Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. SARS is only the most recent of the many international health emergencies that WHO has faced. In the complex effort to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, WHO also plays an important part. It is estimated that of the roughly 750,000 new HIV cases in children each year, more than 400,000 could be prevented by treating the most common route of infection, mother-to-child transmission, (MTCT). As in the case of infant diarrhea, we know that simple, cheap and effective interventions are available. The drug nevirapine, for example, reduces the likelihood of transmission of HIV from a mother to her newborn by up to 47 percent. It is administered in a single dose to the mother at the onset of labor and in a single dose to the baby in its first 3 days after delivery. The intervention costs less than $4, and the drug is now available at minimal or no cost in most countries where poverty levels are high and resources scarce. The use of nevirapine to address MTCT is based on the work and recommendations from WHO. There is hardly any country, no matter how well guarded its borders, which can be confident of remaining immune from the urgent health problems that beset the world. In fact, for more than half a century the World Health Organization has served us well. Most recently, as SARS has spread WHO has stepped into the breach, collecting and disseminating information and facilitating an international response. In oral rehydration and MTCT projects, we have seen how effectively WHO can intervene. We must respond vigorously, therefore, as WHO calls on us on World Health Day 2003 to confront and vanquish the environmental causes that bring unnecessary illness and death to millions of the world's children every year. WHO is working to turn this year's initiative into an effective global alliance, to bring to local communities the resources necessary to raise the health standards of children most at risk, and thereby transform their lives. The benefits from these efforts will surely ripple outwards: to families, to communities, and indirectly to us all. By supporting WHO we can, and we should, make a difference. [From The New York Times, April 8, 2003.] Disease's Pioneer Is Mourned as a Victim (By Donald G. McNeil, Jr.) When the microbe that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome is finally isolated, some people will know what to call it. They want a Latin variation on Carlo Urbani's name. If SARS was an infectious cloud blowing out of southern China, Dr. Urbani was the canary in its path. Working in a hospital in Hanoi, Vietnam, as a mysterious pneumonia felled one nurse after another, he sang out the first warning of the danger, saw the world awaken to his call--and then died. If not for the intuition of Dr. Urbani, director of infectious diseases for the Western Pacific Region of the World Health Organization, the disease would have spread farther and faster than it has, public health officials around the world say. It was a tricky call. There is nothing as telltale about the disease as the bleeding of a hemorrhagic fever or the bumps of a pox, and its symptoms mimic other respiratory conditions. Dr. Urbani, 46, died on March 29, a month after seeing his first case and 18 days after realizing he was coming down with the symptoms himself. ``Carlo's death was the most coherent and eloquent epilogue his life could produce,'' said Nicoletta Dentico, a friend from the Italian chapter of Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Borders, which Dr. Urbani once headed. ``His death was as a giver of new life.'' And it was in keeping with his medical philosophy. When Dr. Urbani spoke in 1999 at the ceremony in which Doctors Without Borders accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, he described doctors' duty ``to stay close to the victims.'' ``It's possible to study an epidemic with a computer or to go to patients and see how it is in them,'' said Dr. William Claus, the group's emergency coordinator for Asia. ``Carlo was in the second category.'' In Italy, he had pushed the organization into working with the poorest of the poor, with Gypsies in Rome and with African and Albanian boat people who were landing in Sicily and Calabria. Even as a student, said Fabio Badiali, a childhood friend who is now mayor of Castelplanio, their hometown on the Adriatic Coast, he had been a volunteer, organizing groups to take the handicapped on countryside picnics. As a family doctor, he had taken vacations in Africa, traveling with a backpack full of medicine. He had accepted the W.H.O. post, friends said, because he wanted to be back in the third world and working with patients. It was that instinct that took him to the bedside of Johnny Chen, an American businessman who entered Vietnam- France Hospital in Hanoi on Feb. 26 with flulike symptoms. Dr. Urbani might not have been an obvious choice as a consultant in Mr. Chen's case. In his heart, friends said, he was ``a worm guy,'' a specialist in parasites. ``Other people didn't think worms were sexy,'' said Dr. Kevin L. Palmer, W.H.O.'s regional specialist in parasitic diseases and a friend. ``but it's a really basic problem for every child in the tropics.'' Dr. Urbani was an expert in Schistosoma mekongi in Vietnam, in the food-borne nematodes and trematodes of Laos and Cambodia and the hookworms of the Maldives. Dr. Lorenzo Savioli, who worked with Dr. Urbani in the Maldives, said they worked from sunup to sundown, ignoring the famous beaches and reefs, tracking hookworm epidemiology and training workers at a malaria control laboratory, who were used to working with blood, in testing for worms. Over rice and fish in the evenings, Dr. Savioli said, they had joked, ``Nobody at headquarters was going to believe we were spending our days in the Maldives over fecal samples.'' Dr. Urbani was a worm zealot, Dr. Palmer said, because they did so much damage but could be so easily treated. For example, he said, a 3-cent pill administered to schoolchildren twice a year could rid them of most intestinal worms. Dr. Urbani was working to have school systems in southeastern Asia cooperate. He also attacked a worm that lived on fish farms. He could not get Cambodians and Laotians to give up eating undercooked fish, Dr. Palmer said, but he hoped to solve the problem by teaching fish farmers to divert sewage from their ponds. He was also testing the use of a veterinary drug to kill worm larvae that can reach human brains and cause seizures. And, said Daniel Berman, a director of the Doctors Without Borders campaign for cheaper lifesaving drugs, Dr. Urbani was pushing Vietnamese farmers to grow more sweet wormwood, a plant that can produce artemisinin, a new malaria cure. Still, when a troublesome case turned up in Hanoi, Dr. Palmer said, the W.H.O. staff usually said, ``Call Carlo,'' because he was also known as an expert clinical diagnostician. Mr. Chen was such a case, suffering with pneumonia and fever, as well as a dry cough. The hospital suspected that he had the Asian ``bird flu'' that killed six people in 1997 and was stopped by rigid quarantines and the slaughter of millions of chickens and ducks. Rumors of a mysterious pneumonia had been coming out of the Guangdong region of southern China, but the Chinese authorities had been close lipped, even instructing local reporters to ignore it. Although no one then realized the significance, Mr. Chen, 48, had also stayed in the Metropole Hotel in Hong Kong. He may have picked up the disease from a 64-year-old Guangdong doctor in town for a wedding, staying in Room 911. Investigators theorize that the doctor infected 12 other guests, several from the same floor, who carried the disease to Singapore, Toronto and elsewhere. By the time Dr. Urbani arrived at Vietnam-France Hospital, the microbe that Mr. Chen carried was spreading. Before he died, he infected 80 people, including more than half of the health workers who cared for him. The virulence of his case alarmed world health officials, helping lead to the extraordinary health alert that W.H.O. issued on March 15. But Dr. Urbani, who first saw Mr. Chen in late February, quickly recognized that the disease was highly contagious and began instituting anti-infection procedures like high-filter masks and double-gowning, which are not routine in impoverished Vietnam. Then he called public health authorities. Dr. Palmer recalled Dr. Urbani's conversation: ``I have a hospital full of crying nurses. People are running and screaming and totally scared. We don't know what it is, but it's not flu.'' On March 9, Dr. Urbani and Dr. Pascale Brudon, the W.H.O. director in Hanoi, met for four hours with officials at the Vietnam Health Ministry, trying to explain the danger and the need to isolate patients and screen travelers, despite the possible damage to its economy and image. ``That took a lot of guts,'' Dr. Palmer said. ``He's a foreigner telling the Vietnamese that it looks bad. But he had a lot of credibility with the government people, and he was a pretty gregarious kind of character.'' With dozens of workers at the hospital sick, it was quarantined on March 11. Infection-control practices were instituted at other hospitals, including the large Bach Mai state hospital, where Dr. Claus of Doctors Without Borders oversaw them. Dr. Urbani's quick action was later credited with shutting down Vietnam's first outbreak. In the middle of it, Dr. Savioli said, Dr. Urbani had an argument with his wife, Giuliani Chiorrini. She questioned the wisdom of the father of three children ages 4 to 17 treating such sick patients. Dr. Savioli said Dr. Urbani replied: ``If I can't work in such situations, what am I here for? Answering e-mails, going to cocktail parties and pushing paper?'' In an interview with an Italian newspaper, Ms. Chiorrini said her husband knew the risks. ``He said he had done it other times,'' she recalled, ``that there was no need to be selfish, that we must think of others.'' But on March 11, as he headed to Bangkok for a conference on deworming schoolchildren, he started feeling feverish and called Dr. Brudon. ``He was exhausted, and I was sure it was because he had had a lot of stress,'' Dr. Brudon said later. ``I said, `Just go.' ``But she had second thoughts. ``I called my colleagues in Bangkok and said, `Carlo doesn't feel well, and we should be careful.' '' Dr. Scott Dowell, a disease tracker for the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who is based in Thailand, met him at the Bangkok airport near midnight. Dr. Urbani, looking grim, waved him back. They sat in chairs eight feet apart until an ambulance arrived 90 minutes later, its frightened attendants having stopped for protective gear. For the first week in a Bangkok hospital, Dr. Urbani's fever receded, and he felt a bit better. But he knew the signs. ``I talked to him twice,'' Dr. Palmer said. ``He said, `I'm scared.' '' That was uncharacteristic for a man who was known as big, charming and full of ironic wit. In Italy, he staved off boredom by hang gliding. In Hanoi, he negotiated the insane traffic on a motorcycle and took his children on overnight car jaunts to rural villages. He carried Bach sheet music and stopped at churches, asking if he could play. W.H.O. experts flew in from Australia and Germany to help. One scoured Australian drug companies for ribavirin, a toxic antiviral drug that was said to have helped some cases. It did not help Dr. Urbani, though, and was withdrawn. Then patches showed up on a lung X-ray, and he told his wife to take the children and return to Castelplanio. Instead, she sent them ahead and flew to Bangkok. By the time she arrived, his room had been jury-rigged as an isolation ward. Carpenters had put up double walls of glass, and fans had been placed in the window to force air outside. The couple could talk only by intercom, and Ms. Chiorrini saw him conscious just once. As his lungs weakened, Dr. Palmer said, he was put on a respirator. In a conscious moment, Dr. Urbani asked for a priest to give him the last rites and, according to the Italian Embassy in Bangkok, said he wanted his lung tissue saved for science. As fluid filled his lungs, he was put on a powerful ventilator, sedated with morphine. The end came at 11:45 on a Saturday morning. Doctors and nurses heavily shrouded in anti-infection gear pounded on his chest as his heart stopped four times, Dr. Dowell said, but it was useless. Most of those who had died of SARS were old or had some underlying condition that weakened them, but ``he worked with patients for weeks, and we suspect he got such a massive dose that he didn't have a chance,'' Dr. Palmer said. ``It's very sad,'' Dr. Claus said, ``that to raise awareness as he did, you have to pay such a price.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise in support of the Levin-Nelson provision included in the managers' amendment to the CARE Act of 2003. This provision, the SEC Civil Enforcement Act, will strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission's authority to prosecute securities fraud violations and augment investor protection. Senator Levin is to be commended for his unwavering advocacy on behalf of investors and his role in ensuring that our capital markets retain their reputation as being the fairest, most efficient, and most transparent in the world. The Levin-Nelson provision has the full support of the SEC Chairman, William Donaldson, and it has been supported by the full Commission and by former SEC Chairman, Harvey Pitt, who remarked that this provision would promote the SEC's goal of achieving ``real-time enforcement.'' The legislation has been sought by the SEC's Enforcement Division because it will eliminate inefficiency, provide the SEC with additional flexibility, and strengthen the Commission's ability to hold securities law violators accountable for their actions. The SEC Civil Enforcement Act effectively complements the statutory framework created by the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002--the ``Sarbanes-Oxley Act.'' Against the backdrop of a series of corporate scandals and a severe drop in investor confidence last year, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act sought to take steps to ensure investors that corporate executives and financial reports are trustworthy, accountants and analysts independent, and that the SEC has adequate resources and enforcement authority to fulfill its mandate. In its continuing, ``real-time'' investigation into accounting irregularities at HealthSouth Corp., the Commission has put these new powers to work. As The Wall Street Journal of April 4 noted, ``the HealthSouth inquiry has already netted eight criminal convictions, accomplishing in just weeks what might have stretched across months or even years in the past.'' The Levin-Nelson provision will significantly buttress the SEC's enforcement efforts in this area. I urge enactment of the provision to further protect securities investors and help assure the U.S. capital markets remain the envy of the world.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I would like to address an inquiry to the Senator from Nevada who indicates he intends to live and fight another day on this amendment. If and when he does so, I hope he will also address the question of how much cooperation he anticipates receiving from the intelligence services in both Germany and France in our fight against international terrorism. If he is going to be laying down a marker to these countries with his amendment, I hope when he does so the consideration of its impact on our cooperation with these countries in the effort against terrorism will be in the forefront of his explanation. Amendment No. 481

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, when Pat Moynihan retired from the Senate in 2000, following four terms of devoted and distinguished service to the citizens of New York and indeed of the Nation, he left a great void; now, with his death, he leaves a greater void still. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, speaking of Benjamin Franklin when in 1784 he took Franklin's place as the Ambassador of the new American Republican in Paris, others may succeed him in the many different roles he played in our national life, but no one will ever replace him. No simple category was ever capacious enough to accommodate Daniel Patrick Moynihan. With justification he has been called an intellectual, a scholar, an academic, an author, an editor, a politician, a diplomat, and a statesman. He has been known variously as a scholarly politician and a political-minded scholar; certainly as Nicholas Lemann has observed, ``he was more of a politician, by far, than most intellectuals.'' He was a fierce partisan of cities and the urban landscape, but he was equally devoted to the urban and rural spaces of his State of New York. Born in Tulsa, he was a quintessential New Yorker. He was also a proud citizen of this capital city, where he and Liz, his wife and partner in every endeavor for nearly 50 years, chose to live at the very center. He was at home in academic communities wherever he found them. He was equally expert in domestic and foreign policy. Pat Moynihan grew up poor, and never, ever forgot the grinding, corrosive effects of poverty; many years removed from poverty himself, he characterized tough bankruptcy reform legislation as ``a boot across the throat'' of the poor. As a child he earned money by shining shoes; later he worked as a longshoreman. He served in the U.S. Navy. He went to college courtesy of the G.I. bill, earning his B.A. from Tufts University and his M.A. from Tufts' Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Some years later he earned his Ph.D. in international relations at Syracuse University, but only after spending a year as a Fulbright Scholar at the London School of Economics and working for a time in the office of the Governor of New York. From the time he left Syracuse for Washington in 1961 until he ran successfully for the Senate in New York in 1976, Pat Moynihan held a challenging succession of positions in public service and in the academic world. Although over the years Pat represented New York in the Senate his colleagues became accustomed to that versatility, in retrospect it appears astonishing. He joined the Labor Department in 1961, eventually becoming the Assistant Secretary for Policy Planning, but left in 1965 to become director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies and a professor in the Graduate School of Education at Harvard. Four years later he returned to public life as an assistant to the President for urban affairs, only to return the following year to Harvard, only to be called upon to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to India and then to the United Nations. In those 15 years he served in four different administrations and held six different positions. In every one of them he served with distinction and his accomplishments-- many of them considered controversial at the time--are remembered respectfully today. They will not soon be forgotten. New York's voters first sent Pat Moynihan to represent them in the Senate in 1976, and returned him every 6 years for three additional terms; he declined to run again in 2000, after 24 years of service. It was as though, in coming to the Senate, he had come home. He set his sights quickly on the Finance Committee, with its vital jurisdiction over Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs. In his third term he rose to the chairmanship, the first New Yorker to chair that committee in nearly 150 years. In that capacity he worked to enact legislation that proved to be the foundation for a period of economic growth that raised millions of Americans above the poverty level. As a member of the Committee on the Environment and Public works he worked hard, often with spectacular success, to promote awareness and assure the preservation of many of the buildings, once seemingly destined for demolition, that today we consider our priceless national heritage. For this the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1999 honored him with the Louise DuPont Crowinshield Award, its highest honor, noting, ``The award is made only when there is indisputable evidence of superlative lifetime achievement and commitment in the preservation and interpretation of the country's historic architectural heritage.'' Everyone who walks along Pennsylvania Avenue in this city or through New York's Pennsylvania Station is forever indebted to Pat Moynihan. He procured the necessary funding to save Louis Sullivan's Guarantee Building, in Buffalo, and promptly moved his district office into it. In his brief chairmanship of the committee he shepherded through to enactment ground-breaking legislation, the Intermodal; Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA, which recast our thinking about surface transportation. Pat Moynihan's formal academic training was in foreign policy. Here he will be remembered for his effective ambassadorship to India, his forceful and principled representation of United States interests in the U.N. Security Council and his early conviction, little shared at the time he expressed it, that behind the facade of Soviet military might and empire lay a system in danger of collapse. He proved to be correct. He should also be remembered for his role as one of the ``Four Horsemen'' in the Congress, whose work often went unremarked. These four Members, whose families had come to this country from Ireland, worked tirelessly together in support of efforts to bring peace to Northern Ireland, and especially to steer United States policy in that direction. That Northern Ireland is no longer torn apart by violence is in some significant measure due to their efforts. Once we have catalogued all Pat Moynihan's many accomplishments, however, there remains the man himself. In everything he did he remained a teacher, with an amazing capacity to instruct and to inspire. He believed, with Thomas Jefferson, that ``Design activity and political thought are indivisible''--an elliptical idea to many of us, until we find ourselves in the presence of the architectural monuments he helped to preserve. He brought to every undertaking an extraordinary historical perspective, and an astute appreciation of what he called, in his commencement address at Harvard just a year ago, ``our basic constitutional design.'' In his turn of phrase and in his thought, he was unabashedly himself--deeply self-respecting, just as he was respectful of other people and other cultures. For all these reasons he remains a vivid part of our national life. It is difficult to know just how to honor our former colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for his lifetime of service and his legacy. In the end, our best tribute will lie not in the words of remembrance we speak but rather his tangible achievements and his legacy. The best tribute we can pay is not the words we speak but rather in our rededication to the principles for which he fought.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Women's History Month. This time has been appropriately designated to reflect upon the important contributions and heroic sacrifices that women have made to our Nation and to consider the challenges they continue to face. Throughout our history, women have been at the forefront of every important movement for a better and more just society, and they have been the foundation of our families and communities. In Maryland, we are proud to honor those women who have given so much to improve our lives. Their achievements illustrate their courage and tenacity in conquering what others perceive as overwhelming obstacles. They include Harriet Elizabeth Brown, civil rights leader, teacher and principal. In the 1930s in Calvert County, she fought to eliminate pay disparities between white and black teachers. Another noteworthy Marylander was Anna Ella Carroll who served as an unofficial adviser and strategist to President Abraham Lincoln in her efforts to preserve the Union during the Civil War. We are all indebted to Rose Kushner, teacher, medical writer, and psychologist, who worked tirelessly as an advocate for better screening and treatment of breast cancer. Their accomplishments and talent provide inspiration not only to the residents of Maryland, but to people all over the globe. My good friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator Barbara Mikulski, is a tremendous example of the commitment and dedication women give to public service. From her background as a social worker to her election to the U.S. Senate, Senator Mikulski, who has served longer than any other woman currently in the Senate, has always worked to ensure those in need receive the critical support services necessary for them to live independently and with dignity. She appropriately played a key role in establishing this month when in 1981, cosponsoring a resolution establishing National Women's History Week, a predecessor to Women's History Month. Today, I wish to honor her dedication and service to the people of Maryland and this Nation. This Women's History Month is a fitting time to honor the women of the armed services and recognize the sacrifice they make for our country, especially in light of the unprecedented role women are playing in our military engagement in Iraq. Approximately 15 percent of all active duty personnel are women. From the American Revolution and the Civil War through modern day armed conflict, American women have made sacrifices along side their husbands, sons, brothers and fathers to preserve the freedom upon which this Nation was founded. At this time, we know that Army Specialist Shoshawna Johnson is being held as a POW in Iraq, and Private First Class Jessica Lynch is missing in action. We send our hopes and prayers for the safe return of these brave young women, and all of those serving our country, and want their families to know that our thoughts are with them during this very difficult time. Women have made great strides in overcoming historic adversity and bias but they still face many obstacles. Unequal pay, poverty, inadequate access to healthcare and violent crime are among the challenges that continue to disproportionately affect women. While the most recent Census Bureau figures show that the percentage of women holding managerial jobs grew from one-third to a high of 46 percent since 1983, this figure has not improved since 2001. In addition, women continue to earn less than their male colleagues, earning only 77.5 percent of every dollar earned by men. Despite these obstacles, women push on. In recent years, the poverty rate for single women has declined and more women hold advanced degrees than ever before. Recent figures show that women received approximately 45 percent of law and 42 percent of medical degrees awarded in this country. This is a dramatic improvement from a few decades ago and should continue as more and more young women recognize their opportunities are limitless. Indeed women continue to make great progress. As we highlight their accomplishments in history this month, I believe it is also important to educate present and future generations about gender discrimination so that we do not repeat past mistakes. During my service in Congress, I have strongly supported efforts to address women's issues and eradicate gender discrimination and inequality. These include cosponsoring the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, and continually supporting an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. I am proud of these efforts and I will continue my commitment to bring fuller equality to all women. I am confident that the women of America will continue to excel while continuing their role as advocates for those values and ideals which are at the heart of a decent, caring and fair society.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I ask the ranking member of the Budget Committee, with these record deficits and this incredible buildup of debt which would flow out of the administration's policy, who is going to carry the burden of that debt? Will not the same men and women who are now fighting out in the Middle East, when they come home, have that debt settle upon them? And in the meantime, very big tax cuts are being given to very wealthy people. What sacrifice are the people who have been most favored in our society economically making in order to meet this economic crisis? There is no sacrifice on their part.

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

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one quick question?

Mr. SARBANES. I want to be very clear. The Senator is saying the budget deficit for the next year will be close to $600 billion, more than double the highest deficit we have ever run previously; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution on which we will be voting later this afternoon. Let me note at the outset that this budget resolution is one of the most important documents we will consider in the Senate. It contains within it thousands of decisions with respect to our national life. We really set our national priorities by our budget, making fundamental decisions within the budget--how much shall we allot for this spending program, what shall we do on the tax side. In addition, the aggregate budget and the projected deficit can have a profound effect upon our overall economy, not only this year but extending well into future years. We are considering this budget in the context, first and foremost, of the military conflict in Iraq and, secondly, in the context of a domestic economy which is clearly sputtering. Last month, we lost over 300,000 private sector jobs. The number of long-term unemployed continues to go up. Now almost 2 million people have been out of work for more than 26 weeks. Consumer confidence is at a nine-year low. Moreover, our fiscal situation has deteriorated significantly over the course of this administration. In January of 2001, when President Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a budget surplus over 10 years of $5.6 trillion. In fact, the President pointed to that projected surplus as a rationale for doing the 2001 tax cuts. Now the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a $2.1 trillion deficit over the same period, assuming the President's tax proposals are adopted. That is a swing of more than $7.5 trillion in our fiscal position, from a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion to a projected deficit of $2.1 trillion. Despite this severe economic deficit outlook, the fight over this budget resolution has focused primarily on whether to encompass within it sufficient room for another very large tax cut which the President is seeking. It is asserted by the Administration that this is going to be a growth stimulus package. It is not going to be a growth stimulus package. It is only a flagrant example of discredited trickle-down economics. Instead, this budget is going to drive us deeper into the deficit and debt hole. It is going to leave us with deficits projected out into the indefinite future. We are really mortgaging away our future. This is bad macroeconomic policy. In addition, within the budget, our urgent national priorities are not being adequately addressed. There is not enough for homeland defense. We have a pressing health care problem in this country, with regard to both the uninsured and prescription drug benefits for our senior citizens. We have an affordable housing crisis, in which millions of working families cannot afford even a modest apartment in many high-cost cities. We have the question of supporting our first responders. The mayors across the country are saying they are not getting sufficient support from the Federal level in order to meet their responsibilities. Instead of providing fully for education so we leave no child behind, the proposed tax cuts are designed to leave no millionaire behind. But I want to address a somewhat broader issue dealing with fairness and equity. I first want to note that in every previous instance when we went to war, we didn't cut taxes; we raised taxes to help pay for the war and to meet its costs. The President has now submitted a $75 billion supplemental, and it is very clear that that is a downpayment only. No one asserts that is going to cover the full cost of the war and the reconstruction. So clearly the $75 billion represents the initial downpayment, and there is more to follow. That further raises the question whether this is the appropriate time to commit away significant resources to a tax cut to benefit the wealthy. Analysis of the tax cut, which the President is seeking and which his supporters in the Senate are trying to carve out room in the budget resolution to accommodate, shows that almost half of the benefits of the proposed tax cut will go to the top 1 percent of the population. Almost three-quarters of it goes to the top 5 percent of the population. The proposed tax cut is very heavily skewed toward those at the very top of the income and wealth scale in this country; this at the very time when the Nation is being rallied, as it should be, to support our men and women in the Armed Forces. This at the very time when we are talking about sacrifice. And it is appropriate that we should talk about sacrifice at a time like this because one cannot follow the events taking place now in Iraq without some deep appreciation of the sacrifice our fighting men and women are making and the risks they are taking every minute. What sacrifice are those who are most favored in our society in terms of their economic position making at this critical juncture in our history? Not only are they not making a sacrifice, they are getting a very large tax cut skewed to their benefit which, in turn, will put our economy in a more difficult position into the future. It will build up deficits and debt which the fighting men and women, when they return home, will have to pay off well into the future. They are being called upon to make a double sacrifice, now and in the future. What is the sacrifice here at home that the beneficiaries of this tax cut will be making? Winston Churchill, at the beginning of World War II, when he became Prime Minister, told his nation, ``I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.'' Our young men and women positioned in the Middle East are called upon to sacrifice even as we debate this budget resolution. There will be sweat. There will be tears. There will be toil. And there will be blood. What sacrifice will be made by those who are the most well off in our society? At a time when we face these critical challenges, should they not be making a contribution instead of reaping a large economic benefit? Mr. President, I urge the defeat of this budget resolution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. Equally divided?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, has morning business been allocated equally to each side?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak following the Senator from Virginia. As I understand it, the Senator from Virginia is now to be recognized to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak following the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. SARBANES. How much time would there be available?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment and urge its support.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 315 of which I am a proud cosponsor. The purpose of this amendment is to accommodate in the budget an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Currently, extended unemployment insurance benefits are scheduled to expire at the end of May. Beginning June first, individuals whose regular unemployment benefits expire will no longer be eligible for extended benefits. This amendment sets aside the necessary funds, $16 billion, to extend the existing unemployment insurance benefits program for an additional 6 months. That is estimated to provide assistance to between 2 to 2.5 million working Americans who have lost their job through no fault of their own. The amendment takes the money from the proposed $1.5 trillion dollars in tax cuts. This raises the very fundamental question of what our priorities are. I am convinced that we are going to still be in very difficult shape when the current extension of unemployment insurance benefits expires at the end of May, and I think we will need to extend it. There is little chance that the labor market will significantly improve for unemployed workers between now and the end of May. There is growing evidence that the labor market is still deteriorating. The Federal Open Market Committee's most recent statement on interest rates concluded that, ``recent labor market indicators have proven disappointing.'' That is an understatement. It was reported yesterday that the 4-week average of initial jobless claims rose to a 10-month high of 429,500. Last month we lost 308,000 jobs and the unemployment rose last month to 5.8 percent. The unemployment rate is higher today than when extended benefits were first enacted in March 2002. Over 3.4 million Americans are drawing unemployment benefits today a 4-month high. It would take private sector job creation of over 100,000 per month, every month, for the next 2-years, in order for the economy to recoup the 2.5 million private sector jobs that have been lost since President Bush took office. The labor market remains weak because the overall economy remains weak. Last week the Federal Reserve released a report stating that, ``growth in economic activity remained subdued in January and February. . . . Consumer spending remained weak,'' and ``business spending was very soft, with little change in capital spending or hiring plans.'' Little change in business hiring is horrible news for would be job seekers who are caught in what the New York Times called the ``Worst Hiring Slump in 20 Years.'' And this hiring slump has been very tough on those who are of moderate means. Witness the Baltimore Sun's recent story entitled ``Jobs for poor few in a weak economy.'' You have a situation where people are unemployed: Over 8.5 million unemployed Americans, over 22 percent of which, 1.87 million, have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks, are looking for work, and can't find a job because there are no jobs to be had. This is the highest percentage--of long-term unemployed our economy has witnessed since 1992. In situations like this, the Congress has always provided extended unemployment benefits. In the last recession these benefits were provided for 29 months. During the recession before that, they lasted for 33 months. In both of those recessions extended benefits were discontinued only after a pronounced strengthening in the labor market. Today these benefits are set to expire after only 15 months, well before the labor market has improved. If this happens, it will mark not only a departure from prudent fiscal policy that has been implemented in a bipartisan fashion in the past but will also harm economic growth and hurt millions of Americans. Extended unemployment insurance benefits, already enacted by the Congress, have assisted 4.7 million workers and provided $12 billion of stimulus into the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has testified that ``extended unemployment insurance provided a timely boost to disposable income.'' This amendment will allow for up to an additional $16.3 billion in stimulus to be provided precisely to those Americans who need it the most. In fact, that is why it is so effective as economic stimulus-- those who receive unemployment benefits, by definition, are in such a precarious fiscal position that they must spend every dollar of benefits, which are far less than what they used to earn in their previous job. The $16 billion would allow for the program not only to be extended as it is, but to provide for all Americans who qualify to receive an additional 13 weeks of benefits. This would include the 1 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits. These workers need help. They want to find work but cannot find a job because there are simply no jobs to be had. I know that some of my colleagues oppose providing extended benefits for more than 13 weeks to anyone. I have a differing view point. I point out that at this state of the last recession, a minimum of 20 weeks of additional Federal benefits were provided for all Americans in every State. Under normal circumstances with a growing labor market, there is a strong case to be made that providing too long of a duration of unemployment insurance benefits would be harmful. However, in times when the labor market is weak and the job base is shrinking, the situation is very different. Even Fed Chairman Greenspan acknowledged this in testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, stating: ``in periods like this [a shrinking labor market], that the economic restraints on the unemployment insurance system almost surely ought to be eased.'' In the previous recession and jobless recovery, extended unemployment insurance benefits lasted for 29 months and for much of that time provided benefits for 26 to 33 weeks. In this recession and jobless recovery, benefits are scheduled to expire after only 15 months and have provided only 13 weeks of extended benefits to the vast majority of Americans. Even if you still cling to the idea that we should have no more than 13 additional weeks, passing this amendment does not itself extend these benefits. it only allows the Senate the flexibility to address this issue when the time comes without having a budget point of order raised. The amendment sets aside the necessary funds, $16.3 billion--which I point out are more than covered by the $21 billion in the unemployment insurance trust funds today--to provide for whatever form of extended benefits the Senate should chose to pass. Hold the debate on how to structure the program until then. What we cannot afford to do today is to pass a budget that contains nothing to provide for extension of benefits which may be critically needed in only a few months time. Last year this issue was not properly dealt with, and as a result millions of Americans suffered through the holiday season believing that their benefits were going to expire. Yet when Congress reconvened, extended benefits were retroactively restored, 11 days after they had expired. Let's not put these people through this again. Let's act now and set aside in this budget the resources necessary to do the job that we, in my view, will have to do between now and the end of May.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today we honor the 182nd anniversary of the independence of Greece. Nearly two centuries ago a band of determined and courageous Greek patriots rose against tremendous odds to end nearly four centuries of oppressive foreign domination of their homeland. Their arduous struggle continued for 8 years, until independence was at last secured in 1829, and the first steps were taken toward the establishment of the modern Greek state. Our Founding Fathers drew heavily on the political experience and philosophy of the ancient Greeks, who first developed the principles of democratic government that vest the supreme governing authority in the people. Barely a generation later, Greek patriots turned to the American Revolution for inspiration, seeing in the success of the new American Republic the promise of their own future. For nearly 200 years, the American and Greek peoples have shared a profound commitment to democratic principles, and have worked to create societies built on these principles. The United States and Greece have stood together in every major struggle for freedom and democracy: through two devastating World Wars, and through the long decades of the cold war. Today they are joined in the fight against terrorism, notably as Greece moves in cooperation with U.S. and international law enforcement agencies to root out and dismantle the November 17 terrorist organization and bring its members to justice. Greece today is a vigorous and prosperous democracy, a solid partner of the United States, a full member of NATO and of the European Union. Currently serving as President of the EU, Greece has focused its efforts on promoting peace and stability in the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean. For many nations in these regions seeking to develop viable economic systems and democratic institutions, Greece serves as a model. Greece has worked hard and with extraordinary success in recent years to expand cross-cultural understanding and reduce longstanding tensions in the Greek-Turkish relationship. Indeed, in recognition of its expanding role in the world community, Greece was chosen to host the next Olympic games, which are scheduled to take place in Athens in 2004 and which will bring millions of visitors to Greece from all over the world. There is another essential aspect to the U.S.-Greece partnership: the distinctive contributions that Greek Americans have made to every aspect of our Nation's life, in the arts, in business, in science, in medicine, in scholarship. Greek immigrant families to this country brought with them the traditional values of commitment to family and church, hard work and education, and Greek Americans have carried these values forward; they have helped to strengthen and invigorate communities everywhere across the land. Greek Independence Day is a time of celebration, and also a moment for reflection. We see the many ways in which our country and Greece are drawn together, and we see how the past and the present are joined. Thinking back to the first steps toward Greek independence, on March 25, 1821, we are mindful of the long and twisting road traveled; of the courage and sacrifice of those who have worked over the decades to make Greece the democratic and prosperous nation it is today; of the fundamental importance in our lives of the democratic institutions, first conceived and created by the ancient Greeks, that are the bedrock of our society and the guarantee of freedom for peoples around the world. Never have these institutions been more important to us. We revere and rejoice in them, and we commit ourselves once again to making them our legacy to the generations yet to come.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will be very quick. Senator Crapo and I have been in discussions. We have reached an accord which will enable the managers to accept the amendment. This is directed to providing additional funding for the State revolving fund dealing with clean water and safe drinking water. There is an overwhelming need. The Federal involvement is a leveraging involvement for State and local governments to help address this important issue. I am pleased to work with Senator Crapo. We have come to a positive conclusion.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Schumer that would provide $88 billion in desperately needed funding for homeland security efforts at the Federal, State, and local levels. In the State of Maryland and across the Nation, State, local, and regional authorities have been called upon to meet the mounting challenges we face in strengthening our domestic security. Many of our local officials have accepted this challenge with great resolve, and there have been many improvements in protecting the American people against the increased dangers with which we now live. Despite these efforts, homeland security enhancements remain woefully inadequate, and states, counties, and cities across the country are stretched to their financial limits. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities estimate that over $3 billion has been spent by our cities toward terrorism preparedness. An editorial in today's Baltimore Sun highlights the serious costs incurred by the City of Baltimore, which are estimated at $12.5 million. Despite the City's best efforts, there remain serious concerns about its readiness for an attack. As the Sun asserts: [a]mong them are the inability of Baltimore County, Baltimore City, and the Maryland State Police to communicate on a single radio system. Also, many police departments lack sufficient tools for coping with a disaster, such as equipment to detect radiation. With the commencement of engagement by United States military forces in Iraq, we stand united as a country and will rally behind the men and women of our armed forces to give them the support they deserve. We must and will remain steadfast and resolute in our strong backing of the courageous men and women who are being sent into harm's way. As we demonstrate our support for our troops overseas, however, we must not relent in our support for the men and women who stand ready to protect us each and every day on our own shores. This past Monday evening, President Bush declared that ``[j]ust as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland.'' In conjunction with the President's address to the nation, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced the administration's decision to raise our threat assessment again to Level Orange. This time, however, the rise in threat level was accompanied by a broad plan to increase security across the country, dubbed ``Operation Liberty Shield.'' This call to our nation's domestic troops--our firefighters, policemen, and emergency medical personnel-- will not go unheeded. As the events of September 11 so horribly demonstrated, these brave men and women place themselves in harm's way each and every day, and will continue to face any danger to protect the freedoms and the lives of innocent Americans. In a very real sense, our troops abroad and our first responders at home stand together to provide for our common defense. Law enforcement agencies and fire departments across the nation have been stretched even further by Reserve call-ups. A study by the Department of Justice has estimated that 44 percent of law enforcement agencies have lost members to the war effort, and, according to estimates, 75 percent of the Nation's firehouses are home to reservists. As we continue to ask more of our first responders, the administration has repeatedly undermined the critical efforts of these brave men and women by consistently refusing to provide the resources they need to do their jobs. Just as we have made a commitment to supporting our troops abroad and providing them with the most advanced equipment, we must make a more concrete Federal commitment to our first responders. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program has been a highly successful effort to get much-needed Federal support directly to the nation's firehouses. The Republican budget proposal directs only $500 million to this critical program. This represents a $250 million cut from the amount enacted for the current fiscal year, and $400 million less than has been authorized by the Congress. The National Fire Protection Agency, NFPA, has found that a minimum of four firefighters are needed to safely attack an interior structure fire. The congressionally mandated ``Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service,'' published jointly by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and NFPA this past December, has shown that this personnel target is met in far too few cases. I have cosponsored legislation, introduced by Senator Dodd, entitled the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act, or SAFER Act, which would create a grant program specifically for the hiring of new firefighters to address this need. Senator Schumer's amendment would provide $11 billion over ten years toward the FIRE and SAFER Acts. The Republican budget we have before us also cuts programs for state and local law enforcement by over $1 billion. The Administration has proposed eliminating the Byrne Grant program, zero funding the COPS hiring program, ending the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, canceling the COPS in Schools program, and slashing the COPS technology program. Senator Schumer's amendment would restore these unwise cuts. This budget does little to address the inadequate safeguards to our Nation's 361 seaports. One frightening estimate suggests that, of the 6 million shipping containers that enter the country each year, only two percent are actually inspected. The Port of Baltimore, in my own State, is one of the busiest seaports in the nation, handling over 30 million tons of cargo each year. Last November we took a significant first step in improving port security by passing the Maritime Transportation Security Act by an overwhelming margin. I joined 94 of my Senate colleagues in supporting the passage of this measure, and the bill was signed into law by President Bush soon thereafter. However, while the Administration and my Republican colleagues supported the mandates offered in this legislation, they have again failed in providing the funding to fulfill these commitments. The U.S. Coast Guard has estimated that the cost to the private sector for port security improvements called for in the legislation would total $4.4 billion. This budget's entire allocation for port security is a meager $200 million. I want to turn for a moment to the security of our Nation's surface transportation systems. Roughly one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide target transportation systems. According to the Mineta Transportation Institute, surface transportation systems were the target of more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 to 2000. Clearly, there is an acute need to improve the security of our transportation infrastructure, and particularly our nation's transit systems--buses, subways, ferries and light rail--which carry 14 million Americans every workday. A recent GAO study identified significant security needs at our nation's transit agencies, where, according to the study, ``insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making their transit systems as safe and secure as possible.'' In fact, at only eight of the transit agencies they visited, the GAO found over $700 million in identified security needs. And yet, the budget resolution demonstrates no commitment to helping transit systems become more secure. Despite the elevated risk levels we are currently experiencing, this budget provides only a minimal increase in Federal transit spending and dedicates no resources within the budget of the Transportation Security Administration for transit security. We owe it to our nation's transit riders to do more. This week, the administration again pledged its support for increased funding for state and local governments toward homeland security. We have heard many of these pledges over the past year, and, unfortunately, the administration has repeatedly fallen short on its promises. The rhetoric of support for our nation's first responders and upgrades to our homeland security will continue to ring hollow if not accompanied by the resources desperately needed for these critical efforts. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Schumer's amendment. If the Congress and the administration are to enact legislation signaling our commitment to securing the homeland, we must provide the resources to provide even the most basic levels of protection. We must demonstrate steely resolve in our efforts to protect our citizens and critical infrastructure, and this will not be achieved if the resources committed to the task are inadequate.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SARBANES. A lunch break. Amendment No. 349

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate that.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished leader for his very kind comments about the 10,000 votes I have cast in the Senate. I must say, if we keep doing these vote-a-ramas, everyone can aspire to reaching this goal in short order. Our very able leader was very kind and generous in his remarks. I appreciate them very much. I wish to register my deep appreciation to the people of my State who sent me to the Senate now for my fifth term and, therefore, made it possible for me to be here exercising my judgment on important issues that come before us. I certainly hope that people, looking back over that record, will think there was some quality in those votes as well as quantity. I thank my colleagues for their constant support and the ability to interact with them as we deal with important matters of public policy. Even though we sometimes differ, we support one another in a very unique and, to some, not understandable way. I am in my 27th year in the Senate, and I am pleased to be in the company of those who our leader enumerated that have also passed the 10,000 mark. I particularly want to acknowledge my respect for Senator Byrd, who I think has cast more votes than anyone who has ever served in the Senate, and continues to be an example to us all. I also would be remiss if I did not thank my family, my wife in particular, for their strong support over these many years now. And finally, I would like to thank the many staff members who have served me so well for these past 27 years. Again, I thank all of those who have been so gracious to me in extending their best wishes and congratulations. And, in particular, I thank our leader, Senator Daschle. I yield the floor.