Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield on that point, in confirmation of the Senator's analysis, the markets, in the last few days, have been boosting the price of the stocks of the pharmaceutical companies. The perception in the capital markets of the smart money people is that this legislation is going to significantly benefit the pharmaceutical companies, and they are building up the stock prices, which only goes to confirm and corroborate the analysis the Senator from Illinois has made on this issue.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in July of 2001, and continuing through January of the following year, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a series of hearings to shine a bright light on the deceptive and destructive practices of predatory mortgage lenders. At those hearings, the Committee heard from housing experts, community groups, legal advocates, industry representatives and victims of predatory lending in an effort to determine how best to address this terrible problem. Today, I am introducing legislation, the ``Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003,'' along with a number of my colleagues, that would begin to address the problems that came to light in those hearings. Homeownership is the American Dream. Indeed, the Committee has already passed legislation this year that would authorize a new $200 million downpayment assistance program to ensure that more people can achieve this goal. We have taken this step because homeownership is the best opportunity for most Americans to put down roots and start creating equity for themselves and their families. Homeownership has been the path to building wealth for generations of Americans, wealth that can be tapped to send children to college, pay for a secure retirement, or simply work as a reserve against unexpected emergencies. It has been the key to ensuring stable communities, good schools, and safe streets. Common sense tells us, and the evidence confirms, that homeowners are more engaged citizens and more active in their communities. Little wonder, then, that so many Americans, young and old, aspire to achieve this dream. Unhappily, predatory lenders cynically play on these hopes and dreams to cheat people out of their wealth. These lenders target lower income, elderly, and, often, uneducated homeowners for their abusive practices. Study after study has shown that predatory lenders also target minorities, driving a wedge between these families and the hope of a productive life in the economic and financial mainstream of America. We owe it to these hardworking families to provide protections against these unscrupulous players. Let me share with you one of the stories we heard at our hearings. Mary Ann Podelco, a widowed waitress from West Virginia, used $19,000 from her husband's life insurance to pay off the balance on her mortgage, thus owning her home free and clear. Before her husband's death, she had never had a checking account or a credit card. She then took out a $11,921 loan for repairs. At the time, her monthly income from Social Security was $458, and her loan payments were more than half this amount. Ms. Podelco, who has a sixth grade education, testified that after her first refinancing, ``I began getting calls from people trying to refinance my mortgage all hours of the day and night.'' Within 2 years, having been advised to refinance seven times-- each time seeing high points and fees being financed into her new loan--she owed $64,000, and lost her home to foreclosure. Ms. Podelco's story is all too typical. Unfortunately, most of the sharp practices used by unscrupulous lenders and brokers, while unethical and clearly abusive, are not illegal. This bill is designed to address that problem by tightening the interest rate and fee triggers that define high cost loans; the bill improves protections for borrowers receiving such loans by prohibiting the financing of exorbitant fees, ``packing'' in of unnecessary and costly products, such as single premium credit insurance, and limiting prepayment penalties. Finally, it protects these consumers' rights to seek redress by prohibiting mandatory arbitration, as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed unanimously in 2000.We often hear about the importance of improved enforcement as a way to combat this problem. As the FTC pointed out, mandatory arbitration prevents homeowners from exercising any of their rights to enforce existing law. We cannot extol the virtues of homeownership, as we so often do, without seeking at the same time to preserve this benefit for so many elderly, minority, and unsophisticated Americans who are the targets of unscrupulous lenders and brokers. This legislation will help achieve this important goal. This bill has been endorsed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Council of La Raza, the National Consumer Law Center, ACORN, National Consumer Reinvestment Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, the NAACP, the Self-Help Credit Union, the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, the National Community Development Association, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the National League of Cities, among others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in July of 2001, and continuing through January of the following year, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a series of hearings to shine a bright light on the deceptive and destructive practices of predatory mortgage lenders. At those hearings, the Committee heard from housing experts, community groups, legal advocates, industry representatives and victims of predatory lending in an effort to determine how best to address this terrible problem. Today, I am introducing legislation, the ``Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003,'' along with a number of my colleagues, that would begin to address the problems that came to light in those hearings. Homeownership is the American Dream. Indeed, the Committee has already passed legislation this year that would authorize a new $200 million downpayment assistance program to ensure that more people can achieve this goal. We have taken this step because homeownership is the best opportunity for most Americans to put down roots and start creating equity for themselves and their families. Homeownership has been the path to building wealth for generations of Americans, wealth that can be tapped to send children to college, pay for a secure retirement, or simply work as a reserve against unexpected emergencies. It has been the key to ensuring stable communities, good schools, and safe streets. Common sense tells us, and the evidence confirms, that homeowners are more engaged citizens and more active in their communities. Little wonder, then, that so many Americans, young and old, aspire to achieve this dream. Unhappily, predatory lenders cynically play on these hopes and dreams to cheat people out of their wealth. These lenders target lower income, elderly, and, often, uneducated homeowners for their abusive practices. Study after study has shown that predatory lenders also target minorities, driving a wedge between these families and the hope of a productive life in the economic and financial mainstream of America. We owe it to these hardworking families to provide protections against these unscrupulous players. Let me share with you one of the stories we heard at our hearings. Mary Ann Podelco, a widowed waitress from West Virginia, used $19,000 from her husband's life insurance to pay off the balance on her mortgage, thus owning her home free and clear. Before her husband's death, she had never had a checking account or a credit card. She then took out a $11,921 loan for repairs. At the time, her monthly income from Social Security was $458, and her loan payments were more than half this amount. Ms. Podelco, who has a sixth grade education, testified that after her first refinancing, ``I began getting calls from people trying to refinance my mortgage all hours of the day and night.'' Within 2 years, having been advised to refinance seven times-- each time seeing high points and fees being financed into her new loan--she owed $64,000, and lost her home to foreclosure. Ms. Podelco's story is all too typical. Unfortunately, most of the sharp practices used by unscrupulous lenders and brokers, while unethical and clearly abusive, are not illegal. This bill is designed to address that problem by tightening the interest rate and fee triggers that define high cost loans; the bill improves protections for borrowers receiving such loans by prohibiting the financing of exorbitant fees, ``packing'' in of unnecessary and costly products, such as single premium credit insurance, and limiting prepayment penalties. Finally, it protects these consumers' rights to seek redress by prohibiting mandatory arbitration, as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed unanimously in 2000.We often hear about the importance of improved enforcement as a way to combat this problem. As the FTC pointed out, mandatory arbitration prevents homeowners from exercising any of their rights to enforce existing law. We cannot extol the virtues of homeownership, as we so often do, without seeking at the same time to preserve this benefit for so many elderly, minority, and unsophisticated Americans who are the targets of unscrupulous lenders and brokers. This legislation will help achieve this important goal. This bill has been endorsed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Council of La Raza, the National Consumer Law Center, ACORN, National Consumer Reinvestment Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, the NAACP, the Self-Help Credit Union, the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, the National Community Development Association, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the National League of Cities, among others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it is difficult to know exactly how to pay tribute to Ralph J. Bunche for his extraordinary contributions to scholarship, diplomacy, civil rights, social justice and international cooperation and development. The Senate has approved H. Con. Res 71, ``Recognizing the importance of Ralph Bunche as one of the great leaders of the United States . . . The year-long centennial commemoration of his birth, which is now well underway, involves many more professional societies, educational institutions and public-policy organizations than it is possible to list; among them are the American Political Science Association, the Association of Black American Ambassadors, the American Library Association, the Council on Foreign Relations, Facing History and Ourselves, national foundation, the NAACP, the National Urban League, the New York Public Library, numerous United Nations Associations and dozens of colleges and universities in this country and abroad. At UCLA, Ralph Bunche's alma mater, the African American Studies center has been renamed in his honor. I am especially pleased to note that the American Academy of Diplomacy has chosen to honor Ralph Bunche by sponsoring the two-year Philip Merrill Fellowship for the two-year M.A. program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. Among his many accomplishments, Ralph Bunche received the first doctoral degree in government and international relations ever awarded by Harvard University, thereby earning the title ``Dr. Bunche.'' But Benjamin Rivlin, who is Co-Chair of the Ralph Bunche Centenary Committee, has told us that he was specifically instructed to ``cut out this doctor business'' when as a young soldier he was assigned to work for Ralph Bunche in the OSS sixty years ago. The vast array of tributes now being paid to Ralph Bunche reflects just how extraordinary a person he was. Born in Detroit and orphaned at eleven, he went to live with his grandmother, Lucy Johnson, in what is today the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles. By all accounts, Lucy Johnson was as extraordinary as her illustrious grandson. Writing in the Reader's Digest many years after her death, Dr. Bunche called her ``My Most Unforgettable Character . . . Caucasian `on the outside' and `all black fervor inside.' '' One of his teachers said of her, ``I have never forgotten the emanation of power from that tiny figure.'' Ms. Johnson's remark to the principal of Jefferson High School, where Dr. Johnson was valedictorian of his class and a varsity athlete, is especially memorable. In a disastrously misguided effort at flattery, the principal is reported to have said, ``We never thought of Ralph as a Negro,'' to which Ms. Johnson replied: ``Why haven't you thought of him as a Negro? He is a Negro and he is proud of it. So am I.'' From his grandmother Ralph Bunche learned the fundamental lessons of self-respect and respect for others. He also took from her a passion for education. It was she who insisted that he go to UCLA, where he majored in international relations and was valedictorian of the Class of 1927. Upon his graduation from UCLA, Bunche received a fellowship for graduate study in political science at Harvard. Shortly after enrolling he received what was to be his grandmother's last letter. Writing just a week before her death, she asked, ``Will you finish at Harvard this year?'' Ralph Bunche did indeed receive his Master's degree at the end of that year, but he did much more. In the small African American community at Harvard at that time he made lifelong friendships with, among others, the future Judge William Hastie and the future cabinet member Robert Weaver. He completed his Ph.D. in 1934, receiving the government department's annual award for the best dissertation. And while working toward his degree he also taught at Howard University-- America's ``black Athens'' --where he helped organize the political science department at a time when, according to Kenneth Clark, the distinguished psychologist who was a student at the time, ``the seeds of a legal and constitutional attack on racial segregation were being sown in the intellectual soil of Howard University.'' Although bent on an academic career, Ralph Bunche postponed research in South Africa to work closely with Gunnar Myrdal on Myrdal's historic and highly influential study of race in this country, ``An American Dilemma.'' With the outbreak of World War II he was brought into the newly-established OSS for his expertise on Africa, and in 1944 he moved on to the State Department. The following year he served as an advisor to the American delegation at the San Francisco Conference, where the Charter establishing the United Nations was signed, and in 1946 he joined the U.N. Secretariat, where he remained until shortly before his death. As Brian Urquhart, who first went to work for Ralph Bunche in the U.N. Secretariat in 1954, later observed, ``Public service had called him, and he responded with all of his ability and strength.'' Ralph Bunche went on to become the U.N. Undersecretary-General, but he is probably best remembered as the recipient of the 1950 Nobel Peace Prize, which he was awarded for negotiating the armistice that ended military hostilities between the new State of Israel and its enemies. He was not only the first African American to receive the prize, he was also the first person of color; as an American, he joined the distinguished community of U.S. laureates that included Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, Jane Adams and Nicholas Murray Butler. In his own view, however, the Nobel Prize was not at all his most significant accomplishment, and his initial reaction upon being informed of the award was to decline it: ``Peacemaking at the U.N. was not done for prizes,'' he explained. He agreed to accept only when the argument was put to him that it would be good for the United Nations. Rather, Ralph Bunche gave a quarter-century of dedicated service to the United Nations, working day in and day out to build and secure harmonious relations among free and prosperous nations. Ralph Bunche touched the life of everyone who knew him. He is remembered as ``brilliant,'' with ``an uncanny ability to produce stupendous amounts of work over long sustained periods of application;'' as someone who ``play(ed) to win, but always played fair;'' as ``a man of extraordinary kindness and compassion (who) never turned his back on those in trouble;'' as a person. Kenneth Clark has paid him an eloquent and enduring tribute as ``above all the model of a human being who by his total personality demonstrated that disciplined human intelligence and courage were most effective instruments in the struggle for social justice.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator. I simply want to note my agreement with the chairman and with his request to include the two letters in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, Allen and Santorum. On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation released its sixth annual State of the Bay report. The report is headlined ``The Bay's Health Remains Dangerously Out of Balance and Is Getting Worse.'' Indeed, this summer the Chesapeake Bay's so-called ``dead zone''--the area of oxygen-and life-depleted waters--extended more than 100 miles down the Bay, the largest area ever recorded. Scientists observed extensive algal blooms and watermen reported pulling up nets of dead fish and crab ``jubilees''--a rare phenomenon of crabs fleeing the water for air. The cause of the pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is clear: high levels of nitrogen coming from sewage treatment plants, air deposition, runoff from farmlands, and stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas. The water pollution caused by high levels of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, continues despite two decades of efforts from all the jurisdictions in the watershed, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, to address it. Scientists, State and Federal agencies and citizen advocates know what must be done to address the excessive nutrients which pollute the Bay's water. The 304 major sewage treatment plants in the watershed must be upgraded to reduce the nutrients coming into the Bay. Farmers must be given the best technology and resources to keep excess fertilizer and sediments out of the Bay. Air deposition must be reduced. And new financing mechanisms must be developed to help local governments control stormwater runoff. Earlier this year, a Chesapeake Bay Commission report entitled The Cost of a Clean Bay, found a $9.4 billion gap in the resources needed to reduce nutrients and sediments in the Bay to levels sufficient to remove the estuary from the Environmental Protection Agency's list of impaired waters. While $9.4 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that the health of Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the Nation. It is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the finfish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration. On November 3, 2003, I was joined by the six Senators and 16 Members of the House of Representatives from the Chesapeake Bay watershed States, in a bipartisan letter to President Bush urging him to commit $1 billion to restoring the Bay's water quality. We pointed out to the President that, with a matching State funding requirement and proper targeting, these funds would provide a tremendous boost to the efforts to reduce nutrient pollution in the Bay and that this investment would pay big dividends in restoring the ecological and economic health or our nation's greatest estuary. We realize that this request is but a first step to bring to bear the necessary resources to accomplish the nutrient reduction. The legislation which we are offering today represents the next step in the effort to close the $9.4 billion gap and help assure that the effort to reduce nutrient pollution in Chesapeake Bay will be focused properly and funded adequately for the long term. It directs the Administrator of EPA to establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing to oversee development of a comprehensive implementation plan to address the funding needs and/or regulatory requirements for reducing nutrient pollution loads in Chesapeake Bay sufficient to comply with Clean Water Act standards by the year 2010. The Commission is charged to address the appropriate responsibilities of the Federal, State and local governments in financing sewage treatment plant upgrades, agricultural and other nonpoint source runoff controls, and urban stormwater management. It is also directed to address the opportunities for enhancing the role of the private sector in financial support for nutrient reduction either directly or through public/private partnerships. The Commission will have a vital role to play in Chesapeake Bay restoration. Through the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program and its partners, our scientific and technical understanding of what needs to be done to reduce excess nutrients going into the Bay serves as a model for the Nation. Yet these practices cannot be implemented without sufficient funding, and current estimates suggest that a doubling of nutrient reduction efforts to date will be required. The Commission is critically needed to explore responsibilities, opportunities and mechanisms for generating the financial backing needed to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Let me add that the economics of nutrient reduction is an issue faced by many regions of the country. Many of the recommendations of this Commission regarding the financing of sewage treatment plant upgrades, agricultural nutrient reduction practices, and stormwater and air pollution control could be transferred to for use elsewhere around the Nation. It is our expectation that, in carrying out its functions, the Commission will draw upon the expertise of other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA as well as State and local governments, academia and the private and non-profit sector and establish a multidisciplinary advisory panel to assist the Commission in preparing its report and recommendations. Valuable work is now being carried out by the Chesapeake Bay Program in a great number of areas including nutrient reduction, oyster restoration, submerged aquatic vegetation, and environmental education to mention a few and it is not intended that the Commission be in any way a substitute for the Bay Program. Rather it is to support the work of the Bay Program by dissecting financial responsibilities into component parts--Federal, State, local and private and by addressing the funding and/or regulatory requirements of the work to be done to end the Bay's water pollution from too much nutrient loading. Establishment of the special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing will serve to kick start the critical work which must now be done to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It is supported by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission as evidenced by their letters. I ask unanimous consent that the two letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, Allen and Santorum. On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation released its sixth annual State of the Bay report. The report is headlined ``The Bay's Health Remains Dangerously Out of Balance and Is Getting Worse.'' Indeed, this summer the Chesapeake Bay's so-called ``dead zone''--the area of oxygen-and life-depleted waters--extended more than 100 miles down the Bay, the largest area ever recorded. Scientists observed extensive algal blooms and watermen reported pulling up nets of dead fish and crab ``jubilees''--a rare phenomenon of crabs fleeing the water for air. The cause of the pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is clear: high levels of nitrogen coming from sewage treatment plants, air deposition, runoff from farmlands, and stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas. The water pollution caused by high levels of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, continues despite two decades of efforts from all the jurisdictions in the watershed, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, to address it. Scientists, State and Federal agencies and citizen advocates know what must be done to address the excessive nutrients which pollute the Bay's water. The 304 major sewage treatment plants in the watershed must be upgraded to reduce the nutrients coming into the Bay. Farmers must be given the best technology and resources to keep excess fertilizer and sediments out of the Bay. Air deposition must be reduced. And new financing mechanisms must be developed to help local governments control stormwater runoff. Earlier this year, a Chesapeake Bay Commission report entitled The Cost of a Clean Bay, found a $9.4 billion gap in the resources needed to reduce nutrients and sediments in the Bay to levels sufficient to remove the estuary from the Environmental Protection Agency's list of impaired waters. While $9.4 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that the health of Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the Nation. It is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the finfish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration. On November 3, 2003, I was joined by the six Senators and 16 Members of the House of Representatives from the Chesapeake Bay watershed States, in a bipartisan letter to President Bush urging him to commit $1 billion to restoring the Bay's water quality. We pointed out to the President that, with a matching State funding requirement and proper targeting, these funds would provide a tremendous boost to the efforts to reduce nutrient pollution in the Bay and that this investment would pay big dividends in restoring the ecological and economic health or our nation's greatest estuary. We realize that this request is but a first step to bring to bear the necessary resources to accomplish the nutrient reduction. The legislation which we are offering today represents the next step in the effort to close the $9.4 billion gap and help assure that the effort to reduce nutrient pollution in Chesapeake Bay will be focused properly and funded adequately for the long term. It directs the Administrator of EPA to establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing to oversee development of a comprehensive implementation plan to address the funding needs and/or regulatory requirements for reducing nutrient pollution loads in Chesapeake Bay sufficient to comply with Clean Water Act standards by the year 2010. The Commission is charged to address the appropriate responsibilities of the Federal, State and local governments in financing sewage treatment plant upgrades, agricultural and other nonpoint source runoff controls, and urban stormwater management. It is also directed to address the opportunities for enhancing the role of the private sector in financial support for nutrient reduction either directly or through public/private partnerships. The Commission will have a vital role to play in Chesapeake Bay restoration. Through the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program and its partners, our scientific and technical understanding of what needs to be done to reduce excess nutrients going into the Bay serves as a model for the Nation. Yet these practices cannot be implemented without sufficient funding, and current estimates suggest that a doubling of nutrient reduction efforts to date will be required. The Commission is critically needed to explore responsibilities, opportunities and mechanisms for generating the financial backing needed to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Let me add that the economics of nutrient reduction is an issue faced by many regions of the country. Many of the recommendations of this Commission regarding the financing of sewage treatment plant upgrades, agricultural nutrient reduction practices, and stormwater and air pollution control could be transferred to for use elsewhere around the Nation. It is our expectation that, in carrying out its functions, the Commission will draw upon the expertise of other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA as well as State and local governments, academia and the private and non-profit sector and establish a multidisciplinary advisory panel to assist the Commission in preparing its report and recommendations. Valuable work is now being carried out by the Chesapeake Bay Program in a great number of areas including nutrient reduction, oyster restoration, submerged aquatic vegetation, and environmental education to mention a few and it is not intended that the Commission be in any way a substitute for the Bay Program. Rather it is to support the work of the Bay Program by dissecting financial responsibilities into component parts--Federal, State, local and private and by addressing the funding and/or regulatory requirements of the work to be done to end the Bay's water pollution from too much nutrient loading. Establishment of the special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing will serve to kick start the critical work which must now be done to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It is supported by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission as evidenced by their letters. I ask unanimous consent that the two letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. If I could have the attention of the Senator from Missouri as I pose this question? Would the Senator entertain a unanimous consent request that allowed the amendments that are lined up here to be offered and to be accepted? I understand they are all going to be taken by voice.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment, by my colleague Senator Mikulski to boost federal funding for the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving funds (SRF) by an additional $3 billion. I spoke earlier this year on a similar amendment which I offered to the Senate budget resolution and I just want to underscore some of the key reasons this amendment is needed. The President's Fiscal 2004 budget severely short changes the funds needed by State and local governments to upgrade their aging wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. The President's budget provided only $1.7 billion for both State Revolving Funds, split equally. The Committee-approved bill provided an additional $500 million, restoring the President's budget cut to the Fiscal 2003 enacted level of funding of $2.2 million--but is still short of what is needed. Despite important progress over the last three decades, EPA reports that more than 40 percent of our nation's lakes, rivers and streams are still too impaired for fishing or swimming. Discharges from aging and failing seweage systems, urban storm water and other sources, continue to pose serious threats to our nation's waters, endangering not only public health, but fishing and recreation industries. Population growth and development are placing additional stress on the nation's water infrastructure and its ability to sustain hard-won water quality gains. Combined sewer systems or so-called CSOs can be found in more than 750 communities in 32 States and the District of Columbia. EPA estimates that annual combined sewer systems discharge nearly 1,300 billion gallons of untreated or under-treated wastewater. To eliminate sewer overflows, the City of Baltimore alone must invest more than $900 million to upgrade its sewer system and comply with a consent decree with the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency. Many other cities across the nation face similar challenges. In fact, three years ago, in 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to authorize a $1.5 billion grant program to help cities reduce these wet weather flows, but funds have not been available to implement the program. Nearly 20,000 municipalities have separate sewer systems or SSOs, serving a population of 150 million. Unlike CSOs, these separate sanitary collection systems are not intended to carry significant volumes of extraneous water, such as storm water runoff, but frequently do because of infiltration and inflow, aging systems, and other factors. EPA acknowledges that sanitary sewer overflows pose a severe problem to the environment and public health. Across the nation, our wastewater and drinking water systems are aging. In some cases, systems currently in use were built more than a century ago and have outlived their useful life. For many communities, current treatment is not sufficient to meet water quality goals. Recent modeling of the EPA's Bay Program has found that the 304 major municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the watershed will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. Achieving this goal is estimated to cost $4.4 billion. In April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a broad coalition of local elected officials, drinking water and wastewater service providers, state environmental and health administrators, engineers and environmentalists released a report, Clean & Safe Water for the 21st Century. The report documented a $23 billion a year shortfall in funding needed to meet national environmental and public health priorities in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act and to replace aging and failing infrastructure. In May 2002, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that estimated the spending gap for Clean Water needs between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years and the spending gap for drinking water needs at between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years. In September 2002, the EPA released a Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis which found that there will be a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional investments are not made. This figure does not even account for investments necessary to meet water quality goals in nutrient impaired waters, like Chesapeake Bay. The need for additional investment in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure is clearly documented. But, States, localities and private sources can't meet the funding gap alone. Local communities already pay almost 90 percent of the total cost or about $60 billion a year to build, operate, and maintain their water and wastewater systems. But as former Administrator Whitman pointed out, ``(t)he magnitude of the challenge America faces is clearly beyond the ability of any one entity to address.'' Water pollution is an interstate problem. The Congress understood the interstate dynamic of pollution in 1972 when a bi-partisan majority passed the Clean Water Act and began funding waste treatment infrastructure. In 1979 and 1980, the Congress provided $5 billion in Clean Water construction grants alone to assist states and municipalities with wastewater infrastructure needs. Over the years, budgetary pressures and other factors have reduced that funding level, and in Fiscal 2003, we provided only $1.34 billion in Clean Water State Revolving loan funds. It is vital that the Federal government maintain a strong partnership with states and local governments in averting the massive projected funding gap and share in the burden of maintaining and improving the nation's water infrastructure. Municipalities need significant resources to comply with Federal clean water and drinking water standards. In the 107th Congress, House and Senate committees approved bills to authorize $20 billion over 5 years for the Clean Water Act SRF, underscoring the recognition that something must be done to address this funding gap. An increase in funding for the Clean Water SRF to $3.2 billion and for the Drinking Water SRF to $2 billion in fiscal 2004 is the first step necessary to meet the Federal government's longstanding commitment in this regard. This isn't a make-work public works project. It is an investment in the health of Americans and in a clean environment. It is an investment that will pay substantial dividends. Wastewater treatment plants not only prevent billions of tons of pollutants each year from reaching our rivers, lakes, streams, and coasts they also help prevent water-borne diseases and make waters safe for swimming and fishing. According to the Water Infrastructure Network, ``Clean water supports a $50 billion a year water-based recreation industry, at least $300 billion a year in coastal tourism, a $45 billion annual commercial fishing and shell fishing industry, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year in basic manufacturing that relies on clean water. Clean rivers, lakes, and coastlines attract investment in local communities and increase land values on or near the water, which in turn, create jobs, add incremental tax base, and increase income and property tax revenue to local, state, and federal government. Some 54,000 community drinking water systems provide drinking water to more than 250 million Americans. By keeping water supplies free of contaminants that cause disease, these systems reduce sickness and related health care costs and absenteeism in the workforce.'' They also create jobs--indeed tens of thousands of jobs and provide stimulus to the economy. Each $1 billion in sewer and water improvements creates an estimated 40,000 jobs. With more than $5 billion in water infrastructure projects ready for construction, these jobs would be created immediately with Federal assistance. According to OMB, every federal dollar invested in water infrastructure generates up to $4 for project loans, so the potential for job creation from this amendment is tremendous. The case for this amendment is compelling. Today, maintaining clear, safe water remains one of our greatest national and global challenges. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help address the massive funding gap that looms on the horizon. Failure to act now risks undermining thirty years of progress in cleaning up our nation's waters.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, have the amendments been adopted?

Mr. SARBANES. Have the amendments been adopted?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question, reserving his right to the floor?

Mr. SARBANES. I am not asking. I am just inquiring of the Senator's view of that.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President I made a unanimous consent request, which is pending.

Mr. SARBANES. I will address the various issues concerning the long- term unemployed in this country. Before that, I will make a couple of comments about the judges. Sixty-three of President Clinton's nominees were blocked from consideration. Four of President Bush's nominees have been blocked. Twenty percent of the Clinton nominees in the period of 1995 to 2000, the period when the other side controlled the Senate, the committees and the floor, were blocked and not given any opportunity to move forward. Many of those blocked were extraordinarily able people. Only four of President Bush's nominees have been blocked. Many of us feel very strongly that they represent extreme points of view outside of the legal mainstream in this country. In a sense, the period over the last 6 years of the last century when an incredible number of the President's nominees were blocked is the genesis of the situation that people are talking about. Of course, the other side was able to do it in committee. They did not have to do it on the floor, they did it in the committee since they had a majority in the committee and they simply brought the curtain down at that point. Yesterday, the New York Times ran an editorial entitled ``Chatter in the Cave of the Winds.'' I ask unanimous consent the full text of that editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Would the Chair state the parliamentary situation, please.

Mr. SARBANES. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session, that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator does not modify the unanimous consent request.

Mr. SARBANES. I will quote part of it and then I will elaborate on this issue. Senate majority Republicans might take a moment--or even a vote--to extend reassurance to the nation's millions of unemployed tonight during the 30-hour ersatz ``filibuster'' they plan to protest the Democrats' blocking of President Bush's more extremist judicial appointees. The filibusters will talk through the night, performing from a political script in a time-wasting tableau designed to produce campaign fodder for next year. But out there in real life, federal emergency unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31 with no sign of notice from the Republicans in Congress. A year ago, they blithely quit the Capitol and let the unemployed stew through the holidays before retroactively approving a benefit extension that was far too modest. I recall that very well because I was involved in the effort last year to try to extend these unemployment insurance benefits and the Congress left. It went home. The unemployment benefits ran out. People found themselves in absolutely dire circumstances. When the Congress finally returned, they extended the benefits retroactively. But meanwhile, people had passed through an extraordinarily difficult time for themselves and their family. Nearly 9 million workers are unemployed today. There are another 4.8 million, just under 5 million Americans, who want full-time jobs but can only find part-time work. Some people choose to work part-time. These are people who want to work full time but cannot find full-time jobs so they have part-time jobs. That is almost 14 million Americans, those that are unemployed and those that are underemployed. In addition to that we have about 1.5 million Americans who were in the labor force but dropped out because they are so discouraged about the prospects of finding work. This is the worst jobless recovery since the Great Depression. During this administration we have lost 2.9 million private-sector jobs, as measured by employees on private nonfarm payrolls. This chart shows where we were in January of 2001 and this is where we are in October of 2003. That is a loss of just under 3 million jobs. Even the Secretary of the Treasury is not predicting that all of those jobs, will be recovered by the end of this term. He has made a prediction which a lot of people think cannot be achieved, but even the administration is not predicting that they are going to recover all of the lost jobs. Now, if they do not recover these lost jobs, and I see no way that they can possibly do that, this will be the first presidential administration since Herbert Hoover under which the economy has lost private-sector jobs. This chart shows presidents and private-sector jobs gained or lost during an administration, in millions. We start with President Harding and then we go to President Coolidge. The green on the chart shows there was job gain during those administrations. Then we plunge down with President Hoover and we come back for job gains, all positive, net job gains during these administrations, President Roosevelt, President Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush the first, President Clinton; and, now, the current President Bush, with a negative, net job loss. In the past, it has been a long-standing bipartisan policy to extend unemployment insurance during periods of labor market weakness. Unemployment insurance benefits were actually extended four times during the Reagan administration and three times during the first Bush Administration. The month we are in is the 31st month since the recession began. At this point during the 1990s recession, every worker was eligible for a minimum of 20 weeks of additional benefit. The basic benefit is 26 weeks. We then seek to extend it if the labor market is not improving, so people can support their families. Actually, the benefit they get is less than 50 percent of what they were earning and in order to draw an unemployment insurance benefit you must have built up an employment record. So by definition, you were working and you had a job, you lost your job, and only then do you get the unemployment insurance benefit. The benefit is designed to help carry you and your family through difficult circumstances. Now we have 13 weeks of extended benefits but that pales in comparison with what was done in previous times. It certainly is inadequate in the face of a labor market in which we are not recovering jobs. What are these people to do who lose their jobs, they start drawing unemployment benefits, the benefits run out, they have been looking for work, they cannot find work, and then they no longer receive benefits. How do they support their family at a minimum level? They cannot do it. As the New York Times said in this article: After the tax-cutting binges President Bush and Congress engineered for the affluent, failure to renew the nation's helping hand to the jobless would present a scandalous holiday scenario worthy of Dickens. More than talk, action is required. They are absolutely right. Mr. President, 1.4 million American workers have exhausted their benefits and are unable to find work. They are out in the cold with no support. We now have over 2 million long- term unemployed. That is people who have been out of work for 26 weeks or more. When President Bush came into office in January of 2001, the number of long-term unemployed, people unemployed for more than 26 weeks, was 660,000. The number of long-term unemployed in October of 2003, is just over two million. The number of long-term unemployed has tripled in the course of this administration. It now constitutes 23 percent of the entire unemployed population. The last time such a large percentage of the unemployed were the long-term employed--in other words, people out of work for more than 26 weeks--was 20 years ago. This is the worst performance in 20 years, in two decades. Obviously, we need to extend these unemployment benefits and repeated efforts to do so have been blocked. The leadership is talking about leaving at the end of next week until next year. Of course, what that means is millions more will run out of their benefits and be unable to sustain their families. There is money in the unemployment insurance trust fund for this purpose. That money is paid in, in good times, in order to address the situation in bad times. But that money is not being used. It was specifically set aside for this purpose. The extension of unemployment insurance benefits is a policy we have followed in the past. It has support from both sides. These benefits are for people without jobs. I am hearing lamentations about four people who did not get their Federal judgeships. They have other jobs. These people have no jobs. We made repeated efforts to bring the legislation up. I will make such an effort right now, once again. There is legislation pending to address this issue in the Finance Committee. It would help these workers. It would help our economy. It would ensure that we did not go through the travail and the turmoil which occurred at the end of last year, as well. It would provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits to those who have already exhausted their benefits. [From the New York Times, Nov. 12, 2003] Chatter in the Cave of the Winds Senate majority Republicans might take a moment--or even a vote--to extend reassurance to the nation's millions of unemployed tonight during the 30-hour ersatz ``filibuster'' they plan to protest the Democrats' blocking of President Bush's more extremist judicial appointees. The filibusterers will talk through the night, performing from a political script in a time-wasting tableau designed to produce campaign fodder for next year. But out there in real life, federal emergency unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, with no sign of notice from the Republicans in Congress. A year ago, they blithely quit the Capitol and let the unemployed stew through the holidays before retroactively approving a benefit extension that was far too modest. This filibuster has no practical purpose. In the older days, a single lawmaker had to talk nonstop to block a hated bill; nowadays, the leadership merely counts heads to see if enough senators want to block a bill and then it is silently hung up. So if the retro-orators just want to make rhetorical points today and run short of topics, we beg them to ponder their jobless constituents instead of resorting to boilerplate sound bites and creaky filibuster stunts (in sad memory there was Alfonse D'Amato's singing an ``Old McDonald'' parody). Serious help is needed for the 2.4 million more recent jobless facing the end of their state benefits, not to mention the 2.1 million long-term unemployed who have slipped off the job-hunting scope. The promising uptick in the deep hiring slump--126,000 new jobs in October--is less than half the rate needed to even begin to dent the backup of joblessness. To deal realistically with the problem, Congress needs to double--to 26 weeks from 13 weeks--the federal emergency benefits that are available when state benefits run out. This would be similar to the help offered during the recession of a decade ago when long-term joblessness, especially in manufacturing, was hardly the problem it is now. After the tax-cutting binges President Bush and Congress engineered for the affluent, failure to renew the nation's helping hand to the jobless would present a scandalous holiday scenario worthy of Dickens. More than talk, action is required. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1853

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues on this Veterans Day in paying tribute to those men and women who have so ably served in our Nation's Armed Forces and honoring the tremendous sacrifices they have made for this great country. I firmly believe that those citizens who have been called upon to defend our Nation, to risk and in many cases sacrifice their lives, deserve our utmost respect and gratitude, for these noble men and women are responsible for the peace and freedom which we, as Americans, cherish. As we use this time to reflect upon the heroic deeds of the past, we should also recognize the significance of these deeds for the present and the future. Due to the unselfish efforts of those of who have served, those who serve now, and the efforts of all of those who are no longer here with us, the world continues to be a safer place and the principles of democracy survive. I have often said we ought not be sunshine patriots, that our dedication to the men and women who have served should not solely be reserved for days such as this. Rather, we should be cognizant of their contributions every day of the year. Throughout my time in Congress, I am pleased to have fought hard on behalf of the issues of importance to our Nation's veterans: improving veterans health care and making it more accessible, protecting our veterans' benefits, including the authorization of concurrent receipt, and ensuring that each veteran has a proper burial. This week, the Senate may take up the Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill--which will fund VA and its programs during the current fiscal year. I am pleased to have joined with many of my colleagues in working to increase the VA budget by $1.3 billion--to ensure that all veterans receive the benefits to which they are entitled. I am hopeful that this increase will ultimately be included in the bill when it is sent to the President for signature. In my view, we have a responsibility to adequately fund these programs--programs critical to the continued health and welfare of our Nation's veterans. It is simply a matter of fairness and is, indeed, the very least we can do to honor their commitment and service to this Nation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the nomination of Roger W. Titus to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. I have always believed that one of the most important roles I have as a United States Senator is the responsibility to provide ``advice and consent'' with respect to nominees to the Federal judiciary, and it is with sober deliberation that I consider all nominations made by our Presidents. When considering nominees, I apply a high standard to determine whether to support them for the Federal bench. A candidate should have had a career that has provided the breadth and depth of experience necessary to be a Federal judge, have contributed to the legal profession of our State, and have been an active participant in Maryland's civic community. All of these factors taken together must have elevated the nominee to a position of respect and esteem in our State that demonstrates that the nominee is ready and worthy for the challenges of a Federal judgeship. Applying these standards, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of Roger Titus and urge the Senate to confirm his nomination. Roger Titus clearly meets these requirements, and will make a valuable contribution on the District Court. Roger Titus received his undergraduate degree from Johns Hopkins University and his juris doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center. His legal career has spanned more than 30 years, during which time he has held a variety of positions in the public sector; private sector, with more than 30 years in private practice at firms large and small; and the academic field, as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Roger Titus' career in private practice has been broad in scope--a fact that will serve him well on the bench. Concentrating in litigation, he has significant experience in State and local government law, general litigation, constitutional litigation, complex commercial litigation, as well as appellate work. Roger Titus has also been a leader in Maryland's legal community, most notably serving as President of the Maryland State Bar Association, but also devoting his time to numerous other legal organizations on a State, local and national level including the Bar Association of Montgomery County, American Bar Association, Maryland Municipal Attorneys Association, and the National Conference of Bar Presidents, among others. During this busy career, he has been active in the Maryland community, devoting substantial time to the Maryland Bar Foundation and as Chairman and member of the Board of Trustees for Suburban Hospital. Given this record, it is no surprise that the American Bar Association gave Roger Titus a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating in its evaluation of his nomination. He has also received a number of prestigious awards for his career and record of service, including the Daily Record's first Leadership in the Law Award, which recognizes members of the legal community for their devotion to the betterment of the profession and their communities, and the Century of Service Award from the Montgomery County Bar Association, for his outstanding contributions to the legal profession and community during the twentieth century. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Roger Titus' nomination to the Federal bench, and I would like to congratulate him and his family on his confirmation. It is truly indicative of the exemplary career he has had in the legal profession, his commitment to our State, and the esteem with which Marylanders view his accomplishments.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this is the legislation we spent all day yesterday on. We worked through the issues, I think, in a reasonable and collegial fashion and the measure is now before us for final passage. I thank the chairman of the committee for his many courtesies. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I join with my colleague in accepting the amendment. I commend the Senator from California. Actually, medical information is something that people feel very keenly about and the Senator's amendment will strengthen the provision that was in the bill adopted in the committee. We thank her very much for the amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2062

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I actually wish to commend the Senator from California because she has introduced some specificity into a provision that is in the committee-reported bill. I am very frank to say I think this will be very helpful, and I join the chairman in supporting the amendment.