Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Under our constitutional system, we recognize the rule of the majority but we protect the rights of the minority. That is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, and indeed it has been a fundamental principle in the operations of our various institutions under the Constitution. No one is arguing the proposition of who will become chairman of the committees, I recognize that, but we are asserting that in the course of making that decision, we need to make also the decision with respect to the allocation of resources for staff, which is an important dimension of both the majority and the minority being able to discharge their responsibilities in the operations of this institution.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.

Mr. SARBANES. It is not consistent with the resolutions brought forward in the 107th Congress when we first encountered this very close division between the two sides of the aisle. Second of all, even if it is inconsistent, it seems to me, given what we are hearing in terms of what at least some Members on the other side--not all of its Members, as I understand it, but what some of its Members intend to do in terms of staff allocation, it seems to me perfectly reasonable, since our ability to carry out our responsibilities as a minority is closely related to that question, for us to seek an understanding and an agreement right at the outset on that very important issue.

Mr. SARBANES. And only reaffirms what is perceived as a need to work this matter out in the course of organizing for the 108th Congress.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Let me say to my colleague, as a consequence of what occurred in the 107th Congress and the very close divisions that took place, and indeed the assertion by what was then the Republican minority of the necessity of protecting their staff positions, we developed a new understanding with respect to the allocation of resources, something that many Members have been arguing for over a number of years. So the position that is being advocated by this side is simply reciprocity on the basis of what was done in the 107th Congress. In fact, I ask my distinguished assistant leader, am I correct that what is now being sought by the minority is reciprocity in terms of being treated in the 108th Congress as we treated the minority in the 107th Congress? Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I listened with great care to my colleague from Oklahoma, and I certainly agree with his point about seeking to sustain, maintain, and enhance the institution of the Senate. But I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I am going to be the ranking member now of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. That is a consequence of the elections that took place in November, and I recognize that. But our ability to do our job in the committee is closely related to receiving adequate resources and staff resources with which to carry out our responsibilities. Unfortunately, that issue has been put in some question. I do not quite know why this has happened, although I understand there are some on the other side who want to really do a very radical shift from the allocations in the previous Congress when the margins were so close. Of course, that has created a lot of concern and apprehension about the ability then of the minority to meet and carry out its responsibilities. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we cannot in short order reach an agreement that would be encompassed in this organizing resolution that the allocation of resources to what is now the minority would parallel the allocation that was made by this side of the aisle when it was a majority to the Republican minority in the last Congress. I do not understand what the difficulty is with that position. Of course, the fact that there seems to be some difficulty only increases the degree of concern in terms of what lies in wait.

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

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that there was, in a sense, a delay on the Republican side in terms of choosing their leader and then being in a position to discuss these issues with our leader, Senator Daschle. I have not raised the issue about that being a factor in the delay, but obviously it is part of the matter. But now that that has been resolved, it seems to me we ought to be able to reach a fairly quick agreement here if we simply abide by the concept of reciprocal treatment. It seems to me that we tried very hard in the last Congress to be fair about this. I think we were fair and eminently reasonable. It seems to me a fair and eminently reasonable request now that the same treatment be accorded to us in the minority that we accorded to the minority in the last Congress. If we could accept what I think is an almost elementary principle, this matter could be settled, and could it not be settled in very short order?

Mr. SARBANES. We certainly did so in the 107th Congress. In the 107th Congress, when it came to that question and we became the majority, we accorded, I think, a very fair and eminently reasonable treatment to the minority, and that is all we are seeking in the current circumstance. I don't understand what the problem is or the difficulty in accepting that arrangement. That is what I don't understand.

Mr. SARBANES. Just for a question.

Mr. SARBANES. That is what the resolution is, and that is the basis of the complaint. It is our assertion that the organizing resolution ought to at least encompass the allocation of staff resources and that the minority now should receive a treatment on that issue comparable to and paralleling what the other side of the aisle received when they were in the minority in the 107th Congress.

Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator, my understanding is that we have treated the organizing resolution as encompassing the allocation of resources in the past.

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that what is holding up the organizing resolution is a difference in the course of organizing, how we allocate resources, and that all this side of the aisle is seeking, now that it is in the minority, is that we be treated the same way the other side of the aisle was treated in the last Congress when they went into the minority; is that not correct?

Mr. SARBANES. In fact, when the Senator from Oklahoma was speaking, he was making the point how people would come from other countries, particularly fledgling democracies, to see the Congress of the United States, particularly the Senate, and how we wanted them to draw the right lessons from seeing the Senate. One of the most important lessons they need to draw in the fledgling democracies is the necessity of respecting the rights of the minority. In instance after instance, they have been prepared to exercise the majority rule but they are unwilling in these emerging democracies to accord proper respect to the minorities within them which, of course, are also an essential part of making a democracy work. That essentially is all we are seeking to do in this instance. I repeat what I said before. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we cannot reach agreement in short order since what this side of the aisle is seeking is simply reciprocity, seeking to be treated now as the minority the way we were willing to treat the other side when they were in the minority in the last Congress.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

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

Mr. SARBANES. Since my colleague from Oklahoma is drawing me into this matter.

Mr. SARBANES. In other words, all we are seeking is that the majority now accord us as a minority the same treatment that we accorded to them when they were in the minority and we were the majority. That seems to me an eminently reasonable and fair thing to be seeking. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we cannot quickly reach an understanding on that basis and move the organizing resolution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am called to join with Senators Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Clinton, Durbin, Kennedy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson, E. Benjamin, and Warner in introducing a resolution that would express the sense of the Congress that parity in the pay increases granted to Federal civilian and military employees should be maintained. A comparison of military and civilian pay increases by the Congressional Research Service finds that in 14 of the last 17 years military and civilian pay increases have been identical. Disparate treatment of civilian and military pay goes against the longstanding policy of parity for all those who have chosen to serve our Nation, whether that service be in the civilian workforce or in the armed services. During this unpredented time in our Nation's history, both members of the armed services and civilian Federal employees are fighting the war on terrorism and making remarkable contributions to the safety of this country and our citizens. Both the armed forces and civilian employees are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism, and civilian employees are playing a significant role in that fight. For example, civilian employees of the new Department of Homeland Security are working to ensure the safety of our Nation. Air marshals and members of the Transportation Security Agency are making America's skies safer. Civilian employees of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are investigating the events of September 11th and working to prevent further terrorist attacks. And Federal employees at the State Department are working with other countries in an international coalition against terrorism. In addition, there are numerous Federal employees who participated in disaster response teams on September 11th and during the anthrax attacks. And every day, thousands of civilian Federal employees continue to go to work and carry out their responsibilities in this unpredictable time. This Senate Concurrent Resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that parity between the adjustments in Federal civilian pay and military pay should be maintained. For Fiscal Year 2003, President Bush gave a 4.1 percent pay raise to members of the armed services, but only a 3.1 percent pay raise to our dedicated public servants. This discrepancy violates the traditional principle of pay parity, and does not recognize the crucial work of the civilian Federal workforce. Furthermore, this discrepancy ignores the express wish of Congress that the principle of pay parity be followed. Past budget resolutions and Treasury-Postal appropriations bills approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives have included language expressing the ``sense of Congress that rates of compensation for civilian employees of the United States should be adjusted at the same time, and in the same proportion, as are rates of compensation for member of the uniformed services.'' In this difficult time, the dedication and commitment of both the armed services and our civilian employees demonstrate the greatness of our Nation. The contribution of both should be recognized.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Shelby and others of my colleagues in introducing the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is similar to legislation I introduced last year S. 13, which would have reauthorized the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), for one year, preventing a lapse in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's authority to administer this important program. The Senate passed this bill on November 20, 2002, but unfortunately, the House of Representatives did not consider it before adjourning for the year. FEMA's authority to manage the NFIP expired on December 31, 2002. FEMA has estimated that even a brief lapse in its authority to run the NFIP could affect approximately 500,000 households seeking to obtain or maintain flood insurance, which in many cases is a precondition for settlement of a mortgage or home loan. The NFIP was created by Congress in 1968 in response to the lack of such insurance being offered by the private sector. This program made flood insurance available in communities that adopted flood plain management regulations designed to reduce future damages from flooding, and it is now available in almost 20,000 participating communities nationwide. As of September 30, 2002, the NFIP had almost 4.4 million policies in force, representing more than 90 percent of the flood insurance in the United States. The availability of flood insurance helps Americans prepare for floods, while reducing the need for federal disaster assistance after a flood. The unfortunate lapse in FEMA's authority has caused confusion and uncertainty in the real estate industry for both lenders and borrowers. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA has made efforts to work with the banking regulators, the lending community, and other stakeholders to address their concerns about the lapse in FEMA's authority. While these efforts have been helpful, the only effective solution is a rapid reauthorization of this program by the Congress. The legislation we are introducing today makes reauthorization of the NFIP retroactive to December 31, 2002, to minimize any disruption that would be caused by a lapse in FEMA's authority. We have worked closely with FEMA in developing this language, and it is supported by a coalition of industry representatives, including America's Community Bankers, the American Bankers Association, the American Insurance Association, the American Society of Appraisers, the Appraisal Institute, Fannie Mae. Farmers Insurance Group, Freddie Mac, Independent Insurance Agent & Brokers of America, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and the National Association of Realtors. Property owners and mortgage lenders throughout the country rely on the NFIP to insure their properties against flood damage. Unless the NFIP is reauthorized, that protection will disappear. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this urgently needed legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Shelby and others of my colleagues in introducing the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is similar to legislation I introduced last year S. 13, which would have reauthorized the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), for one year, preventing a lapse in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's authority to administer this important program. The Senate passed this bill on November 20, 2002, but unfortunately, the House of Representatives did not consider it before adjourning for the year. FEMA's authority to manage the NFIP expired on December 31, 2002. FEMA has estimated that even a brief lapse in its authority to run the NFIP could affect approximately 500,000 households seeking to obtain or maintain flood insurance, which in many cases is a precondition for settlement of a mortgage or home loan. The NFIP was created by Congress in 1968 in response to the lack of such insurance being offered by the private sector. This program made flood insurance available in communities that adopted flood plain management regulations designed to reduce future damages from flooding, and it is now available in almost 20,000 participating communities nationwide. As of September 30, 2002, the NFIP had almost 4.4 million policies in force, representing more than 90 percent of the flood insurance in the United States. The availability of flood insurance helps Americans prepare for floods, while reducing the need for federal disaster assistance after a flood. The unfortunate lapse in FEMA's authority has caused confusion and uncertainty in the real estate industry for both lenders and borrowers. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA has made efforts to work with the banking regulators, the lending community, and other stakeholders to address their concerns about the lapse in FEMA's authority. While these efforts have been helpful, the only effective solution is a rapid reauthorization of this program by the Congress. The legislation we are introducing today makes reauthorization of the NFIP retroactive to December 31, 2002, to minimize any disruption that would be caused by a lapse in FEMA's authority. We have worked closely with FEMA in developing this language, and it is supported by a coalition of industry representatives, including America's Community Bankers, the American Bankers Association, the American Insurance Association, the American Society of Appraisers, the Appraisal Institute, Fannie Mae. Farmers Insurance Group, Freddie Mac, Independent Insurance Agent & Brokers of America, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and the National Association of Realtors. Property owners and mortgage lenders throughout the country rely on the NFIP to insure their properties against flood damage. Unless the NFIP is reauthorized, that protection will disappear. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this urgently needed legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today as cosponsor of the measure that will extend unemployment insurance benefits. We have a long bipartisan tradition of extending unemployment benefits during periods of prolonged joblessness. We have this policy because it is the right thing to do for people and for the economy. Before I present the case for why extended unemployment benefits are needed--a case which by now almost everyone agrees with--I want to remind my colleagues why we are at this point today. Led by the late Senator Wellstone, several of my colleagues and I, began this discussion last September. At that point it appeared clear that this economy was still in a weak, `jobless recovery.' Yet, the administration failed to understand the basic economic reality, and consequently refused to support an extension of benefits. During the next 2 months the economy remained weak and more jobs were lost. My colleagues and I returned to the Senate floor repeatedly, attempting to pass a reasonable extension of unemployment insurance benefits. We asked for unanimous consent eight times, each time pointing out the weak economy, the lack of job creation, the growing number of Americans who had exhausted their benefits, and the upcoming cliff that more Americans were facing, should Congress fail to act. All this while the President remained silent. Finally, at the eleventh hour of the last Congress, on November 14, we came to an agreement within the Senate. And I would like to thank Senators Clinton, Cantwell and Nickles for their leadership in reaching that compromise. That compromise was needed in order to prevent almost 1 million Americans who should have received benefits from having their benefits terminated. But even that compromise, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent, failed to elicit the support of the President. And without his urging the House failed to act. Now finally, today we are passing this compromise again. Actually we are passing a slightly improved version which will last for five months, providing individuals with the opportunity to begin receiving extended benefits until June 1st, and allowing all of those who begin to receive their benefits to receive the full 13 weeks, in the event that they are unable to find a job. And it is my understanding that if the House acts on this tomorrow, and the President signs this measure by Thursday, that everyone who should receive a benefit will continue to do so. However, even with passage of this measure, there is still significant work that needs to be done. This legislation, despite the valiant efforts of some of my colleagues, fails to provide benefits to those who have already exhausted their benefits and are still unable to find a job. There are an estimated 1 million Americans who are in such a position. They are in such a position because the economy has continued to remain weak and is failing to create jobs. The latest unemployment report showed unemployment at an 8 year high of six percent. We have 2.17 million fewer private sector jobs today than when President Bush took office. We lost 48,000 private sector jobs last month alone. As a result of the lack of jobs, there are over 1.7 million Americans who have been unemployed and looking for work for more than 26 weeks. There are 150,000 more long-term unemployed than in September and over 1 million more than when President Bush took office. Over 20 percent of those who are unemployed have been so for more than 26 weeks, a greater percentage than at any point in the past eight years. The premise of the unemployment insurance system is that you give people some short-term support, the labor market picks up, and they can go back and find a job. Today, they cannot find jobs. In fact, not only can they not find them, more people are losing their jobs. So the labor market is contracting, not expanding. Extending benefits in this situation is the proper economic policy. Fed Chairman Greenspan, before the Joint Economic Committee this past November stated: ``I have always argued that in periods like that the economic restraints on the unemployment insurance system almost surely ought to the eased.'' This easing ought to include extending benefits to those who have already exhausted all of their benefits. I can not understand why anyone is objecting to extending benefits to these individuals. It is not because we lack the resources to extend benefits. Extending benefits to these individuals is projected to cost around $7.5 billion. Our unemployment insurance trust funds, specifically designed to meet this kind of situation, are in strong financial condition with approximately $24 billion. Those moneys have been paid into the trust fund over a period of time. The whole system was structured to have these trust funds build up in good times, and then to utilize them in bad times. We will spend much time debating the wisdom of various economic stimulus plans over the coming months, but one thing that everyone should be able to agree on is the stimulative effects of extending unemployment insurance benefits. As the Baltimore Sun wrote in an editorial on January 3, 2003, ``Few dispute the clear returns from directing short-term relief to those who lose their jobs as a result of the fiscal turbulence. Giving money to people who need it to pay their bills ensures that it will be spent and multiply as it ripples through the economy.'' In closing, I would like to thank all of those who have worked so hard to pass the measure that we passed today. As a result many Americans will receive the benefits that they deserve and our economy will receive some of the stimulus that it needs. And I will continue to work to extend benefits to the 1 million Americans who have exhausted their unemployment insurance coverage.