistan not give us back the money which they took on the premise that they would not go nuclear, since they have since gone nuclear?

Mr. SARBANES. What about the other areas?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield so I can put one quote in the Record, because I think it is very important to get the context of this correct. The Senator from Colorado suggested that the purpose of the aid was not to dissuade them from acquiring a nuclear explosive device. I simply want to quote from letters to the Congress from President Reagan and President Bush who said: The proposed United States assistance program for Pakistan remains extremely important in reducing the risk that Pakistan will develop and possess such a device. I am convinced that our security relationship and assistance program are the most effective means available for us to dissuade Pakistan from acquiring nuclear explosive devices. Our assistance program is designed to help Pakistan address its substantial legitimate security needs, thereby both reducing incentives and creating disincentives for Pakistani acquisition of nuclear explosives. So that was clearly the rationale. The nonproliferation laws would have banned any aid to Pakistan. The Pressler amendment provided an exception to that. The rationale for doing that was to try to dissuade Pakistan from going nuclear, and they took almost $3.5 billion as part of that deal and went nuclear anyhow. So, finally, in 1990, President Bush says, ``I cannot do this waiver anymore. I cannot make this certification.'' And that is when the assistance stopped. I have a number of other quotes from high officials in both the Reagan and the Bush Administrations during this period making exactly this point in terms of the rationale for this. I thank the majority leader. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to speak in a broader context with respect to this issue, because I think there is a failure to understand the Pressler amendment and what it did. The Pressler amendment, at its time, was a special exception for Pakistan. The Pressler amendment, at its time--the consequence of it was to enable the United States Government to send aid to Pakistan, which otherwise would have been prohibited since the nonproliferation law said that there was no United States aid to any country that delivers or receives nuclear materials or technology, except under IAEA supervision and safeguards. Now, what the Pressler amendment allowed was a special exception just for Pakistan that allowed the President to waive the law if he certified that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device, and that United States aid would reduce the risk that Pakistan would get one. No other country received this special waiver. Subsequently, through the 1980's, there were other special waivers for Pakistan from the nonproliferation laws. I say to the distinguished Senator from Colorado that maybe the American taxpayers should get back the money they gave to Pakistan during this period, on the premise that Pakistan would not go nuclear. That was the premise. And the Pressler amendment allowed this aid to flow from 1985, when the Pressler amendment went into effect, through 1990, when President Bush concluded he could no longer make this certification that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. The Pressler amendment allowed $3.3 billion in direct U.S. aid to flow to Pakistan, even though Pakistan had violated our nonproliferation laws. Over $2 billion of that aid from 1985 to 1990 went to buy weapons. And the express purpose of making that money available to buy weapons for Pakistan was so that it would not need or seek nuclear weapons. In other words, the deal was that we do not want you to go nuclear. We know you are acquiring nuclear materials and technology, not conforming to the nonproliferation laws, but we are going to provide this military aid in order to keep you from going nuclear. That was the deal. Now, the Pressler amendment was clearly explained, it was fully publicized. Pakistan knew the consequences if it decided to pursue nuclear weapons, despite our aid and our warnings. Yet, what they did is they took the money--almost $3.5 billion over this 5-year period, and more than $2 billion in military aid--and, at the same time, went nuclear. This has to be understood because it is portrayed as though some terrible unfairness were done and he even quoted the President to that effect. But the fact of the matter is, is that the Pressler amendment, at its time, gave Pakistan an exception to the nonproliferation law. The premise was we will provide them very significant economic and military assistance, seek to strengthen them, greatly enhance their conventional defensive posture as part of a deal that they not go nuclear. As long as the President could continue to certify that they did not have a nuclear explosive device, they would continue to receive assistance. Now, what happened is in 1990 President Bush finally said, ``I can't certify this any longer. I can't certify it.'' They have gone to a nuclear device, contrary to the deal that was contained in the Pressler amendment. I invite the Senator from South Dakota, if I am misstating the situation, to correct it. As a consequence, what Pakistan did, they accepted this aid and they continued their nuclear program anyhow. That was not part of the deal. They, in effect, flouted our laws, took our money, and then complained when we finally said ``enough is enough,'' when President Bush said, ``I cannot certify this any longer,'' and we cut off the aid. Now, people say this was a terrible unfairness to Pakistan. The unfairness, if I may say so, was to the American taxpayers who provided $3.5 billion on the premise that Pakistan would not move to acquire a nuclear explosive device. They took the money. They went ahead and acquired the nuclear explosive device anyhow, and now they say, ``We were treated unfairly.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. A lot of the places that it does not, a lot of the NATO producers make their own arms. You standardize their products and you direct that to meet their standardization purposely. Some of the countries provided for here are high-risk countries--a country in Central Europe that recently changed its form of national government. Financially, those are high-risk countries. Some of the Asian countries carry risks with them. I am not quite clear where this comes from. The administration does not want it. They are not proposing it. They are resistant to it. We dominate the arms market. I can understand the makers of arms want as many underwrites as they can possibly find. I think that is a given, and Members will recognize that. But whether it is wise to use money this way and to incur these kinds of risks by these guarantees, obviously there is a risk connected, and the provision recognizes that. To get up and assert somehow that this is a freebie, in every respect defies the basic rationale of the provision that is in the bill. So I urge my colleagues to support the Bumpers amendment. We ought not to start down this path. We have dealt with this issue before. Let me simply say this. The last time we had such a provision in the law, it was extended out to cover other countries as well. When it first comes before you, it gives you a short list. Then the next year that list gets added to. Then the year after that, it gets added to. And pretty soon they say, ``Well, we have to make this comprehensive now. We have covered so many countries that there is an insult connected with leaving a country out from this program.'' So then you make it comprehensive. That is exactly what will happen--I am prepared to predict that on the floor tonight--if this provision stays in the legislation. I hope my colleagues will support the Bumpers amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the Bumpers amendment. I hear all these assertions by the opponents of this amendment that it is necessary in order to make the United States competitive in the arms market. The fact of the matter is, the United States absolutely dominates the international arms market right now-- right now--and the U.S. percentage of the world's arms market has increased markedly over the last few years, ever since the implosion of the Soviet Union and other developments that have taken place. So I say to my colleagues, first of all, the assertion that you need this program in order to be able to sell the arms does not square with the facts. The reality is we dominate the international arms market. Second, I hear it asserted in some way as though there is no risk here. I think the term ``self-financing'' was used as though this thing is absolutely certain to pay its way. Clearly, that is not the case. Why are they seeking a Government guarantee? They are seeking a Government guarantee in order to insure against the risk which they otherwise would encounter in the private market. So, obviously, there is some risk connected with these arms sales; in some instances, potentially very heavy and substantial risks. As my colleague from Arkansas has pointed out, there are a series of programs right now to encourage these arms sales. Others say what these other countries do. None of these other countries have anything like a foreign military loan program and a foreign military gift program the way the United States does. So we are already making very substantial provision for arms sales. Of course, those programs are very tightly controlled and circumscribed to ensure that the national interests of the United States are provided for. The administration has not sought this. It is my understanding that the Pentagon--in fact, I will ask my colleague from Arkansas, is it, in fact, correct that the Department of Defense is resistant to this proposal?

Mr. SARBANES. That is the worldwide market. If you isolate some of the areas, including some of the areas that are covered in this bill, the U.S. percentage rises substantially over that.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, both of those countries receive financing under the foreign military loan program, with all of the conditions and restraints of that program. Both of those countries receive financing under that currently.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate these assurances and thank the chairman for his support. Committee Amendment beginning on page 12, line 17

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the funding contained in the bill under general investigations for Susquehanna River Basin water management. First, I want to thank the chairman for including $290,000--the full amount requested in fiscal year 1996--for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue the reconnaissance study investigation of the Susquehanna River Basin that was initiated last year. The Susquehanna River is the largest river on the east coast of the United States and the largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. It is also one of the most flood prone river basins in the Nation. The Army Corps of Engineers operates 13 reservoirs on the upper Susquehanna and regulates the low and high water flow management. There are also three large hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna. Under normal conditions, these reservoirs and dams serve as traps for the harmful sediments which flow into the river. During major storms however, they suddenly discharge tremendous amounts of built-up sediments, severely degrading the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, destroying valuable habitat and killing fish and other living resources. Scientists estimate that Tropical Storm Agnes in 1982 aged the bay by more than a decade in a matter of days because of the slug of sediments discharged from the Susquehanna River reservoirs. There is a real danger that another major storm in the basin could scour the sediment that has been accumulating behind these dams and present a major setback to our efforts to clean up the bay. It was my understanding that it was the committee's intent in funding the reconnaissance study of the Susquehanna River Basin last year and again this year, that the corps was to investigate not only alternatives for managing water storage during high and low flow conditions and flood damage reduction needs in the basin, but also to address sediment related issues for the study area. Is this correct?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Medicare program. In light of recent Republican attacks on the program, it is particularly important that we take the time to recognize the value of the Medicare program to so many of our Nation's senior citizens and their families. For decades, Democratic leaders have supported and reinforced the generally accepted proposition that health care is a fundamental human need and that, in a just society, there ought to be a way to provide for it. Since it was signed into law by President Johnson in July 1965 the Medicare program has succeeded where many had thought it would fail. The world's largest health care program, Medicare currently provides quality health services for more than 37 million American senior and disabled citizens at an administrative cost of just two percent. In my State of Maryland alone, more than 604,000 seniors receive vital medical services through the Medicare program. Just yesterday, I visited a number of these individuals at the Parkville Senior Center in Baltimore County. Like a vast majority of seniors across the country, they too are concerned about the future of Medicare and how decisions now being made in Congress will effect the quality and availability of health care services for their generation. Quite frankly, Mr. President, I share their concerns. For these senior citizens and the more than 37 million elderly Americans nationwide, the Republican budget cuts will be devastating. The Republican Budget Resolution cuts Medicare by $270 billion over the next 7 years. I know it is asserted that the actual dollar amounts for Medicare will not drop, but rather will increase gradually over the next 7 years. However, if the proposed dollar increases are not proportional to increases in Medicare enrollees and increases in the costs of medical care, the end result is massive cost-shifting and cuts in services for beneficiaries. Mr. President, in my view, it is essential that we recognize that Medicare is not a system unto itself. The Medicare program is instead a large component of our Nation's health care system and it is illogical to assume that isolated cuts in Medicare will not adversely effect all Americans. The Health Care Finance Administration [HCFA] estimates that Medicare payments account for 45 percent of health care spending by our Nation's elderly. Under the Republican budget plan, out-of-pocket costs to seniors are expected to increase by an average of $900 per person year by the year 2002. Over a 7-year period, the typical beneficiary would pay an estimated $3,200 in additional out-of-pocket costs. While this might not sound like much to some, these numbers become more significant when you factor in statistics that indicate that 60 percent of program spending was incurred on behalf of those with incomes less than twice the poverty level, and 83 percent of program spending was on behalf of those with annual incomes of less than $25,000. Clearly, when we talk about Medicare recipients, we are not talking about our Nation's wealthiest citizens. Many seniors live on fixed incomes. In fact, a large number of Medicare recipients depend on Social Security benefits for much of their income. According to HCFA, about 60 percent of the elderly rely on Social Security benefits for 50 percent or more of their income and 32 percent of the elderly rely on Social Security for 80 percent or more of their income. It is also estimated that as many as 2 million seniors can expect to see the value of their Social Security COLA's decline as increased Medicare costs consume 40 to 50 percent of Social Security COLA's by 2002. Requiring these individuals to pay more for their health care will directly undercut their standard of living. In my view, it is simply unacceptable to create a situation in which more and more seniors will see their resources stretched to the extent that they will have to choose between food and health care. Mr. President, what I find most troubling is that Congressional Republicans are seeking to enact draconian spending cuts, the burden of which will fall primarily on the shoulders of the most vulnerable of our society, in order to provide a significant tax cut for the very wealthy. The future health security of our Nation's seniors should not be jeopardized in order to create a pool of funds for a tax break which almost [[Page S 10653]] solely benefits upper income individuals. As we commemorate the signing of this important measure into law, I think it is appropriate that we all take time to reflect upon the history of the Medicare program and the principles upon which it was founded. Before the Medicare program, many of our elderly could not afford health care or were forced to watch their life savings dissolve under the weight of ever-increasing health care costs. Mr. President, those involved in crafting the Medicare program recognized that providing health care to some of our Nation's most vulnerable individuals lays the foundation upon which to build a decent society. As Democrats we must continue to embrace this principle today, as we have for the past 30 years.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am proud to join with the Baltimore community and the friends of education throughout Maryland in honoring the memory of Dr. Samuel L. Banks who was a longtime champion of civil rights and education in our State. Dr. Banks was an outspoken advocate for expanding educational opportunities and was particularly concerned in fostering the potential of Afro-American students. He was fervent in his pursuit for educational equality as was evidenced in his frequent contributions to the Baltimore Sun, both in letters to the editor and in the commentary section. Most importantly, Dr. Banks was an extraordinarily well-read and learned person who displayed throughout his professional life intellectual excellence and personal generosity. I extend my most sincere sympathies to Elizabeth, his wife, Gayle and Allison, his daughters, and to all of the family and friends of Samuel Banks. Mr. President, I ask that an editorial from the Baltimore Sun that pays homage to Dr. Banks be inserted in the Record as follows: [From the Baltimore Sun, July 21, 1995] Samuel L. Banks Regular readers of this newspaper's letters to the editor knew Samuel L. Banks as an inveterate correspondent always ready to take on the powers-that-be with rhetorical flourish that both enlightened and entertained. Dr. Banks, who died Wednesday at 64, was for 36 years a teacher and administrator in the Baltimore City public schools. But it was through his innumerable letters to the editor, his feisty opinion-page pieces and his sometimes prolix prose that he became known to thousands of Marylanders as a tireless champion of equal opportunity. Most people write letters to the editor to let off steam, express a personal opinion or simply for the thrill of seeing their name in print. The letters columns are a forum for all manner of complaints, grudges and passionate appeals as well as for the occasional gem of lucidity and sweet reason. A few people develop virtual second careers as letters column correspondents, vying with other letter writers and the newspaper's own staff members for pride of placement and frequency of publication. For Dr. Banks, however, a letter to the editor or an opinion page article was a means to an end, not an end in itself. He addressed the issues of the day not out of vanity but because he believed fervently that change would never come unless the status quo was challenged. He made it his business to do so as forcefully as possible. He wanted to wipe out every trace of bigotry and discrimination so that the nation might at last fulfill its historic promise of justice and equal opportunity for all. Applying the dictum of old-time labor leader Sam Gompers-- always demand more, more, more--Dr. Banks brought to his advocacy an unquenchable demand for improvement in the lives of his fellow African Americans. This newspaper was his special focus. He would rise in righteous fury against news stories or editorials he considered unfair to his constituency or his several causes. Yet when writers displayed what he regarded as greater sensitivity, he would dispense gentlemanly praise before launching into a lecture of what could be done better. He was one of our most persistent bed bugs, albeit a beneficent bed bug. We suspect that description would please him. Dr. Banks' style often mimicked the stately cadences of a church sermon. But he was fond of spicing up his phrases with unusual and sometimes arcane words that lent his expressions a peculiar dignity and sly humor. He knew readers delighted in his seemingly inexhaustible stock of adjectives, which he piled atop one another. Editors could pare words, phrases or whole paragraphs from his letters and still have more than enough left to fill the allotted space. Dr. Banks' vision of America and its possibilities was as generous as his use of words, and as wise.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, 50 years ago this week in San Francisco, the U.N. Charter was opened for signature. After some 9 weeks of negotiations, as World War II was drawing to a close, representatives from 50 countries unanimously adopted the charter. On the 24th of October 1945, the charter came into force, and the United Nations was effectively born. During this, the 50th anniversary year of the United Nations, I am deeply concerned that, rather than celebrating its endurance, we are witnessing a disturbing series of attacks upon it. Ironically, these attacks come at a challenging time for the United Nations. For now, with the end of the cold war, the United Nations has a genuine opportunity to function as it was intended to at the end of World War II. For many years, a constant Soviet veto in the Security Council effectively neutralized the United Nations. Between 1946 and 1970, for example, the Soviet Union vetoed Security Council actions more than 100 times before the United States even cast its first veto. But the United States chose to persevere within the existing U.N. framework. Even when casting their votes in 1945 to support ratification of the U.N. Charter, Senators recognized the challenging agenda faced by the United Nations in the years ahead. Senator Mead, a Democrat from New York, offered the following admonition: The Charter is not a key to utopia. Words written upon paper have no power in and of themselves to alter the course of events. It is only the spirit of men and nations behind those words which can do that. Today we continue to face the question: What kind of spirit do we wish to guide our discussion of the United Nations in 1995? There are two sharply contrasting directions in which our discussion of the United Nations can proceed. One is tantamount to withdrawing U.S. support from the United Nations by constantly searching out ways of undermining and weakening the institution. Unfortunately there are legislative proposals before this Congress which would move in this direction. Alternatively, we could apply our energies toward ensuring that the United States plays a key role in reforming and strengthening the United Nations as we prepare to enter a new century. I strongly believe that the hope of building a peaceful and prosperous world lies in choosing the latter course. There have been times in our history when Americans believed that we could go it alone and simply ignore conflicts and problems originating in other parts of the world. Indeed, isolationist sentiment succeeded in preventing the United States from joining the League of Nations at the end of World War I, despite the fact that President Woodrow Wilson was its leading architect. Those who labored in San Francisco and elsewhere to create the United Nations half a century ago learned from the mistakes of their predecessors with respect to the League of Nations. Parties to the initial negotiations at Dumbarton Oaks on establishing a United Nations, and to later preparations in San Francisco, insisted, for example, that the U.N. organization recognize the reality of great powers by granting significant authority to a Security Council. In that Council, the United States and other major powers were given the veto power--thereby ensuring that the United Nations could not undertake operations which United States opposed. In recognition of the leadership role taken by the United States in building the United Nations, New York was later chosen to serve as U.N. headquarters. Ensuring responsible U.S. engagement within the United Nations in 1995 remains nearly as demanding as in 1945. Much of the advice offered by Senator Gurney, a Republican from South Dakota, to his Senate colleagues in 1945 rings true today: . . . let me caution that after our almost unanimous vote for the Charter today we cannot merely sit back and feel and say, ``Everything is fixed now, everyone is safe.'' No; our people are entitled by their sacrifices in this war and others to more than that. We and all other nations must give the Charter organization the all-out support of all our people--sincere, honest support, continuing for years to come--in order that this world organization may be a growing, living instrumentality, capable of handling world problems in a fair and effective way. Even as we mark the United Nation's first 50 years, we must look to the challenges of a new century. In past decades, others designed the United Nations, drafted the charter, passed the enabling legislation, and persevered throughout the cold war. The task facing us in this decade is to assist the United Nations to adapt to the end of the cold war and to a new century. The need for a United Nations remains clear, for, as Madeleine Albright, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, has commented: The battle-hardened generation of Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaulle viewed the U.N. as a practical response to an inherently contentious world; a necessity not because relations among states could ever be brought into perfect harmony, but because they cannot. This sense of realism seems absent from many of the current discussions of the United Nations. While many rail about the deficiencies of the United Nations, they have not proposed a viable alternative to the United Nations. If we look back at the debate 50 years ago, we see that Senators recognized the necessity of U.N. membership partly because they acknowledged the absence of an alternative. While the United Nations work for peace and prosperity has never been easy, current challenges to peace have grown more complex partly because the nature of the conflicts the United Nations is asked to address has changed. Complex interethnic conflicts are resurfacing after having been suppressed. Guerrilla warfare is increasingly conducted by warring factions who do not respond to political or economic pressure. Conflict is frequently within borders and involves militias and armed civilians who lack discipline and clear chains of command. Disputes often take place without clear front lines. The fact that combatants often target civilians leads to increasing numbers both of displaced persons and refugees. In an effort to address such conflicts, the United Nations has expanded its operational responsibilities. As a result, U.N. peacekeeping missions have been deployed in places like Somalia or Rwanda where personnel must grapple with the fact that no effective state structure exists. In many trouble sports, the police and judiciary have collapsed, and general banditry and chaos prevail. Government assets have been destroyed and stolen; experienced officials have been killed or forced to flee the country. These realities are forcing the U.N. personnel to reconsider their terms of reference and to grapple with inadequate mandates. The truth is that the United Nations has been asked to handle some of the most uncertain, intractable, and dangerous cases of conflict. Clearly, the United Nations must be practical about the limits of its peacekeeping and must not undertake efforts that will drain U.N. resources without achieving the mission's goals. It is frustrating not to be able to resolve all the many conflicts on the international agenda, but do we abandon the United Nations if it cannot completely and successfully solve every problem in our world? Few institutions dealing with such complex matters (or for that matter much simpler ones) have 100-percent success records. In 1945, President Truman made an observation that is relevant to the current examination of U.N. peacekeeping efforts. He said, Building a peace requires as much moral stamina as waging a war. Perhaps it requires even more, because it is so laborious and painstaking and undramatic. It requires undying patience and continuous application. But it can give us, if we stay with it, the greatest reward that there is in the whole field of human effort. I believe Americans recognize the wisdom of President Truman's words and want to do their part; the United Nations is one means by which they can do so. While U.N. peacekeeping has recently been the focus of attention, much of the United Nations work takes place in other areas. Less in the spotlight are the steadfast efforts of U.N. agencies working to alleviate poverty, to slow the spread of HIV/A.I.D.S., and to feed and educate the world's children. Where conflict leads to destabilization of families and societies, the United Nations is there to shelter and feed refugees and displaced persons. Progress made on upholding international norms on human rights also stems from the work of U.N. agencies. Finally, the United Nations is responsible for many of the gains made in reducing the use of ozone-depleting substances, evaluating environmental impacts, and conserving biological diversity. These are but a few of the challenges facing the world today. Many of these problems have effects that do not respect national or geographic borders, and the United Nations offers a coherent and coordinated approach for meeting such challenges. Mr. President, whether Americans feel the responsibility of exercising global leadership, are responding to humanitarian concerns, or seeking to expand opportunities for international trade and commerce, the United Nations offers us a critical world forum. to cripple the United Nations by an erosion or withdrawal of American participation would be a terrible mistake. The United Nations provides the institutional means for leveraging American diplomatic, economic, and military resources in ways that enhance our vital National interests. Opinion surveys consistently indicate that a solid majority of the American people recognize the positive role that the United Nations can play. I hope such recognition of the United Nations value and importance will be demonstrated when the Senate considers U.S. participation in and support for the United Nations. Let us heed the words of warning offered by President Truman in 1945: ``The immediate, the greatest threat to us is the threat of disillusionment, the danger of insidious skepticism--a loss of faith in the effectiveness of international cooperation.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to reciprocate to the chairman of the committee with respect to his sentiments. I point out, I think this legislation was considered in a way that I would hope all legislation can be considered. We had opening statements. Then we moved from opening statements to taking up amendments. We considered the amendments seriatim, we had good debate on the amendments, voted on the amendments, then we had closing statements, and then we went to final passage of the bill. So I hope Members will agree, I know a number of Members I talked to felt we had a good consideration of it. People had a chance to express their points of view. We resolved them and moved forward. I thank the chairman of the committee for his effort to construct a fair framework in which to address this legislation. I thank my colleagues, and I want to acknowledge in particular the staff work of Mitchell Feuer, Andy Vermilye, and Brian McTigue, all of whom worked indefatigably on this legislation. I yield the floor.