Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. That is my understanding, and it is further my understanding that the extensions which have been done thus far in this recession compare very poorly with what was consistently done in previous economic downturns under both Republican and Democratic administrations. It is a very marked contrast that the response this time to the unemployed problem falls far short of what occurred in previous economic downturns.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about the pending legislation, which raises the Federal debt limit by almost $1 trillion. In my view, this legislation shows very clearly that the fiscal policies the President has pursued over the last 2 years are imprudent and reckless. We are considering today an increase of $984 billion in the Federal debt ceiling, which is expected to carry the Government through to September 2004. In other words, the Treasury Department will need to borrow almost $1 trillion more than is currently authorized--some $6.4 trillion--over the next 16 months to fund Government operations. This would be the largest single increase in the debt limit ever. We are really talking about an increase of historic proportions in our Federal debt. It is enlightening to look back at where we were when President Bush took office. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that our net debt to the public would decline to $36 billion by 2008. At that time, the President claimed that his budget would allow us to achieve ``maximum possible debt retirement.'' Now, only two years later, the President is seeking to increase the debt limit. In fact, under the President's policies, publicly-held debt will rise to $5 trillion in 2008--a staggering 36.4% of GDP. Gross Federal debt, which includes our commitments to Social Security and Medicare, will nearly double from $6.7 trillion this year to $12 trillion 10 years from now. Instead of achieving ``maximum possible debt retirement,'' the President is asking for historically high debt increases. It is critically important to understand how seriously our economic situation has deteriorated under this administration. When the President took office, he inherited a 10-year surplus estimated at $5.6 trillion. Now with the policies that he has enacted and the policies that he is proposing--in particular, this very heavily weighted tax cut for the benefit of upper-income people--we will go from projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus to projecting a $2.1 trillion deficit over that same period. That is a seismic shift in our position. I want to underscore one other thing that has happened. Twenty years ago, the United States was a creditor nation, internationally, to the tune of about 10 percent of our GDP. So we were in a strong economic position internationally. Now, because of the deterioration of our position over those intervening two decades, we are a debtor nation, to the tune of about 25 percent of our GDP. Again, a seismic shift in our international position, which places us very much in the hands of others. Because we are running these huge deficits year-in and year-out, we have become enormously, inordinately dependent on the influx of capital from abroad in order to sustain ourselves. I am reminded of Tennessee Williams's Blance Dubois in ``A Streetcar Named Desire,'' where she had that wonderful line: ``I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.'' That is what has happened to the United States in the international economic scene. We have deteriorated into this debtor status so that we are now dependent upon the kindness of strangers. That is not where the world's leading power should find itself. Of course, the years since President Bush took office had been difficult. The economic downturn, combined with the attacks of September 11 and the war with Iraq, have contributed to the decline in Federal revenues that have led to the need to increase the debt limit. Another cause of that decline as the massive tax cut the President pushed through in 2001. As many of us said at the time, enacting such a large tax cut based on optimistic projections of a surplus that may never appear was the height of recklessness. But the recklessness we saw in 2001 may actually be exceeded by what we are seeing today. Now, we are facing massive deficits, not surpluses. In fact, CBO's most recent projection is for a deficit of over $300 billion this year, the largest one-year deficit in our Nation's history. The Treasury Department recently reported a deficit of over $200 billion in the first 7 months of fiscal year 2003, more than three times the level at this point last year. We are so deeply in debt that we are being called upon to raise the debt limit by almost a trillion dollars. This increase comes on top of a $450 billion increase just last year. Our debt is skyrocketing with no end in sight. Despite the change in our fiscal circumstances, the President is pushing for exactly the same economic policy he put forward in 2001: yet another round of massive tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy. Our colleagues across the aisle have been in such a hurry to enact this large tax cut that they chose to pass it through the Senate ahead of consideration of the debt limit, as if trillions of dollars in Federal debt is irrelevant to the decision to cut taxes. Our economy is facing serious difficulties. Over the past six months, we have grown at an average rate of only 1\1/2\ percent, far less growth than what we ought to experience. Unemployment is up to 6.0 percent; it has not been higher since July 1994. Despite these realities, the administration has not yet supported sensible economic programs, but has continued to push for massive new tax cuts, skewed towards the very wealthiest Americans, which will leave us with record deficits and debt. The increase in Federal debt that we are considering today will have a real impact on our economy, putting upward pressure on interest rates, and siphoning off resources that could be used for other purposes simply to pay the interest on our debt. What we need is responsible approaches to put our economy back on track, not another round of massive tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest among us. Senator Daschle and other Democratic leaders have offered a responsible package that would create twice as many jobs as the President's package over the remainder of this year, extend unemployment insurance benefits, and provide aid to State and local governments to forestall devastating program cuts and tax increases on millions of Americans. This alternative would provide over one million jobs at only a fraction of the cost of the President's proposal or those put forth by Congressional Republicans. It would create real jobs and economic growth without mortgaging our future through tremendous increases in deficits and debt. The fact that the President is pushing for massive tax cuts at the same time the Congress is being asked to add almost a trillion dollars to the Federal debt ceiling is beyond reckless--it places in jeopardy our future economic strength and the economic security of all Americans.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly, I yield for a question.

Mr. SARBANES. I do not.

Mr. SARBANES. I did not know the exact figures but I knew there has been a very significant increase. That reflects the broader fact that the number of the long-term unemployed has now risen, not just parents, which was the thrust of the Senator's question, but the number of long- term unemployed has risen to just under 2 million. These are the highest numbers we have had in almost 10 years.

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

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. In response to the Senator's question, that is just another dimension with respect to this problem. This problem really reaches throughout our society. As the able Senator from North Carolina stated earlier, he is encountering it all across the country. The former military personnel bring another dramatic dimension to this problem and the necessity, in my view, to enact the amendment the Senator from Massachusetts has offered.

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.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.

Mr. SARBANES. I think it is imperative to focus on the fact that we have people who have exhausted their benefits for the time period given to them, and they are not able to get a job. The argument is always made that they ought to get out and find a job. That is one of the premises of the system. But the job market is getting worse, not better. Where are they going to find these jobs? How are they going to support their families? Furthermore, money has been paid into the unemployment insurance trust fund to build up a balance in order to make payments when we hit hard economic times. Those surpluses that have been paid in are now about $20 billion. The purpose of paying them in to the fund is to draw on them when we hit economic times such as we are now confronting. This economy remains soggy. It is not picking up. We have the very human problem of people who have worked that are now left out. You do not collect unemployment insurance benefits unless you have built up a work record. In order to get the benefits, you must have an established work record. So we are not talking about nonworkers. By definition, we are talking about workers, people who have an employment record. Through no fault of their own hard-working people have lost their jobs because the economy has gone soft. If you are at blame, you do not get unemployment; that is another provision of the system. They have drawn unemployment insurance benefits for a limited period of time. They then exhaust them. What are they to do? The answer, ``You ought to go find a job,'' might be an answer in a time when the job market is opening up, but the job market is closing down. The unemployment rate is rising, and the proposal of the able Senator from Massachusetts which would encompass these exhaustees is extremely important. Furthermore, it would provide an impetus to the economy in providing some stimulus to get the economy moving again.

Mr. SARBANES. What are the people to do? They have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits in a labor market that, instead of opening up so there are opportunities for jobs, is actually closing down. The unemployment rate has now risen to 6 percent. The number of long-term unemployed is at a near 20-year record. The other side is talking about doing some kind of an extension, but as I understand it, they will not cover exhaustees; is that correct? Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to America's senior citizens. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy designated May ``Older Americans Month'' to acknowledge the accomplishments of our Nation's elder generations. I welcome this opportunity to pause and reflect on the contributions of those individuals who have played such a major role in shaping our great Nation. For those of us in the Senate who have worked to ensure that the members of America's ``greatest generation'' will be able to enjoy their later years with dignity and independence, this is a chance to honor them for their hard work and the countless sacrifices they have made during their lifetimes, and to look forward to their continued contributions to the welfare of our country. Today's senior citizens have witnessed more technological advances than any other generation in our Nation's history. Seniors today have lived through times of extreme economic depression and prosperity, times of war and peace, and have seen incredible advancements in the fields of science, medicine, transportation and communications. They have embraced these new technologies and used them to further develop their vital roles in America's communities. Older Americans are working and volunteering far beyond the traditional retirement age to give younger generations the benefit of their wisdom and experience. Moreover, they are in much better health than their counterparts in previous generations and far less likely to be impoverished, disabled, or confined to nursing homes. Recent census figures reveal that the number of older Americans continues to grow. The population of those 85 and older grew 37 percent during the 1990s, while the Nation's overall population increased only 13 percent. Approximately 35 million people 65 and older were counted in the 2000 census as well as 50,500 Americans who were 100 or older. Baby boomers, who represented one-third of all Americans in 1994, will enter the 65-years-and-older category over the next 13 to 34 years, substantially increasing this segment of our population. These figures reinforce the need to demonstrate our commitment to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and to stimulate investment in biomedical research and treatments that are improving the lives of older Americans. One of our national goals must be to ensure all older Americans benefit from these improvements. In Congress, we must ensure our legislative priorities reflect our dedication to the support that older Americans deserve. This includes expanding and strengthening those programs that effectively aid older Americans, and addressing those that fall short of assisting this valuable and constantly expanding segment of our society. I have worked with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in her efforts to provide a $5,000 tax credit for individuals with chronic care needs. I regret this credit was not included in this year's budget resolution but I will continue to support her efforts to see that Congress passes the Family Caregivers Tax Credit Act. By 2020, Medicare will be responsible for covering nearly 20 percent of the population. Though Medicare meets the health care needs of millions of Americans, it was created in a different time before the benefits of prescription medicines had become such an integral part of health care. Sixty percent of Medicare beneficiaries lack affordable, prescription drug coverage. Although people 65 and older are 12.5 percent of the population, they fill 34 percent of all prescriptions. Today it is impossible to imagine quality health care coverage that does not include affordable medicines to treat and prevent illness. I have and will continue to fight for Medicare prescription drug coverage for all seniors. Earlier this year, I again cosponsored legislation to provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs under the Medicare program and to provide greater access to affordable medications. I recognize the predicament of many older Americans as they struggle to live independently on a fixed income and at the same time spend money on costly prescription drugs. The tremendous advances in biomedical research that have led to life-saving drugs and treatments are of little use if the population that stands to benefit the most cannot afford them. It is imperative that we address the needs of the Americans who have sacrificed so much for the benefit of our society. Like all Americans, they deserve access to comprehensive health care. One of the strengths that I admire most about older generations is their devotion and concern for younger Americans. As we face the dilemma of funding Social Security and some of my colleagues make proposals to privatize the program, older Americans have been the most outspoken advocates of ensuring its existence for future generations. Their determination to preserve this important social insurance program is not weakened by questionable reports that privatization proposals would not alter or reduce their benefits. Instead, they fight on, trying to ensure the benefits of Social Security will be there for others for years to come. I support their efforts and strongly oppose altering the fundamental social insurance nature of the current system, the strength of which is the guaranteed benefit concept. It is our responsibility as legislators to make certain that this Nation's fiscal priorities reflect our enormous appreciation for America's senior citizens. I continue to be impressed with the degree to which our elders contribute to American society. Our Nation's older generations are an ever-growing resource that deserve our attention, our gratitude, and our heartfelt respect. In accordance with President Kennedy's vision of Older Americans Month as a time to honor our older generations, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to implement public policies that recognize their contributions to our society. We have the opportunity to ensure the well-being of this Nation's most respected citizens, and it is my sincere hope that we pursue it with the same vigor that America's seniors have demonstrated throughout their many years of service to our country.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am in support of the Dorgan amendment to the reconciliation tax cut bill that would strike a provision in the bill to privatize tax collection by the Internal Revenue Service. The proposal to privatize tax collection is misguided. Privatizing tax collection will hurt both Federal employees, by contracting out Federal jobs, and taxpayers, who could be subject to the abuse and mismanagement of a private company. Privatization of tax collection has already been tried by the IRS in a 1996 pilot project. The pilot project was such an extraordinary failure that a further 1997 pilot project was cancelled. The contractors who conducted the project did not protect the sensitive information of taxpayers, and the project ultimately did not save the Federal Government any money. The proposal would allow private companies to engage in collection activities without providing adequate safeguards for taxpayers against abusive activities. It is my understanding that the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, known as FDCPA, which provides the most important protections for consumers from abusive or unfair actions by debt collectors, would not fully apply to the activities of the private tax collectors. I am particularly concerned that a taxpayer's ability to recover certain damages from an abusive private tax collector may be severely limited under this proposal. In addition, the privatization of tax collection is a major change to the way our Government works. To make such a change without holding any hearings on the matter, and without considering all aspects of the proposal, particularly the failed pilot project and whether or not the plan will actually save money, is irresponsible.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I too am concerned that the language of Section 333 could have unintended consequences. It was my understanding that Section 333 was intended to exclude certain payments.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the pending legislation, S. 1054. Our economy today is in a precarious position. It was reported yesterday that retail sales in April fell. Initial unemployment claims remain well above 400,000, the level typically associated with a weak labor market. This morning we learned that industrial production decreased by one-half of 1 percent last month and that capacity utilization fell to 74.4 percent, and is now at the lowest level in 20 years. Our industrial base is producing less, we have more plants and equipment idle which has led to fewer jobs, reduced consumer spending and increased economic insecurity for the vast majority of Americans. The unemployment rate has risen to 6.0 percent, the highest level sine 1994 and our economy has grown only at rate of 1.5 percent over the past 6 months, far below its potential. This growth rate is far too slow to create enough jobs for the nearly 9 million unemployed American workers who want to find work but can not because there are not enough jobs to be had. The facts indicate the serious nature of the problem facing the economy in the short run. Our economic growth is not strong enough to even maintain our job base, much less create the jobs needed for those who lost their jobs during the recession. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will not help solve these serious problems. The administration's proposal would create very little stimulus this year, when it is needed the most. Two economic consulting firms used by the administration reached this conclusion. One estimate, performed by Economy.com, calculated that the President's proposal will add only 0.4 percent to our gross domestic product this year. The President's proposal will not create enough jobs this year, when people are out of work and can not find a job because there are none to be had. Macroeconomic Advisers issued a report, entitled `A Preliminary Analysis of the President's Jobs and Growth Proposals' which concluded that the plan would create only 242,000 jobs by the end of this year. That is less than half the 525,000 jobs that we have already lost this year alone. The President's proposal falls far short of what the economy truly needs. Instead the administration proposal focuses on large permanent structural tax reduction aim at providing the maximum benefit to the wealthiest few. This will have very little stimulative effect while costing a great deal in both the present and the future. Far from stimulating the economy, the President's tax cut will create a large structural deficit which will slow future economic growth and result in fewer jobs. That is not just my conclusion. The Committee for Economic Development, CED, found that the President's proposal, ``would raise the cumulative 2004-2013 deficit by about $920 billion (including interest) and raise the annual deficit ten years from now by about $100 billion. Large structural deficits have real consequences. They reduce national savings and investment, raise real interest rates and reduce economic growth. The costs of the President's plan over the long run are so substantial that the President's plan would actually reduce future economic growth. Macroeconomic Advisers concluded that ``as interest rates rise, the initial increase in the stock market and decline in the cost of capital are reversed. Weakening investments leads to a sustained decline in labor productivity and hence potential GDP.'' They found that the President's plan will reduce economic growth in the long run. Economy.com reached a similar conclusion. It estimated that the President's plan would actually shrink the economy over the next 10 years. In his April 26 radio address, the President stated: ``Some Members of Congress support tax relief but say my proposal is too big. Since they already agree that tax relief creates jobs, it doesn't make sense to provide less tax relief and, therefore, create fewer jobs.'' In regard to that statement, the Washington Post reported, ``Asked to evaluate Bush's new argument, one Republican economist with close administration ties quipped, `I suppose it matters whether you think economics matters.'' ' I believe that economics matter. I also believe that when you pursue economic policies based on ideology instead of sound economic principles you end up hurting the lives of millions of Americans and threatening our economic future and prosperity. Look at the record of this administration: Since the President took office, the economy has lost 2.7 million private sector jobs. That is the largest job loss under any one President since we began keeping such statistics. This administration is on track to become the first administration since the Great Depression to witness a decrease in the number of jobs in America. When the President took office, what he, in effect, inherited was a 10-year surplus estimated at $5.6 trillion. That was a projection out for 10 years: a surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now with the policies that he has enacted and the policies that he is proposing, in particular, of course, this very heavily weighted tax cut for the benefit of upper income people, we will go from projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus over the 10-year period to projecting a $2.1 trillion deficit. That is a seismic shift in our position. Many of my colleagues in the Senate as well as the President have argued that these deficit estimates are inaccurate because they fail to take into account the so-called dynamic effects from the President's proposed tax cuts. In a recent speech the President said that, ``in order to get rid of the deficit, you boost revenues coming into the Treasury by encouraging economic growth and vitality'' through his proposed tax cut. Yet when the Congressional Budget Office analyzed these dynamic effects under nine different models, it found that these dynamic effects made little difference on net and that under five of the nine models theses effects actually increased the deficit. That is under all of the various assumptions used by the CBO the so-called dynamic effects that the President has argued would help the tax cut pay for itself will not only fail to deliver on that promise but may actually increased the deficit. This is yet another example of engaging in a policy driven by political ideology instead of sound economics. This bill is modeled on the failed economic policy that this administration has advanced: vast tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. The administration's proposal as estimated by the Brookings Institution creates a tax giveaway of over $89,000 to the average millionaire while providing only $482 to the average family with an income of $50,000. This truly represents the priorities of `Leave No Millionaire Behind' instead of `Leave No Child Behind.' This does not have to be the case. The Congress could enact sensible, prudent policies which provide a real, substantial boost to our economy, create many more jobs now when they are needed, maintain our economic strength and security over the long run. Senator Daschle presented an alternative that would create real jobs, grow the economy, help unemployed workers, and assist State and local governments that are facing their worst fiscal crisis since WWII. Extending unemployment insurance benefits serves to stimulate the economy immediately as those receiving the benefits are almost by definition sure to turn around and spend what they receive. Providing aid to State and local governments will allow them to forestall cuts to vital programs or tax increases, either of which would only exacerbate our current economic problems. Comparing the Democratic alternative and the administration's proposal, the conclusions are the same using almost any economic model: The Democratic plan would create over 1 million jobs at by the end of this year, which is twice as many jobs as the administration's own estimate of their plan; the Democratic plan would provide more stimulus to the economy this year leading to higher economic growth; and the Democratic plan is temporary and far less costly than the President's proposal. Mr. President, I oppose this legislation and I urge my fellow colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I object to the request. I think it should be worked out with the chairman.

Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object, have Members been given notice that a motion of this sort was to be offered? Have Members been given notice that a motion of this sort is to be offered?

Mr. SARBANES. So everyone can have a fair opportunity.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is legislation that marks a major step forward in addressing the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Although in my view we have been slow to come to terms with the enormity of the problem, we now have a broad bipartisan consensus on the urgent need for increased funding to address the HIV/AIDS crisis, which is reflected in two proposals before the Senate: H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 and S. 1009, the United States Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Act of 2003. While they are broadly similar in their provisions, one, in my view, will equip us better with the tools we need. That is S. 1009, which I am cosponsoring. Within its overall authorization figures of $2.8 billion for fiscal year 2004 and $3.2 billion for fiscal year 2005 for HIV/AIDS initiatives, it obligates specified amounts for bilateral programs, The Global Fund to Fight Aids Tuberculosis, TB, and Malaria, The Vaccine Fund, The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, tuberculosis programs and the Malaria Vaccine Initiative. It promotes an integrated and balanced approach to fighting the disease, while at the same time embracing a wide range of established HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs. Indeed, S. 1009 is designed to complement and support existing development and relief funds, which have already proved their value. Today in sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the globe we confront the tragic consequences of ignorance about HIV/AIDS, indifference to its effects and delay in marshalling worldwide efforts to contain and ultimately to eliminate it. First diagnosed in Los Angeles just over 20 years ago, it rapidly spread worldwide, especially as major mechanisms of transmission, like blood transfusions and unsterilized needles, were overlooked. While concerted efforts of the medical community and the public at large have helped control the number of new cases and reduced the death rate, the disease continues to spread in some parts of the world. According to the most recent report of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, 3.5 million people were infected last year in Africa alone. If not effectively treated, HIV/AIDS takes a truly terrible toll. In economic terms, the pandemic has turned back the clock on decades of development gains, creating a vicious cycle that exacerbates poverty among the already poor and reduces others to poverty. It displaces or marginalizes populations, making them even more susceptible to HIV infection. In South Africa, where the epidemic's grip has been especially deadly, AIDS has caused major social and economic disruption. What began as a health issue is now also a development crisis. In every country where HIV/AIDS rages out of control, all sectors are affected. Public health services have been particularly hard hit, because the demand from the services of public health workers has increased. IMF indicators suggest that in the most afflicted countries health services have been overwhelmed by the epidemic, even as the number of patients is projected to double over the next few years. HIV/AIDS has hit hardest in countries with limited budget resources. Scarce funds have been allocated to rising health care costs, at the expense of other critical public services. Additionally, because the disease debilitates and incapacitates well before it kills, and because it crosses all socioeconomic lines, it has effectively deprived struggling governments of a generation of civil servants--of urgently needed leadership, experience and expertise. This loss of human resources constitutes a new and insidious form of brain drain that governments can ill afford as they work to promote economic growth, alleviate poverty and improve the quality of life for its citizens. Education in the affected countries has been particularly hard hit. Even if the demand for education falls over time as fertility rates decline, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain pupil- teacher ratios at constant levels. IMF indicators suggest that by 2010 the proportion of newly trained teachers replacing teachers who have died of AIDS will reach a staggering 67 percent--two in every three. The magnitude of this tragic epidemic further complicates the challenge of raising literacy rates in the developing world. The World Bank estimates that even absent the impact of HIV/AIDS, 55 of the world's poorest countries will be unable to achieve universal primary enrollment by 2015. HIV/AIDS affects the private sector just as much as the public sector. As mortality rates rise and the working-age population declines in size, employers lose trained, experienced and productive workers. Medical care, death-related benefits and also absenteeism--a very important factor--all contribute to rising personnel costs. The macroeconomic impacts are clear. When the HIV infection rate exceeds 5 percent in a country, HIV/AIDS begins to have significant economy-wide impacts. At least 24 African nations, along with Haiti, now fit into this category. The consequences are grim. UNAIDS estimates a loss of more than 20 percent of GDP by 2020 in the worst affected countries. The number of destitute families will rise as they face lower incomes, greater numbers of dependents and sharply higher healthcare expenditures. The ripple effects of continued reductions in labor, savings, and investment will mean lower economic output in the affected countries, inevitably slowing economic growth and causing trade balances to deteriorate further. The economic ramifications of HIV/AIDS are one aspect of the crisis; the human dimension is another. According to UNAIDS, 42 million people worldwide are living with HIV. Of these cases, more than 28 million are in Africa alone. In 2002, 5 million people were newly infected with HIV; 28 million people have thus far died from the disease; 14 million children have been orphaned by AIDS without having contracted the disease themselves. Given the high mortality rates among young adults, the orphan population will inevitably increase; a recent report issued jointly by UNICEF/UNAIDS/USAID estimates that by the end of this decade the number of orphans will reach 25 million, an increase of nearly 80 percent. Social support systems in the affected countries are tragically inadequate in the face of the crisis. Children thus become part of a vicious cycle, with no one to care for them, still vulnerable to the disease, seeking to survive in a gang or militia--exacerbating social problems in these countries. Available statistics tell only part of the story, since AIDS often goes unreported. There is no system of accessible AIDS testing and many cases go undiagnosed, given the sensitivity and social stigma too often surrounding AIDS. On the basis of what is available, however, experts agree that in Africa alone the disease threatens an entire generation that will either be lost to HIV/AIDS or severely affected by plummeting life expectancy, collapsing social institutions and decimated workforces. As we consider our approach to AIDS, our recent experience with SARS should be instructive. With SARS we have learned in a few months what it took years to understand about HIV/AIDS: awareness, early intervention and international cooperation are critical factors in keeping the disease from spreading and in saving lives. We must apply the lessons we are learning from SARS to our efforts to treat and control HIV/AIDS. A person infected with the HIV/AIDS virus may appear to show signs of the flu, or no symptoms at all for months or even years. Yet diagnosed in time, the disease is treatable. In the industrialized world, for example, research and intervention have reduced mother-to-child transmission of the HIV virus to less than 2 percent. Rigorous testing and surveillance can keep the blood supply safe. Effective, low-cost interventions have been developed. In high-risk groups in industrialized countries intensive education, vigorous political action and extensive drug therapy have been combined to bring the disease largely under control. Now we must apply these strategies in the developing world, where the disease is raging out of control. Of the total HIV population worldwide, 95 percent live in the developing world. While there is no cure, we know that prompt intervention mitigates the terrible effects of the disease. S. 1009 is not directed exclusively to HIV/AIDS; it includes important provisions addressed to tuberculosis and malaria. Unlike HIV/ AIDS, which was first diagnosed less than a quarter-century ago, these two terrible diseases have been known and feared for centuries. Tuberculosis claims nearly 3 million lives every year--more than all other infectious diseases combined. Among HIV/AIDS patients, it is the single most common cause of death. In fact, HIV patients are up to 50 percent more likely to convert the latent form of TB into the active, contagious form. Unlike many other infectious diseases, tuberculosis is an airborne disease transmitted like the common cold. Nearly one-third of the world's population is already infected, and cases of multidrug resistant strains, which are far more difficult and expensive to treat, are rising. Overall, tuberculosis is responsible for 25 percent of all preventable deaths in the developing world. S. 1009 authorizes $150 million for fiscal year 2004 and $170 million for fiscal year 2005 for programs devoted to tackling TB. The developing world, especially sub-Saharan Africa is also in the grip of resurgent malaria, as resistance grows to traditionally effective antimalarial drugs. Resurgent malaria is estimated to cause 1 to 3 million deaths annually, and WHO projects between 300 to 500 new cases every year. S. 1009 authorizes $105 million for fiscal year 2004 and $125 million for fiscal year 2005 to malaria programs and to the Malaria Vaccine Initiative. With the worst effects of the pandemic still to come, S. 1009 is timely and urgent. It will help to stop the terrible downward spiral in living standards in the countries it has ravaged, and the destabilization that occurs when families and communities are torn apart. It can save lives. We can beat back this disease. In my view, S. 1009 provides us with the tools most urgently needed by those on the front lines in the fight against HIV/AIDS. It is vastly superior in its provisions to H.R. 1298. Nonetheless, I will work with my colleagues to strengthen the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to respond to the Senator from Oklahoma, and urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment. What are workers to do in terms of supporting their family if they exhaust the 39 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits that they are eligible to receive? Senator Kennedy's answer is that under the current circumstances we provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits. The labor market is not improving. It is worsening. The unemployment rate is rising, not falling. This notion that there are jobs to be had does not square with the facts. The economy is continuing to lose jobs. We lost 48,000 jobs last month. We have lost over half a million jobs already this year. The unemployment report stated that almost 9 million workers were unemployed in April. Just under 2 million workers have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. The number of long-term unemployed is as high as its been since January 1993. The average duration of unemployed has risen to 19.6 weeks. This is the longest average duration reported during this recession, and it is the highest level in almost 20 years. What are these people to do? The Kennedy amendment is very simple. It says that providing some continued support for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own is more important than providing some of these tax cuts that are proposed in this legislation. It makes sense for the individuals, and it makes sense for the economy. We are talking about trying to stimulate the economy. Extended unemployment insurance benefits are scheduled to stop and that will withdraw that much purchasing power out of the economy. So I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this amendment. We face a worsening economic situation. Unemployment is rising. The opportunities in the job market are shrinking. We need to provide help to our workers and to their families to help them through this very difficult period. The Kennedy amendment seeks to do that. The unemployment insurance trust funds have surpluses of almost $20 billion.

Mr. SARBANES. The unemployment insurance trust funds have surpluses of approximately $20 billion. These moneys were paid into the trust fund for the announced purpose of paying unemployment insurance benefits in an economic downturn. Now we have an economic downturn. We have people out of work. We have the job market worsening, not improving. These surpluses ought to be used for the purpose for which they were intended; and that is, to provide extended unemployment insurance benefits. And those benefits ought to come ahead of any of the tax cuts. I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of legislation to provide more bankruptcy judges for several States, including four additional bankruptcy judgeships for my own State of Maryland. This legislation is being introduced today by Senator Biden, and is being cosponsored by myself and Senators Carper, Nelson of Florida, Clinton, Edwards, Graham of South Carolina, Hollings, Levin, Pryor, Reid, Chambliss, Miller, Alexander and Graham of Florida. This bill is another significant step forward in our efforts to strengthen Maryland's Federal bankruptcy court. We have been working for several years to get these additional judgeships approved, yet no legislation has been passed that would authorize them. With such inaction, the burden facing Maryland's sitting bankruptcy judges has grown, and Maryland has remained without the additional judgeships it so desperately needs to make our bankruptcy system work. Maryland's four sitting bankruptcy judges continue to show remarkable dedication given the extraordinary burdens placed upon them. However, additional judgeships remain essential to the fair and timely administration of the Bankruptcy Code for all of the businesses and individuals that come before the Maryland District. Since 1992, we have been requesting additional judgeships for the District of Maryland; thus far none have been approved. In 1992, there were approximately 15,000 bankruptcy filings in the District of Maryland. From 1998 to 2002, there were over 30,000 bankruptcy filings per year in Maryland. In the past few years the number of new filings per year has been closer to 35,000, and in 2002 there were 35,900 new cases. The caseload has more than doubled in the past ten years, and the Court still does its work with only four bankruptcy judges. This dire need for additional judgeships in Maryland has yet to be remedied by the Congress. This legislation provides four additional judgeships for Maryland, in accordance with a September 2002 recommendation from the United States Judicial Conference. These four additional judgeships would help reduce the overwhelming workload of the four sitting bankruptcy judges. As of June 30, 2002, the national weighted filing average for bankruptcy judges was 1,641. The weighted filing per judge for Maryland's four bankruptcy judges was 3,030--almost twice the national average. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which would provide much needed help on the bankruptcy courts in Maryland and across the Nation.