Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield me 8 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by my able and distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. I commend him for his very strong leadership on the important issue of enhancing the security of our Nation's public transit systems. By allocating $100 million for transit security, this amendment would enhance the safety of millions of Americans. Every workday, 14 million Americans ride buses, subways, light rail, and ferries in cities and towns all across America. Transit systems throughout our Nation link people to jobs, to medical care, to shopping, to school, and to other essential services. More and more, Americans are recognizing the benefits that transit has to offer. Over the last 6 years, transit ridership has grown faster than any other mode of transportation. These riders expect and deserve transit systems that are reliable, that are safe, and that are secure. As chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Senator Reed, during the last Congress, convened six hearings to examine our Nation's public transit systems, with two of those hearings fully devoted to the security question. One hearing took place just a few weeks after the attacks on September 11, and the second shortly after the first anniversary of those attacks. The witnesses at those hearings included the Federal Transit Administrator, representatives of transit agencies, including Richard White, the general manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and representatives of transit labor. I commend the record of those hearings to all of my colleagues. They were extremely well done. The witnesses testified about the contribution transit made to the Nation on September 11, something my colleague already made reference to. That morning, transit agencies across the country ran extra trains and buses as long as needed to move people safely out of city centers. Transit played a particularly vital role in New York and Washington, the two cities directly under attack that day. Without the vibrant transit systems in place in those cities, timely movement of our people would have been impossible. As more and more Americans are using public transportation, it is clear that transit must be a vital component of any city's emergency response plan. As my colleague indicated, according to the Mineta Transportation Institute in San Jose, CA, surface transportation was the target of more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 to 2000, and transit systems are the mode most commonly attacked. The witnesses before Senator Reed's subcommittee explained that public transportation faces unique security challenges. By its nature, transit must be easily accessible. It runs on identified routes and at published times, and it uses an extensive network of roads and rails spanning a wide geographic area. It obviously is not feasible to screen all passengers and baggage before boarding, as is done in airports, or to check the identity of all who wish to use the system. But, according to the witnesses who appeared before Senator Reed at those hearings, there are measures that transit agencies can take to improve their security, such as conducting vulnerability assessments, developing emergency plans, investing in security equipment, and training employees--which was repeatedly emphasized to us as something that would improve the security of our systems. But these improvements do not come without cost, and the lack of available funding was identified as a major impediment to making transit systems more secure. Early last year, Senator Reed and I joined in asking the General Accounting Office to review transit agencies' response to the threat of terrorism, and to identify the challenges they face in enhancing the security of their systems. The GAO report, released last December--and I commend this report to my colleagues--found that transit agencies have taken a number of steps, particularly since September 11, to improve security. At the same time, the report identified significant remaining security needs. Consistent with the testimony of our witnesses, the report found that insufficient funding--insufficient funding--is ``the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.'' In fact, at the 10 transit agencies they visited, the GAO found hundreds of millions of dollars in identified security needs. Our Nation's transit agencies have made good use of the limited resources they have had available, but this report demonstrates that new resources will be needed in the future to safeguard the security of our Nation's transit systems. The pending legislation does not demonstrate the commitment necessary to help transit systems become more secure. I believe we owe it to our Nation's transit riders to do more. This amendment takes a critical step in the right direction by making $100 million available for transit security, to be allocated by the Department of Homeland Security according to threat assessments that have already been conducted by the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Assessments have been conducted. The priorities are there. We can move these funds quickly out into the field in order to enhance security. Transit agencies could quickly put this money to use, investing in security equipment, conducting training exercises for transit personnel, and otherwise enhancing their systems' ability to resist attack. This is an investment that we cannot afford not to make--an investment we cannot afford not to make. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the able and distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding--and I phrase the question carefully in this regard--that while it is accurate to say we have not had these figures requested prior to entering into hostilities, that once we have gone into hostilities which have continued over a period of time, that has not prevailed. Second, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier out in the Pacific and said it was all over--``mission accomplished.'' We are now into--presumably by his own statement--a postwar period in which we are trying to do a lot of reconstruction and peacekeeping. It seems to me under that premise put forward by the President himself that we ought to be receiving budget estimates. They can put an asterisk on it that says this is our best estimate. It may prove out to be different as circumstances develop. But we are not being given any figures on which to pass judgment. Then after the fact, we receive a supplemental. Of course, a supplemental is going to be approved. There is no meaningful review at that point because it has already been done. Then we are told this money has already been expended. You have to replenish the coffers without having a chance to subject the figures to the requirement that they pass muster. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. Am I correct in understanding this Defense Appropriations Committee bill has no money in it for Iraq, either the military costs or the reconstruction costs? Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield for a further question?

Mr. SARBANES. But now we are a year later and it seems to me it ought to be possible to make some estimates that would be contained in the budget. It is my understanding that in the past, although we may not have gotten estimates before operations began, once they commenced and continued for a period of time, then estimates were contained in the budget requests because it was a continuing matter and you were in a period where you could make such calculations. Of course, that is not being done in this instance.

Mr. SARBANES. Of course, last year we were just getting into this situation. I understand in the past there have been instances in which, prior to actually going into operation, we weren't given figures because it is so hard to estimate them. Then they come to you for a supplemental. Of course, when they come for a supplemental, what can you do but give the supplemental? At that point you have no choice.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the distinguished Senator. I think his answers have only underscored the importance of his amendment, which I very strongly support.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield to me for a further question?

Mr. SARBANES. How is the Congress expected to play its role with respect to appropriations, and overseeing the expenditure of the public moneys, if we are not furnished this information?

Mr. SARBANES. We are now well into it. It ought to be possible to make some estimates and contain those in the budget so we have an opportunity to review them. Would the Senator agree with that?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington--a turning point in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans--and I am pleased that the Senate today has passed S. 470, a bill I introduced on February 27, 2003. This important legislation extends the authority for the memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to be constructed in the District of Columbia close to the spot from which Dr. King delivered his moving ``I Have a Dream'' speech at the March on Washington. I would like to thank the Senate for moving so expeditiously on S. 470--legislation that is crucial to ensure a fitting tribute to our Nation's greatest civil rights leader. In the 104th Congress, Congress passed a bill that I sponsored authorizing the creation of a memorial to Dr. King as part of the omnibus parks legislation. The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, of which Dr. King was a member, was designed to coordinate the design and funding of the memorial. The legislation provides that the monument be established entirely with private contributions. The Department of Interior, in consultation with the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Commission on Fine Arts, has approved the site of the memorial pursuant to this legislation. A design has been selected and the Alpha Phi Alpha National Memorial Project Foundation is in the process of getting that design approved by the Department of the Interior. Pursuant to the Commemorative Works Act, there is a 7-year period of legislative authority in which the National Memorial Project Foundation must acquire a construction permit for the memorial. This 7-year period will expire in November of this year. Despite the enormous dedication of the National Memorial Project Foundation, additional time is necessary for the Foundation to erect a fitting tribute to Dr. King. Meeting the administrative procedures and fundraising requirements of the act has been a slow process. Therefore, the foundation requires more time in which to complete the process and acquire a construction permit. That is why I and Congresswoman Diane Watson in the House of Representatives introduced this legislation to extend the period of legislative authority for an additional 3 years. This legislation gives the foundation additional time to raise the necessary funds to obtain the construction permit and will ensure that work on the memorial is completed. This extension of legislative authority has been done before for numerous other memorials, such as the World War II Memorial and the U.S. Air Force Memorial, given the length of time it usually takes to embark on a project of this magnitude, and I am pleased that it will be done for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial. Since 1955, when in Montgomery, AL, Dr. King became a national hero and an acknowledged leader in the civil rights struggle, until his tragic death in Memphis, TN in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. made an extraordinary contribution to the evolving history of our Nation. His courageous stands and unyielding belief in the tenet of nonviolence reawakened our Nation to the injustice and discrimination that continued to exist 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and the enactment of the guarantees of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution. A memorial to Dr. King erected in the Nation's Capital will provide continuing inspiration to all who view it, and particularly to the thousands of students and young people who visit Washington, DC every year. While these young people may have no personal memory of the condition of civil rights in America before Dr. King, nor of the struggle in which he was the major figure, they do understand that there is more that needs to be done in this critical area. Martin Luther King, Jr. dedicated his life to achieving equal treatment and enfranchisement for all Americans through nonviolent means. It is my hope that the young people who visit this monument will come to understand that it represents not only the enormous contribution of this great leader, but also two very basic principles necessary for the effective functioning of our society. The first is that change, even very fundamental change, is to be achieved through nonviolent means; that this is the path down which we should go as a Nation in resolving some of our most difficult problems. The other basic principle is that the reconciliation of the races, the inclusion into the mainstream of American life of all its people, is essential to the fundamental health of our Nation. Forty years ago Dr. King declared ``I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.'' We must not let future generations forget the power of these words, and the importance of Dr. King's dream. The passage of S. 470 will ensure that work on the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial is completed, and that Dr. King's legacy will live on. The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to. The bill (S. 470), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I understood the Senator from Oklahoma was lined up to go next. If he wishes to defer, I would be happy to go now, if that is acceptable to him.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as I understand it, I am recognized for 5 minutes under the unanimous consent?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the Murray amendment. I commend the very able Senator from the State of Washington for coming forward with this initiative. It is a critical issue for millions of Americans across the country, and I know how concerned she has been about this issue. I am very happy to join in supporting it as a co-sponsor. This, historically, has been a bipartisan issue. Unemployment insurance benefits were extended four times during the Reagan administration and three times during the Bush administration. The recent unemployment figures offer very strong support for acting on the Murray amendment. Last week it was reported that the unemployment rate rose to 6.4 percent in June. This is the highest unemployment rate in over 9 years. We have to go back to April of 1994 for a higher rate. Mr. President, 9.4 million workers are unemployed, the most since December of 1992. This, of course, doesn't account for those who are so discouraged that they are not looking for work. Were we to count them, the unemployment rate would be well above 7 percent. The economy has lost 394,000 jobs since January. We have lost jobs each of the past 5 months. Since this administration took office, private sector employment has fallen by more than 3 million. Two million workers have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks, which is the period covered by regular unemployment insurance benefits. This morning, the Labor Department reported that an additional 439,000 workers filed initial unemployment insurance claims. More than 400,000 workers have been filing initial unemployment insurance claims for 21 consecutive weeks. The last time there was a longer streak of initial unemployment insurance claims over 400,000 was in September of 1992, more than 10 years ago. Furthermore, the number of continuing claims is at its highest level in 20 years. You have to go back to February of 1983 to find continuing claims at the level which we are now experiencing. There are over 1 million Americans who have exhausted all of their unemployment insurance benefits and are still not able to find a job, not because they don't want to work but because there are not jobs to be had. Under current law, extended unemployed insurance benefits last only 13 weeks for most workers. Those in high unemployment States receive 26 weeks. This amendment would provide an additional 13 weeks to those who have already exhausted their benefits in most states and a further 7 weeks for those in high unemployment States. It is not as though this proposal is excessive historically. In previous recessions, we have passed extensions comparable or, indeed, beyond what is contained in this amendment. When we had a recession from July of 1990 to March of 1991, we extended unemployment benefits until April of 1994. At the program's peak, benefits were available for 26 to 33 extra weeks. That was in the previous Bush administration. It is bad enough to get this level of unemployment in these administrations. That is a breakdown in policy. But it is even worse not to provide these benefits to help people go through the period of unemployment that they are experiencing, as the Senator from Washington so aptly stated in detailing the problems. Let me make one final point. We build up an unemployment insurance trust fund in good times to fund the benefits when we encounter an economic downturn. The cost of this amendment, as I understand it, is $2.5 billion. I ask the Senator from Washington if that is correct.

Mr. SARBANES. There is $19 billion in the trust fund specifically collected for the purpose of paying unemployment insurance benefits in an economic downturn. This amendment would take less than 15 percent of that trust fund balance in order to expend these benefits. We are facing a very serious situation. We need to recognize it here. We recognized it when we had a downturn under the Reagan administration. We recognized it when we had a downturn in the first Bush administration. We ought to recognize it once again and make benefits possible for these families who are experiencing tremendous difficulties and burdens. We ought to help carry them through this economic downturn until we start getting substantial job restoration. I commend the Senator from the State of Washington for offering this amendment. She has followed this issue very closely. I think it is imperative that the Murray amendment be agreed to. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 1, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003. I applaud my colleagues in working toward enactment of legislation to provide prescription drug coverage under Medicare. However, I am deeply concerned that the bill before us today would not ensure an affordable, guaranteed benefit that would cover seniors' outpatient prescription drug expenses. Under this legislation, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services would temporarily issue prescription drug discount cards for seniors until the drug benefit begins in 2006. At that time, all Medicare beneficiaries would receive a standard prescription drug benefit whether they remained in traditional fee-for-service or in a private plan. For a $275 deductible and an estimated $35 per month, 50 percent of a beneficiary's drug costs would be covered up to $4,500. A beneficiary would receive no coverage for drug costs between $4,501 and $5,800, though they are still responsible for paying the monthly premium during this coverage gap. Furthermore, any assistance provided by employer-sponsored plans or third parties on behalf of the beneficiary does not count toward the out-of-pocket costs. After drug expenses reach $5,801, the plan would cover 90% of drug expenses. The bill creates a new Medicare Advantage program, which would replace Medicare+Choice, and create a new agency, the Center for Medicare Choices, CMC, with authority parallel to the existing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The CMC would administer the Medicare Advantage program and the prescription drug plans. The drug plans would be administered through private plans, but when no private plans exist, the government would provide a fallback plan for seniors in fee-for-service. However, if a new private plan decides to enter an area, beneficiaries would again be forced to receive their coverage through that plan. If this sounds terribly confusing, it is. One hundred Senators and their staffs found it difficult to work through this bill and understand exactly how the benefit would work. Seniors who don't sign up as soon as they are eligible are subject to a penalty similar to the penalty imposed on those who delay enrollment in Part B. It is unfair to expect seniors and their families to work through this web to make an informed decision. The complexity of this drug plan is only one of numerous flaws with this bill. S. 1 does not provide a national fixed premium. The bill sets out an estimate of a $35 monthly premium, but there is no guarantee for seniors that they will not have to pay much more than that estimate. The bill has the serious potential to cause a number of retirees to lose existing employer-sponsored prescription drug coverage. CBO estimates that as many as 37 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would lose existing coverage. This is an unacceptable consequence of legislation that is supposed to make life easier for seniors. This serious deficiency is the number one concern of constituents who have called into my office about this bill. The bill before us leaves a large gap in coverage and forces seniors to continue premium coverage during that gap period. Seniors may have to face months without any assistance, waiting to reach the limit where catastrophic coverage begins. The seniors who fall into this coverage gap are among the most ill, with severe chronic conditions and prescription needs. It is difficult to support legislation that would cease coverage for prescription drugs for seniors at the very time when it is needed most. Finally, because this proposal relies on private plans to deliver the drug benefit, seniors could be forced to shift from plan-to-plan, year- to-year as they did when Medicare+Choice HMOs pulled out of the Medicare program a few years ago. In my own State of Maryland, insurance companies left the Medicare program, abandoning more than 100,000 seniors. This legislation makes our Nation's seniors the subject of an experiment to which none of us should be willing to subject our parents and grandparents. We don't know what the benefit is under this bill. We don't know how much it will cost. We don't know how private plans will participate and make a profit. We don't know how many seniors would lose existing coverage. What we know is we are prepared to spend approximately $400 billion over 10 years to create an inadequate drug benefit, a new bureaucracy, and subsidies for private insurance companies. With modest additional resources, we could have closed the coverage gaps in this bill. Amendments offered by my colleagues to provide stability for seniors, move up the start date of the drug benefit, eliminate beneficiary premiums during the coverage gap period, and improve a variety of shortcomings have been defeated. We have lost so many opportunities to make this bill something all Medicare beneficiaries can support. I am hopeful that in the future we can improve upon this and create a system that is easier for seniors to understand, more affordable, and more reliable than what is offered today. I want to highlight one amendment that would have provided Medicare beneficiaries with a substantial, reliable and straight-forward prescription drug benefit. I cosponsored and voted for this amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. His alternative would have provided a Medicare-delivered drug benefit that allows the Secretary of HHS to employ negotiating strategies used by the VA and other government entities to bring down drug prices. Under Senator Durbin's plan, seniors would have no deductible, pay only 30 percent of costs until reaching the catastrophic limit, and face no coverage gap. In addition, employer contributions would count toward out-of-pocket limits so there would be much less risk of employers dropping retiree coverage. This was the proposal we should be working from today, but unfortunately the Durbin alternative was defeated by a vote of 56 to 39. Those opposed to providing a richer benefit argue we don't have the money. The selective amnesia of these so-called fiscal conservatives is baffling. Not too long ago, this body passed a tax cut that primarily benefited the wealthiest Americans. Where was their sense of fiscal responsibility then? As my colleagues Senators Durbin and Harkin noted yesterday, this is about priorities. I'm sure others have raised this very good point as well. We can risk greater budget deficits to give huge tax cuts to Americans who are already prospering, but we cannot provide the necessary resources for millions of Medicare beneficiaries to get an affordable, reliable drug benefit that they can understand? I have long been a strong supporter of providing older Americans and disabled individuals who rely on Medicare an affordable, comprehensive, reliable and voluntary prescription drug benefit. However, I want to ensure we do so in a way that does not worsen the situation in which many seniors find themselves as they face rapidly rising drug costs. As we consider proposals to expand our Nation's major health entitlement programs, it is appropriate to follow a guiding principle in the practice of medicine--do no harm. Our seniors deserve a drug benefit that is a real improvement, not a complex experiment that may cause more trouble than it's worth. We must not enact a law intended to help that might eventually harm millions. The American people deserve better.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, earlier this month the Franklin D. Roosevelt Distinguished Public Service Award was presented to Arthur Levitt, Jr., the widely respected former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The award is made annually by the Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, on whose board I am privileged to serve. The speaker at the presentation was Conrad Black, now Lord Black, chairman of the Telegraph Group, Limited. Lord Black is active in numerous nonprofit boards, foundations and councils. In his remarks Lord Black spoke vividly and in detail about Depression-era America, and the ``bold experimentation,'' as he put it, of the New Deal years. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Lord Black's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I do not.

Mr. SARBANES. I think that is consistent with the economic slowdown-- --

Mr. SARBANES. That is a very dramatic statement of what is happening out there in terms of the shrinking of the job market and the incredibly difficult situation in which the unemployed find themselves. As the Senator has emphasized in particular, those who are parents are confronted with how they are going to provide for the needs of their families. The Senator is absolutely correct.