Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I had the honor of joining with Mrs. Mary Anne Gibbons, a number of firefighters from the State of Maryland, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, the United States Fire Administration, and others in dedicating the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Chapel in commemoration of Chief A. Marvin Gibbons. As I mentioned in Emmitsburg, Mrs. Gibbons is doing a terrific job in her position as a member of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation board--carrying on the good work for which we honored her husband--and we are extremely grateful for her continued contributions in this area. I also made mention during the ceremony of the many accomplishments of the ``Big Chief,'' as Chief Gibbons was affectionately known by his many friends and associates. I wanted to make his legacy a part of the Congressional Record because throughout his life, I think he embodied the qualities which make our firefighters heroes, leaders, and role models. Ever since I grew up, two blocks from the fire house in Salisbury, I have always held a deep and abiding respect for the men and women of the fire service. This is not simply because of the willingness of fire fighters to put their lives on the line every day, but also because they tend to do their jobs with kindness and an infallible commitment to serving the citizens of their communities. Indeed, there are few persons more deserving of our respect and admiration than those who serve as fire fighters and first responders. I have long felt that Americans do not pause often enough to consider the critical importance of the work that firefighters do--to appreciate their sacrifice and the contribution which they make to our nation. Throughout his life, Chief Gibbons not only personified the best of what it means to be a firefighter and a public servant, but he also showed a strong commitment to ensuring that firefighters receive the recognition they richly deserve. This past weekend's dedication ceremony was indeed a fitting tribute to Chief Gibbons' 42 years of lasting contributions to the fire service. I want to again touch on one of the contributions he made on a national level which is of particular interest to me. As most who are involved in the fire service know, it was Marvin Gibbons who helped ensure that the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial was located in Emmitsburg, Maryland on the beautiful campus of the National Fire Academy. And it was his vision which led to the unveiling of this monument and the first annual National Memorial Service held at Emmitsburg in 1982. I was proud to introduce and push to enact the legislation that made the Emmitsburg site the official National Memorial to all firefighters. And in 1990, I spoke at the dedication marking the official recognition of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial where I recall quoting an editorial from the Carroll County Times entitled ``Firefighters Memorial: An Important Reminder.'' I want to again just quote briefly from it, because I think this editorial reflects what Chief Gibbons was striving to accomplish in establishing the memorial and an annual ceremony in honor of our nation's fallen firefighters: We take many aspects of life for granted. Not thinking about a service until we need it is an easy way to think . . . But how often do we consider that at a moment's notice, our fire fighters will risk their lives for us? Until the tragedy of fire or some other emergency strikes, we hardly consider it at all. Mr. President, behind each name engraved in Emmitsburg is a story--a story of courage, dedication and service to others--and I should mention that we are working to expand the National Memorial site there to ensure that it continues to serve as a lasting tribute to our firefighters. The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation is responsible for the National Memorial Service each year so that as a nation we will never forget the sacrifice that these brave men and women make in protecting us every day. With the dedication of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Chapel in his memory, we hope to ensure that the legacy of A. Marvin Gibbons and his commitment to the fire service will also never be forgotten.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to express my dismay that, just like last fall, the Republican leadership is preventing the Senate from conducting a broad, thoughtful debate on the issue of campaign finance reform. Mr. President, the controversy surrounding our system of elections is not a new phenomenon. I can recall the 100th Congress, during which then-Majority Leader Byrd held a total of seven cloture votes in order to effect reform in this critical area. Sadly, we were not able to command a filibuster-proof majority then and this situation has not improved under the current leadership. It is my view that in order for our nation as a whole to be strong, our public and private institutions must be strong--our schools, our churches, and our governmental institutions must be vital instruments of democratic participation, and must instill in the people a confidence in and enthusiasm for our way of life. I am very concerned that, to the contrary, the people are growing increasingly cynical about public life. They are staying away from the polling place in increasingly large numbers, diminishing the level of political debate and the health of our public institutions. This is in large part due to their perception that money, rather than the popular will, drives electoral outcomes. Under these circumstances, meaningful campaign finance reform becomes vital to the health of our system of government and our way of life. Mr. President, a majority in the Senate--all Democrats, including myself, and a few courageous Republicans--agree with the American public that our system of campaign financing needs repair. Regrettably, however, an effective debate in the Senate on what should be done is impossible, so long as the Republican leadership insist on using parliamentary tactics to prevent Senators from offering and debating amendments that will help us clarify the nature and gravity of the campaign finance problem. These technical ploys are not simply designed to determine the outcome of the campaign finance debate--they are designed to preclude debate altogether, and to deny those advocates of campaign finance reform even the opportunity to garner a filibuster- proof majority in favor of reform. Mr. President, these kinds of maneuvers formed the Republican strategy last fall, when campaign finance reform legislation was successfully blocked, and here they are again. Such measures violate the Senate's reputation for thoughtfulness and deliberation, in which it rightly takes such pride. If the Republican leadership has the votes to defeat important and necessary campaign finance reform, so be it--I would not agree with this outcome, but it would at least comport with the way the Senate should conduct its business. To preclude altogether the consideration of amendments and a full and fair debate on the issue is something altogether different, and is inconsistent with the Nation's needs and desires. Therefore, Mr. President, I urge the majority leader and his allies to recognize that a system of elections that commands the trust of the American people is essential to the proper functioning of our democratic system, and, at the very least, to allow the Senate to conduct a full, fair debate on whether our current system needs reform. No one can guarantee that the Senate will reach a result of which it can be proud, but let us at least observe a process that will make the American people confident that this issue has received thorough review by their representatives in government. Anything less would simply add to the public cynicism that already exists toward government, and that brings us to this point today.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, yesterday, I joined with my colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Robb in introducing S. 1679, the Federal Employee Pay Fairness Act of 1998, legislation that will seek to ensure pay equity for our Nation's civil servants. In 1990, Congress and then-President Bush approved the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA), legislation which governs the pay system for all general schedule Federal employees-- nearly 76% of the workforce in the Executive Branch. Recognizing that Federal employees' salaries have trailed those of their private sector counterparts by an much as 30%, this law was enacted in order to bring Federal employees toward comparability with the non-federal rates that prevail in different localities across the country. The law set in motion a schedule to close 20% of the pay gap in 1994 and an additional 10% each year thereafter through 2002 to bring Federal salaries within 5% of their private sector counterparts. Each year, the President's Pay Agent makes a recommendation to the President as to what the rates should be in order to comply with FEPCA and remain on schedule to reach comparability by 2002. However, the law also grants the President the authority to override this schedule and set the pay adjustments annually. Since 1994, FEPCA has never been fully implemented. In fact, in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1998, Federal workers received a reduced annual adjustment, and fully locality payments have never been provided. Thus, instead of facing a 30% pay gap in 1999 as FEPCA would have allowed, we actually face a 69.3% gap today. The President has the authority under FEPCA to deviate from the Pay Agent's recommendation ``because of national emergency or serious economic conditions.'' Although FEPCA cites consideration of pertinent economic measures such as the GNP, unemployment rate, budget deficit, and CIP, it does not define what constitutes a ``serious economic condition.'' In fact, despite the record economic growth, low unemployment, and reduced budget deficits of the past five years, the President continues to cite ``serious economic conditions'' each year when he deviates from the FEPCA-recommended pay levels and proposes a lower pay plan. Our bill, a companion to legislation introduced by Congressman Hoyer and others in the House, would change ``serious economic conditions'' to ``severe economic conditions'' and define ``severe economic conditions'' to clearly indicate when the President can exercise his authority over the pay schedule. Simply put, a ``severe economic condition'' is defined in the bill as ``two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the real Gross Domestic Product''; the definition of recession most commonly used by economists. By providing an objective, rather than a subjective standard, this legislation will ensure that our Federal employees receive a fair and adequate pay level, as set out in current law. Mr. President, over the years, Federal employees have made significant sacrifices in the name of deficit reduction. The Federal government is currently on target to downsize by more than 272,000 employees by 1999, and according to the Office of Personnel Management, has already reduced the number of Federal workers by more than 254,000 as of September, 1997. Additionally, these employees have persevered despite numerous attacks on their pay and earned benefits and the denigration by some in this body during the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996. Through it all, Federal employees have continued to provide the high quality of service the American public has come to know and expect. Now, in order to maintain the high quality of service the American people have come to expect, we need to be able to recruit and retain the most qualified and competent employees. Certainly, if we are to expect more from our Federal workforce, if these very dedicated individuals have to do more with less during this time of downsizing, then we should ensure a rate of pay comparable to what they could get in the private sector. Federal employees and the public they serve deserve no less. Mr. President, as one who firmly believes in value of a first-rate public service, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation to provide pay equity for America's Federal worker. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the 104th Congress passed legislation, introduced by myself and my distinguished colleague Senator Warner, to authorize the establishment of a monument to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on federal land in the District of Columbia. Today I rise, once again for myself and Senator Warner, to introduce legislation that would give effect to the recommendation of the Department of Interior that this Memorial be situated in Area I of the Capital. Area I comprises, in the words of the Interior Department, ``the central Monumental Core of the District of Columbia and its environs,'' that is, the Mall and its surrounding areas. The Department has determined that a commemorative work belongs in Area I only if it is determined to be of preeminent historical and lasting significance to the Nation. It comes as no surprise that the King memorial has been found to meet these criteria, and I urge my colleagues to join me in approving the Department's recommendation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a January 29, 1998 letter from Don Barry, Acting Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, to Vice President Gore transmitting this recommendation be included in the Record. Mr. President, it is particularly apt that Senator Warner and I introduce this legislation in February, which has been designated Black History Month. To place the King Memorial alongside monuments to America's greatest leaders would acknowledge the nation's historic debt to Dr. King, to his philosophy of nonviolence, and to his dream of Americans living together in racial harmony. The National Capital Memorial Commission agrees. After holding a hearing on July 29, 1997, on the question of the location of the King Memorial, the Commission informed Assistant Secretary Barry that, in his words: Dr. King, the central figure of the Civil Rights movement, a man who strove to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, and a man who dedicated himself through nonviolent means to promote the principles of justice and equality, who paid the ultimate price for his beliefs, has had a profound effect on all Americans which will continue through history. Situation of the King Memorial in Area I would also place Dr. King's legacy in historical context. Americans are already aware of the achievements of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the veterans of our foreign wars, and other Area I honorees in preserving the liberties, freedoms, and rights that Americans hold dear. Dr. King and his legacy hold a vital place along this continuum, and fully deserve the honor that the Secretary of the Interior seeks to accord them. Mr. President, while we have come a long way since Dr. King's death toward the goals of equality and racial harmony for which he lived, and gave, his life, we still have a long way to go. A King Memorial in Area I would serve as a signpost along the road toward these goals for those who were not alive when Dr. King lived, and as a reminder that the goals toward which he strove must be attained in order for America to remain strong and true to its governing principles. In closing, let me pay tribute to Alpha Phi Alpha, the oldest African-American fraternity in the United States, to which Dr. King and many other prominent African-Americans, such as former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, belonged. Under the King Memorial plan enacted into law last Congress, Alpha Phi Alpha will coordinate the funding and design of the King Memorial, which will be funded entirely through private donations, at no cost to the public. Alpha Phi Alpha's efforts in this area--and its support of this legislation--reflect its desire that Dr. King's legacy remain alive. I urge the Senate to carry its burden in this effort, and to pass the Interior Department's recommendations into law as soon as possible.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the 104th Congress passed legislation, introduced by myself and my distinguished colleague Senator Warner, to authorize the establishment of a monument to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on federal land in the District of Columbia. Today I rise, once again for myself and Senator Warner, to introduce legislation that would give effect to the recommendation of the Department of Interior that this Memorial be situated in Area I of the Capital. Area I comprises, in the words of the Interior Department, ``the central Monumental Core of the District of Columbia and its environs,'' that is, the Mall and its surrounding areas. The Department has determined that a commemorative work belongs in Area I only if it is determined to be of preeminent historical and lasting significance to the Nation. It comes as no surprise that the King memorial has been found to meet these criteria, and I urge my colleagues to join me in approving the Department's recommendation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a January 29, 1998 letter from Don Barry, Acting Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, to Vice President Gore transmitting this recommendation be included in the Record. Mr. President, it is particularly apt that Senator Warner and I introduce this legislation in February, which has been designated Black History Month. To place the King Memorial alongside monuments to America's greatest leaders would acknowledge the nation's historic debt to Dr. King, to his philosophy of nonviolence, and to his dream of Americans living together in racial harmony. The National Capital Memorial Commission agrees. After holding a hearing on July 29, 1997, on the question of the location of the King Memorial, the Commission informed Assistant Secretary Barry that, in his words: Dr. King, the central figure of the Civil Rights movement, a man who strove to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, and a man who dedicated himself through nonviolent means to promote the principles of justice and equality, who paid the ultimate price for his beliefs, has had a profound effect on all Americans which will continue through history. Situation of the King Memorial in Area I would also place Dr. King's legacy in historical context. Americans are already aware of the achievements of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the veterans of our foreign wars, and other Area I honorees in preserving the liberties, freedoms, and rights that Americans hold dear. Dr. King and his legacy hold a vital place along this continuum, and fully deserve the honor that the Secretary of the Interior seeks to accord them. Mr. President, while we have come a long way since Dr. King's death toward the goals of equality and racial harmony for which he lived, and gave, his life, we still have a long way to go. A King Memorial in Area I would serve as a signpost along the road toward these goals for those who were not alive when Dr. King lived, and as a reminder that the goals toward which he strove must be attained in order for America to remain strong and true to its governing principles. In closing, let me pay tribute to Alpha Phi Alpha, the oldest African-American fraternity in the United States, to which Dr. King and many other prominent African-Americans, such as former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, belonged. Under the King Memorial plan enacted into law last Congress, Alpha Phi Alpha will coordinate the funding and design of the King Memorial, which will be funded entirely through private donations, at no cost to the public. Alpha Phi Alpha's efforts in this area--and its support of this legislation--reflect its desire that Dr. King's legacy remain alive. I urge the Senate to carry its burden in this effort, and to pass the Interior Department's recommendations into law as soon as possible.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, since 1926, we have designated February as the month during which we honor the contributions of African-Americans to our history, our culture, and our future. Of course, no month should pass without our giving attention to the historical legacy of America's African-Americans. However, this month is the time when we devote special attention to this legacy, which, in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, has survived and enriched American life in countless ways. As it does each year, the Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History (ASALH) has selected a theme for this month's celebration. This year's theme is ``African Americans and Business: The Path Toward Empowerment.'' Mr. President, maybe more than any other theme, the question of African-Americans and business demands our attention and interest. The degree to which African-Americans participate in and benefit from America's commercial and business life may be the single best indicator of whether they have obtained the equality of opportunity and freedom for which they have long strived and to which they are entitled under our Constitution. We move toward full equality when uniquely gifted individuals--athletes, artists, entertainers, etc.--capture the public's imagination and because of their unique gifts transcend the limits placed on their race. We move even closer to this goal when each and every African-American has the opportunity to get a loan, lease or purchase property, open a business, develop a product, hire other African-Americans, and contribute to the betterment of his community. The ability of African-Americans to have these most basic avenues of opportunity and advancement open to them may give us the best sense of just how far we have progressed on the road to equality. Thus, any study of the history of African-Americans and business should highlight not only the many brilliant inventors and entrepreneurs who have made unique or major contributions to American history. It should also take note of the many average, hard-working people who have fulfilled, against great odds, the American dream of owning and operating their own businesses. Let me devote a few minutes to both these sets of heroes. On one hand African-Americans, and Americans in general, can boast of such great minds as Jan Matzeliger (1852-1889), Joseph Lee (1849-1905), Elijah McCoy (1843-1929), and Andrew Beard (1850-1910)--19th century inventors who helped revolutionize American industry at a crucial period in its development. They can boast of groundbreaking success stories such as Madame C.J. Walker (1867-1919), America's first black millionaire businesswoman, whose hair products company employed 3,000 people, and Maggie Lena Walker (1867-1934), America's first female bank president. Mr. President, this list is merely a sample of the many African-Americans who have made unique contributions to American commerce, and who have helped lead us to the heights we occupy today as the strongest economic force in the world. On the other hand, let us also take note of the more modest success stories of the many African-Americans who at this same time owned and ran businesses, surviving not only economic hardship but a social system that left them short of funding, public support, and legal protection. Here I speak of the members--now long forgotten--of the Colored Merchants Association of New York City, formed during the Great Depression to sustain the city's African-American businesses against the shocks of that economic disaster. I speak here also of the numerous African-American newspapers established in the late 19th century, the first of which, Baltimore's Afro-American, is still published to this day. Mr. President, I submit that only when such stories of struggle and achievement are commonplace, and demand no particular attention, can we truly claim credit for eradicating completely the scourge of racial bias from our society. I think we are moving in the right direction. Between 1987 and 1992, when the last set of complete figures were available from the Census Bureau, the number of American businesses owned by African-Americans increased by 46%. In my own State of Maryland, the numbers are even more impressive. In Maryland during the 1987-1992 period, the number of African-American businesses grew by 14,080 to 35,578, a 65% increase. These figures, I am proud to say, make Maryland the State with the most African-American-owned businesses in the Nation. Moreover, two of Maryland's counties are among the top ten in the nation in terms of the number of African-American businesses based there. Clearly, more and more African-Americans are taking the path to empowerment that Americans of all colors and creeds should view as their birthright. Thus, during Black History Month, let us celebrate not only firms like Prince George's County's Pulsar Data Systems, a computer systems integration company that made $165 million in 1995, and was ranked by Black Enterprise Magazine as the fifth most profitable black-owned company in America that year. Let us also celebrate smaller enterprises like Grassroots II, an African-American bookstore in Salisbury, MD, which specializes in literature celebrating the African-American experience. Both these types of businesses--the smaller no less than the bigger --show us how far we have come as a nation and how far we still need to go. In closing, Mr. President, let me pay tribute to a Maryland-based African-American run ``business'' that deserves special mention this month. This business sought to lead African-Americans down a different path of empowerment--not economic empowerment, but intellectual and cultural empowerment. I speak of the black history calendar business run by C. Cabell Carter during the 1970's and 1980's. Mr. Carter, a retired schoolteacher who died in 1987, travelled throughout Baltimore's African-American community selling calendars that featured African-American artwork and highlighted on each day of the year a significant achievement in African-American history. He charged a nominal fee for each calendar, and, by most estimates, sold few calendars per year. I ask that a February 5, 1998 article in the Baltimore Sun about Mr. Carter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. Mr. Carter did not create jobs, he was not known outside his immediate community, and he would hardly qualify as a prosperous businessman, much less a captain of industry. His achievement, however, was to make his fellow African-Americans aware of their rich history, and to instill in them the pride to be part of that history. It is my sincere hope that some of those with whom Mr. Carter spoke and to whom he sold calendars will be the ones that we in Congress will honor in future editions of Black History Month. The article follows: Taking Black History to the Streets (By Elmer P. Martin and Joanne M. Martin) Historian Carter G. Woodson began Negro History Week in 1926 (now Black History Month), but over the years many average citizens helped popularize the February observance. One such local person was the late C. Cabell Carter, a Baltimore schoolteacher who spent much of his retirement years in the 1970s and '80s peddling black history calendars he created, and serving as a sort of street-corner historian, preaching to everyone from drug dealers to church leaders about the importance of knowing their history. Mr. Carter charged a nominal fee for the calendars that featured black and white renderings of ancient African royalty and historical African-Americans of note. Virtually every day on the calendars was marked with a significant event in black history. Mr. Carter probably sold 1,000 calendars a year. Any proceeds were used to finance the production of the next year's calendars and black history postcards. Once, he self- published a thin paperback of profiles of black historical figures. widely traveled With his tall, thin figure always immaculately dressed in a starched, white, buttoned-down shirt and tie, and frequently a jacket or suit, Mr. Carter was a well-known figure in Baltimore's black community who traveled all over the area selling his calendar. You were as likely to see him outside Lexington Terrace housing project as you were to find him traversing Morgan State University. Amazingly, he did all his travels--in good weather and bad--using public transportation. When he was cautioned not to go into dangerous areas, he shrugged off such suggestions. After all, he was on a mission to educate his people, which meant he had to go wherever his people were. Mr. Carter sought to ``liberate'' black history from academia and take it to the streets. He said it was important for black youth to know that their people had a rich history long before coming to this country. He wanted to fill the gaps left by many history books. While Mr. Carter spread the word about black history, he didn't spend a lot of time talking about himself, so details of his background are sketchy. He was born Dec. 5, 1912, and graduated from Hampton Institute (now Hampton University). He taught for years at Carver Vocational School, where he became a leading advocate for instituting black studies and black history in the public schools. His wife apparently died years ago; his only child, a son, could not be located at the time of Mr. Carter's death, Aug. 8, 1987. We came to know Mr. Carter when we established the Great Blacks in Wax Museum in 1983. He volunteered his services and became one of our founding board members. He loved taking our wax figures on the road for exhibits to such places as Mondawmin Mall. Mr. Carter said he developed his love of history while serving in the Army's 92nd Infantry Division during World War II, where he received the Bronze Star for bravery in action. Faced with extreme racial prejudice and segregation from fellow soldiers and others, Mr. Carter read black history to keep from succumbing to feelings of inferiority and bitterness. The therapeutic results persuaded him that all black people should become acquainted with their history. Toward that end, he spent considerable time collecting newspaper clippings, visiting libraries and engaging in other activities in an effort to amass historical data for his files, which he would in turn share with others. an eccentric character Although some people regarded him as a bit crazy for approaching hardened youths on street corners, such youths were generally disarmed by Mr. Carter's easy smile, his sincerity, his low tolerance for foolishness and the great confidence he had in their promise and potential. Mr. Carter often said, ``It is a sad day when the elders are afraid of their own children. I refuse to ever get in that state.'' Mr. Carter also started the Reading Improvement Association, a community-based literacy program. His work did not go unappreciated. At his funeral, some 300 people from all walks of life packed a small cemetery chapel to pay tribute to that wonderfully unusual man. The West Baltimore resident died penniless at age 74. His landlord, not realizing the importance of Mr. Carter's collection, had it gathered up and thrown away. So there's little left of Mr. Carter's work except a few calendars and a few copies of his book, ``Black History Makers.'' But, during Black History Month, we recognize such little- known figures as Mr. Carter, as well as the celebrated. Mr. Carter would have liked that.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Naval Surface Warfare Center's Carderock Division in Montgomery County, which will celebrate its Centennial Anniversary on January 30, 1998. For 100 years, the NSWC's Carderock Division, widely known as the David Taylor Research Center, has played a pivotal role in the design and construction of Navy ships, submarines and advanced craft. This Center has been described--accurately, in my view--as the ``First Stop'' for Navy ideas in new ship and submarine concepts. Through the basic and applied research conducted at this center the Navy has been able to develop new, innovative hull designs, ways to significantly lower the costs of submarine and ship construction, and has made significant advances in reducing electromagnetic signatures and underwater accoustics--to name only a few of its accomplishments. Its team of scientists, engineers, technicians and support staff at Carderock and formerly Annapolis, have spearheaded the development of surface ship and submarine system technologies to ensure that the U.S. fleet remains the best in the world. Since its inception, the Carderock Division has been charged with the unique dual mission of supporting not only the Navy, but also our maritime sector as a whole and I think it is important to point out how much the research conducted at David Taylor and the technology it has transferred to the private sector has benefitted the nation's entire maritime industry. From having the largest number of patents issued to employees in the entire division, to being the first DOD/Navy and second government organization to receive ISO 9001 (International Organization for Standardization) Certification--as well as receiving Vice President Gore's coveted Hammer Award--the David Taylor Center's achievements are truly second to none. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to work closely with a number of individuals at the Carderock Division and I can personally attest to the high caliber, quality and commitment of its workforce. Indeed, the many accomplishments of the David Taylor Research Center have only been possible through the professionalism, dedication, imagination and energy of its employees. One of the projects on which I worked very closely with the Navy was Carderock's new, state of the art Ship Materials Technology Center which we dedicated last year. With this new center and other developments which are underway, Carderock not only has best personnel, but also some of the finest, most-advanced facilities and resources to ensure that the Navy's Research and Development Program stays on the cutting edge of technology into the 21st Century. We take great pride in the accomplishments of the Carderock division, in the people who work there and in having this outstanding facility located in Maryland. I commend the David Taylor Center for its 100 years of success and remarkable achievements and am confident that, with its new lab facility, the Carderock division and our nation will continue to be on the frontier of Naval research and development for hundreds of years to come.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, now that we have concluded the 1st session of the 105th Congress, I want to again focus the attention of the Senate and the American people on the glacial pace of Federal judicial confirmations during this session. Mr. President, the reluctance of the Senate to confirm the President's nominees to the Federal bench is a carryover from the 2d session of the 104th Congress, during which the Republican-controlled Senate, in an unprecedented display of election-year inaction, confirmed only 17 district court nominees and no circuit court nominees. This pattern of inaction has continued into the 105th Congress, during which the Senate has confirmed only 36 of the President's judicial nominees--7 circuit judges and 29 district court judges. Admittedly, there was some effort made in the waning days of the session to confirm judges, but the overall numbers remain highly disturbing and worthy of attention. In the last 2 years, the Senate has confirmed 53 judicial nominees, while a total of 81 seats on the bench continue to lie vacant, and 41 nominees await committee or floor consideration. In other words, there are still more nominees pending in the Senate than were confirmed this year, and more than twice the number of nominees confirmed last year. Compare the number of nominees confirmed thus far this year and in the 104th Congress to the number confirmed in the last two Democratically controlled Congresses, one of which featured a Republican President. In the 102d Congress, the Senate confirmed 124 Federal judges, while in the 103d Congress it confirmed 129 Federal judges. In the 104th Congress, the Republicans confirmed but 75 judges, while this year it confirmed 36. In other words, in the last 3 years, the Republican majority in the Senate has confirmed fewer Federal judges than the Democratically controlled Senate did in either the 102d or the 103d Congress. I ask my colleagues to further compare the figures of the last 2 years with the number of judicial nominees confirmed by Democratically controlled Senates during years when a Republican White House faced a Democratic challenge--when, as in 1996, the party in control of the Senate had an incentive to delay confirmations, in the hopes that the Presidential election would effect a transfer of the White House to its party. In 1992, when President Bush stood for reelection and the Democrats controlled the Senate, the Senate confirmed 11 circuit court judges and 55 district court judges. In other words, the Democratically controlled Senate in 1992 confirmed almost four times the number of Republican nominees confirmed by the Republican controlled Senate in 1996, and almost 25 percent more judges than the Republican Senate has confirmed in the last 2 years combined. Similarly, in 1988, when Vice President Bush stood for election, the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 7 circuit court judges and 33 district court judges--over twice the number of judges confirmed last year, and more judges than were confirmed in this past nonelection year. Clearly, in the last couple of years, the politicization of the confirmation process has increased. Today, the Republican majority in the Senate is effectively bottling up nominees in committee and on the floor, in stark contrast to the behavior of Democratically controlled Senates over the last decade. This politicization, Mr. President, has been extended to include the practice of denying nominees an up or down vote on the Senate floor, or even in the Judiciary Committee. If the majority of the Senate opposes a judicial nominee enough to derail a nomination by an up or down vote, then at least the process has been served. Instead, however, the President's nominees are not even receiving that courtesy from this Senate: Some of the individuals whose nominations are pending before the Judiciary Committee or the full Senate have not been allowed a vote on the floor, much less in committee, for close to 2 years. It is especially troubling that of the 14 nominees who have been held up the longest by the Republican majority in the Senate, 12 are women or minorities. Let me give one example of this phenomenon--that of James Beaty, the President's nominee to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes my State of Maryland. Judge Beaty, currently a district court judge in North Carolina, was nominated by the President to the court of appeals in the 104th Congress, during which he did not even receive a vote in committee. He was renominated on January 7 of this year, and has yet to receive even a hearing in the committee, much less an up-or-down vote there, or on the floor. Some have argued against Judge Beaty's nomination that, in their view, the fourth circuit does not need an additional judge, and that failure to confirm him would amount to a conservation of taxpayer resources. Assuming for the sake of argument that that is the case--and I would disagree that it is the case--Congress should act affirmatively to eliminate the vacant seat on that court before a nominee comes before it, not stall an individual's nomination into oblivion with arguments created after the fact. When you have a nominee sent to the Senate and then claims are made that the seat is unnecessary, it is simply impossible to divorce the claim that the seat is unnecessary from an ad hominem attack on the candidate himself. Judge Beaty, if confirmed to the fourth circuit, would be the first African-American to sit on that court. Prior to becoming a district court judge, Judge Beaty maintained a general civil and criminal litigation practice in Winston-Salem, NC, and then served as a State court judge for 13 years. These accomplishments entitle him, at the very least, to an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Instead, he has not even received a committee hearing--much less a committee vote, at the hands of the majority. By any measure, Mr. President, the Congress has become increasingly politicized in the last few years. I submit to my colleagues, however, that if there is one subject that should remain immune from political games and pressure it is our Federal judicial system, which is the envy of the world for its independence and integrity, and which is absolutely fundamental to our system of government. It is essential for the maintenance of public confidence in this system that the confirmation process be as far removed from politics as possible. Yet we seem to be moving in the exact opposite direction, as we hear Members of the other party calling for impeachment of judges on the basis of decisions with which the Members disagree, and for defeat of judicial nominees deemed to possess liberal or activist tendencies. This behavior--while perhaps politically advantageous in the short run--betrays a basic and dangerous misunderstanding of the role of the courts in our system of government. Moreover, on a purely practical level, the Senate's failure to confirm the 42 nominees before it adjourns hamstrings the courts' ability to deal with its ever-increasing caseload--an increase that, I might add, Mr. President, is in large part due to the majority's proclivity for federalizing areas of law that have been historically left to the States. So we have district judges throughout the country putting aside all civil cases in order to deal with their criminal dockets, because their courts have been left shorthanded by the Senate's inaction. We have courts of appeals canceling oral arguments because of shortages on their courts. We have Chief Justice Rehnquist--hardly the kind of liberal judicial activist that so concerns the majority--calling the problem of judicial vacancies the most pressing problem facing the Federal courts today. And yet we see little in the way of movement by the Senate to alleviate these burdens. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues--especially my Republican colleagues--will give serious attention to the problems, both practical and philosophical, that will result if the Senate does not revisit its approach to the judicial confirmation process, and that in this area, the second session of the 105th Congress will proceed in a markedly different manner than the last 2 years. In closing, I would like to commend the efforts of my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, in this area. He has tried to jog the Senate into acting to resolve this problem: I regret that his calls for action have not been heeded thus far, though I hold out hope that common sense and respect for our constitutional system will prevail in the long run.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield just further for 1 minute, it is since 1975 that our trade balance has deteriorated in this extraordinary fashion. I understand the point. Everyone says we have been doing this. The consequence of doing this is--contrary to the whole period prior to then, when we ran modest surpluses--we have now been running these very deep deficits. And the consequence of doing that is that we are now a debtor nation. I defy anyone to say that this is a welcome trend, in terms of the U.S. economic position worldwide. We have gone from being the largest creditor nation in the world to now we are the largest debtor nation, and at the end of this year we will be a debtor nation to the tune of $1 trillion.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield further, I think the Senator made a very important point when he spoke about the contradiction in our approach. On the one hand, as he pointed out on the global warming issue and on the other environmental matters that he talked about, we are often engaged in negotiating with other countries to try to arrive at international environmental standards. Everyone says, ``Well, we have to do that.'' On the other hand, when we come to trade agreements where we have an enhanced ability, since the entry into the American market is a very important objective that is sought abroad, we take the environmental matters out of that context altogether. So the very place where we are most likely to be able to gain advances on environmental standards and at the same time, as the Senator points out, avoid placing our own producers in a disadvantageous position, we forswear dealing with those environmental questions. It just boggles the mind that this approach is being taken in this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, I agree with the Senator completely. I think all of the items that he mentioned in terms of resolving commercial disputes, repatriation of earnings, and so forth obviously have to be part of a negotiating effort. But the environmental considerations should also be a part of the negotiating effort. I think that is all the Senator's amendment seeks to do. It doesn't seek to displace those other goals or objectives. It simply seeks to add to them so that it becomes a part of the negotiating focus and so that environmental concerns will also be on the agenda instead of left off the agenda and not have so-called side agreements. We have been through those side agreements. We know full well--we did the same thing on environment and on worker conditions--we know full well that in both instances the side agreements don't amount to anything. Other things which are put right into the trade agreement become enforceable and have to be adhered to. If they are not adhered to, they are contrary to the trade agreement; the remedies that are provided for in the trade agreement go into effect. But they are not putting the environment and the working conditions on the same status, the same level.

Mr. SARBANES. Of course, the assertion used to be made, well, if we lost jobs in certain industries because our technology was always advancing, we would be out doing the more complex, complicated production techniques and therefore we would gain jobs in those industries. And if you think about it, there is something to that theory. But what has happened, in my perception, that undercuts that theory and why we are running these large trade deficits as a consequence is, first of all, as capital moves freely, capital moves into these undeveloped countries where there are no environmental standards and there are no real working conditions. So then you have people who are working 11, 12 hours a day for 15 cents an hour but the machines they are working on, because the capital has come in, are the same machines that people would be working on in this country. And so the ability of capital to move that way makes it even more imperative that these environmental and working condition issues be included within the trade negotiations. Furthermore, even if the capital does not move, as it were, voluntarily, some of these countries are demanding that it move as a condition for having any trade. China has made it very clear that companies have to bring in their top-line technology and investment so that they will then be the producers at the next economic turn. So in order to get a contract, our people get a short-term contract, they agree as part of selling the goods that they are also going to move in the technology and the investment which then makes it possible for them to produce the goods the next economic go-round. So no longer will we not be able to sell to them, but it is my prediction they will then become our competitors in other markets as well. So we are being, as it were, coerced into, in effect, providing technology, and yet we are told, well, we can't have as part of the trade negotiation evening up the environmental and the worker landscape, economic landscape.

Mr. SARBANES. That leads to this: Many people have said these are not really trade agreements that are being negotiated, or the impetus for them is not trade; it is investment. These are investment agreements. Among other things, a result of these agreements is extended protection for American investment in other countries; in other words, as the Senator said, for the multinationals to be able to establish their production abroad rather than in this country. Well, of course, if they are going to do that, then they don't want the higher environmental or working-condition standards.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield further on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. Actually, at the very point when we have something we can use as leverage to get the higher standard, which is access into the American market, we are refusing to do it in order to achieve greater equalization of these environmental standards. I can't, for the life of me, understand why we are leaving the environmental matters out of the trade negotiations. I understand that it will not be the only thing in the trade negotiation; there will be other considerations as well. But why it should be, as it were, excluded outside of that parameter, I can't, for the life of me, understand.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator further yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely right. Of course, the reason we put in the environmental standards is we went through a long debate that indicated we were paying a very heavy health cost because we didn't have clean air and clean water. So we made the effort to get clean air and clean water, which I very strongly support. But now if you are going to go into international trade and your competitors are free of having to meet any of those standards, then they are, as you say, at a competitive advantage in dealing with you. That is one of the things we are facing. I can't, for the life of me, understand why it is unreasonable or impermissible to bring the environmental concerns into the middle of the trade negotiations as well.

Mr. SARBANES. Isn't it a fact that if you can't bring in the environmental standards and the working conditions, you are not going to be able to compete on a level field? Either one of two things will happen. You will remain at a competitive disadvantage, as the Senator has noted, I think, very perceptively; or there is going to be a tremendous downward pressure to lower environmental standards because people will say, well, we are at a competitive disadvantage, we can't have these environmental standards. Now, we have been through the whole debate about the environmental standards, and they are clearly necessary if we are not going to befoul the very world in which we live. This legislation doesn't make the environmental concerns a legitimate objective. The Senator made a very thoughtful speech the other evening about the difficulty with this legislation, about, as I recall, setting out what our negotiating goals ought to be. It seems to me that this is a clear example of such failure, because the legislation does not permit environmental considerations to be a central negotiating goal, as I understand it; is that correct?

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

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator made that point in the opening debate on this issue where the Senator spoke about, I thought in a very perceptive way, what was important. What are your goals? What are your objectives that are going to be focused upon in the trade negotiations? We all want to arrive at these trade agreements if we can do so. The question then becomes, What are the goals? What are the objectives? The Senator pointed out that the goals were too narrowly focused. This is a dramatic example of that narrow focus.

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely right. The question is not whether you are going to trade; it is the terms on which you will trade. What are the rules going to be? Of course, China's trade surplus with the United States finances China's trade imbalance with the rest of the world. So, in effect, we make it possible for China to purchase from other developed countries, the European countries, for example, who are very careful to keep their trade relationship with China in much more of an even balance. So, year after year, we run these large trade deficits, and everyone says, ``Well, it doesn't matter.'' It does matter. It does matter. It affects the standing of the United States as a world power. You cannot long be a world power if you are the world's largest debtor country. This chart makes a difference. The United States for decades was a creditor nation--others owed us. Now we have deteriorated to where we are now the largest debtor nation in the world to the tune of $1 trillion--a $1 trillion debtor nation. People get up on the floor of the Senate, and they make these expansive speeches about what a great power we are, and so forth and so on, and yet our economic status continues to deteriorate year after year. This is the issue that needs to be addressed. This is exactly what this commission would try to do. The fact of the matter is that in this trade debate there is an effort to frame it as though the people that are losing their jobs are screaming, which they well should be, but then it is argued, well, this has to happen when you have trade development and, you know, there are people who get jobs in the export industry. The fact of the matter is, we are losing far more jobs on the import side than we are gaining on the export side. I mean, if the trade was roughly in balance, then you'd have a different set of circumstances. But we have been running, as the Senator has pointed out, these very large trade deficits, year after year after year. That is a deterioration in the American position. I defy anyone to try to make the case that it is a good thing for the United States in present circumstances to be running these large trade deficits, that it is a good thing for the United States, supposedly the world's most highly developed economy, to go from being a creditor nation to being a debtor nation. It is obviously not a good thing. We need to address this issue. This commission would be one way of trying to do that.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point? Is the normal process that we would be able to amend it?

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield further, my further understanding is that, to the extent this legislation deals with environmental standards, it simply says the countries cannot lower their current environmental standards in order to gain a trade advantage; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. The United States is the largest debtor nation in the world. People say, look, if we were a developing country just setting out on the process of development, there is an argument that can be made that you run a trade imbalance. And if you are smart in your trade imbalance, you bring in investment to develop your economy for the future. That is what the United States did in the 19th century. But the United States now is supposedly the most developed country in the world. The most developed country in the world, supposedly the world's leader, ought not to be a debtor nation and ought not to be running these large trade imbalances. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, here is what happens. You know, people say, ``Well, people are losing jobs.'' And they say, ``Well, they're losing jobs, but other people are gaining jobs from the exports, and, as a consequence, we're strengthening ourselves as a nation.'' We are not strengthening ourselves as a nation. We are running these very large trade deficits year in and year out. This represents a marked deterioration in the American position. We did not do this between the end of World War II and into the 1970's. It is only over the last 20 years that we started running, year in and year out, these very large trade deficits. As the Senator from North Dakota points out, the reason for them, I think, is fairly simple. Our market is very open for other countries to send goods into the United States. And many of those markets are relatively closed to us. We export $12 billion a year to China, to the PRC, and take from the PRC $52 billion a year; $12 billion goes that way and $52 billion comes this way, for a net imbalance of $40 billion. And it is growing year to year to year. Every year it keeps going up.