Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, S. 2239, the FHA Downpayment Simplification Act, has been cosponsored by 23 Senators, including 15 members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. This legislation takes a program that has been in place since October, 1997, and makes it permanent. The program simplifies the downpayment process for FHA borrowers which, in turn, makes it work better for lenders, realtors, and sellers, as well. The bill was also amended by Senator Reed and others to prevent an increase in the GNMA fee from taking place in 2005. This fee increase is not needed for the safety or soundness of the GNMA program, and it raises the costs of the program for homeowners. Finally, included with this is an amendment that has been worked out by Senators Corzine and Gramm to index the FHA multifamily loan limits. This will help keep the multifamily loan limits viable as costs go up in the future. This legislation is supported by HUD, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Homebuilders. If the Congress does not act, the authority to use the simplified downpayment calculation will expire at the end of the year, resulting in a more complex process and higher costs for thousands of American homebuyers. I urge that the legislation, S. 2239, as reported out of the Banking Committee be taken up with the amendment and passed. I ask unanimous consent the letter from the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, Congressman John LaFalce, the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services, has announced his retirement after 28 years of dedicated service to his constituents in upstate New York and to our country. I rise today to acknowledge and applaud the interests and accomplishments of John LaFalce during his long and productive career in Congress, and to wish him the very best in his future endeavors. We served together in the House, and we worked closely on a bicameral basis for many years on a variety of financial, consumer, and community development issues. By way of background, John LaFalce was first elected to Congress from the 32nd Congressional District of New York in 1974 as part of the ``Watergate class.'' His victory was the first by a Democrat since 1912. His constituents then had the wisdom to return him to Washington as their representative 14 times. Since his arrival in the House, his committee assignments have included the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs--the counterpart to the Senate committee I am honored to chair--and the Committee on Small Business, which he chaired from 1987 until 1994. He was elected ranking Democrat on the renamed Committee on Financial Services in 1998. I know firsthand of John's passion for public policy--and the intellectual vigor he brought to its formulation--because of our common interests and frequent collaboration in such areas as consumer protection, housing and community development, the safety and soundness of the financial system, corporate accountability, financial modernization, and the effectiveness of international lending programs. Let me offer some illustrations. Congressman LaFalce was a leader in the longstanding efforts to modernize the Nation's complex financial services system to promote competition between financial intermediaries while protecting consumers and ensuring that financial institutions continue to contribute to community development and provide services to unserved and underserved communities and populations. Early in 1999, working closely with the Clinton Treasury Department, John helped to jump-start serious consideration of financial modernization legislation by garnering administration support for the first time in the recent history of that debate. That bill provided the basis for the eventual bipartisan agreement that led to enactment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, referred to by The New York Times as ``landmark legislation. . . . The pre-eminent legislative accomplishment of the year.'' More recently, John has been a leading advocate for strong investor protections. He sounded some of the earliest and most accurate alarms about conflicts of interest by investment professionals, questionable accounting practices, inadequate enforcement efforts by the SEC, and inadequate agency funding. The colossal failures of Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and other firms, and the devastating impact on investors and on the working men and women of those companies, have more than justified John's concerns. John was a prime mover of the sweeping corporate accounting reform legislation signed into law by President Bush on July 25, 2002. John actually introduced in the House in early February of this year the first comprehensive legislative solution offered to address the serious problems in the capital markets and corporate boardrooms. John deserves the praise he has received from many consumer, investor, and labor groups for his leadership in helping to achieve these landmark reforms. A comment by AFL-CIO president John Sweeney is typical of the praise John received: ``I particularly want to thank Congressman LaFalce, who has really stood out these last few months as a leader ready to take on powerful Wall Street and big money interests on behalf of working families.'' I want to make one last observation about John's legislative legacy. Over the years, he has been a tireless and committed crusader for consumers and community development. For example, in the area of financial privacy, where John and I have worked so closely together, it was legislation that John had introduced in 1998 and 1999 that laid the basis for the historic financial privacy protections that Congress included within Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Since then, John and I have continued to work on new legislation to further enhance these financial privacy protections. Similarly, John has been a leader in the fight against predatory lending. He crafted excellent legislation that would provide real and substantive protections for the many homeowners, many of whom are elderly, minorities, or immigrants who are financially unsophisticated, who fall prey to unscrupulous mortgage lenders and brokers. I have used John's bill as a basis for my own legislation here in the Senate. John has also been a strong and consistent advocate for the Community Reinvestment Act. During the debate surrounding financial modernization legislation, we opposed those who wanted to either repeal or undermine it. He has been an ardent defender of funding for affordable housing and community development and has taken the lead in enacting into law important elderly housing and homeless prevention provisions. In addition, he has developed major legislative initiatives to expand homeownership opportunities, and reform the mortgage loan process. I have had the pleasure and privilege of knowing and working closely with John for almost three decades. I do not expect his retirement from elective office to end either his public service or his significant contributions to our Nation. In fact, I have every expectation that John LaFalce will continue to be an active, thoughtful, and valuable contributor to public debate on critical national issues. Finally, I pay tribute to John's staff. John has been the first to point out that he has always surrounded himself with talented people. Jeanne Roslanowick is an outstanding public servant, and we will miss working with her and the rest of his staff.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant and marine scientist, Steve Jordan. Steve is retiring after a distinguished 28-year career with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in higher educational institutions in Maryland and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of service and contributions to improving our research and management capabilities in the Chesapeake Bay and one of the Bay's premier research laboratories, the Oxford Cooperative Lab. Steve has dedicated nearly three decades of his life to solving some of the key living marine resource problems of the Chesapeake Bay, the diseases that have devastated the Bay's oyster populations, the loss of critical habitat, and the impacts of pollutants and low dissolved oxygen on the Bay's finfish and shellfish populations. A graduate of The American University, Steve worked his way through a master's degree in Biology at Morehead State College in Kentucky and a Ph.D. in marine, estuarine and environmental science from the University of Maryland. He was selected as a Sea Grant Fellow with the University of Maryland and Horn Point Environmental Laboratory and served as a faculty research associate with the University of Maryland Eastern Shore before being named to head up the Maryland Department of Natural Resources' Habitat Impacts Program which managed several aspects of Maryland's participation in the Chesapeake Bay Program. I came to know Steve 10 years ago when he was appointed director of the Oxford Cooperative Laboratory in Oxford, MD. For those who are not familiar with the Oxford Lab, it is a unique partnership between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Located on a tidal tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, the lab has long been considered one of the preeminent centers in the Nation for its work in diagnosing all aspects of diseases, infectious and non-infectious, which affect living marine resources. At the time that Steve joined the facility, the laboratory was 33 years old and in great need of capital improvements. The poor physical condition of the facility was contributing significantly to low employee morale and a high staff attrition rate. Thanks to Steve's creative leadership, a major renovation and expansion of the laboratory was completed, leveraging a $750,000 Federal appropriation into a $2 million project through the use of DNR construction crews. The project not only served as a model for interagency cooperation, but provided substantial savings to the taxpayers as well. Steve also added new research programs, modern equipment, and helped bring about a renewed workplace atmosphere. In addition to his management responsibilities and achievements, Steve has continued to conduct research that is vital to improving our understanding of the Bay's living marine resources. He has published or contributed to numerous studies and symposia on oyster diseases, lesions in fish, and other critical problems. He has chaired or participated in many work groups examining key living resource research needs and management strategies and is a member or leader of half a dozen professional associations including the American Fisheries Society, National Shellfisheries Association, Atlantic Estuarine Research Society, and National Association of Marine Laboratories. In recognition of his outstanding service, Steve has received numerous awards and commendations, including certificates of appreciation from both the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and an excellence award from Maryland Governor Schaefer for the Chesapeake Executive Council. The efforts of Steve Jordan throughout the past 28 years have earned him the respect and admiration of everyone with whom he has worked. The Chesapeake Bay restoration effort has been enhanced due to his labors and the Cooperative Oxford Laboratory has been renewed. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of hard work and dedication and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Michigan in expressing my deep thanks to the Senator from West Virginia for his extraordinarily effective and powerful presentations in the course of this debate. I was also planning to put this article in, as my colleague has already done. It is a very powerful statement that appeared in this morning's New York Times entitled ``Congress Must Resist the Rush to War.'' The Senator from West Virginia, as he always does, asks some very piercing questions and calls the Congress to its responsibilities. Let me quote a paragraph or two from the article: This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre- emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United States''--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat. Of course, the particular resolution that is before the Senate, as is pointed out in this article, and I quote the Senator from West Virginia: This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever, and however he determines, and for as long as he determines if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. And there actually were other proposals to narrow that authority, but of course none of them carried. Further quoting: It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' I say to my colleague from West Virginia, it seems to me clear that upon approval of this resolution, as far as the Congress is concerned, war has been declared against Iraq. Would the Senator agree with that observation?

Mr. SARBANES. They would have been given the authority to do that; would that be correct?

Mr. SARBANES. And again here.

Mr. SARBANES. I said it just pained me to see it at work here on the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Let me ask my colleague this question: Suppose some unforeseen, extraordinary development should take place after this resolution is passed and sent down and signed by the President which transforms perhaps the weapons of mass destruction situation. The President, though, could still move ahead and go to war, could he not?

Mr. SARBANES. On your time.

Mr. SARBANES. Parliamentary inquiry: Will the Chair inform us what the time allocations are and how much time is remaining.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I commend again the able Senator from Michigan for this proposal that he has before us. The strength of the proposal, and the care with which it has been crafted, is made manifest by the tortured argument of the Senators from Connecticut and Arizona against his resolution. They are in a convoluted posture to try to misinterpret this in order to try to make an argument against it. It is just incredible what has happened. We need some intellectual integrity here as we deal with this issue. Let me ask the Senator from Michigan if he would answer a question or two. The Senator from Connecticut said earlier that you were precluding the use of military force to exercise our inherent right of self- defense because we would have to have a United Nations resolution before, as I understand--before--we could exercise such force. I read in your resolution a specific affirmation under international law of our inherent right to use military force; is that right?

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator did this last night, and he is doing it again today. He has inserted into the authorization to use force pursuant to a U.N. resolution the word ``only.'' The word ``only'' is not there. These are two separate sections. One provides an authority under a U.N. resolution; the other preserves the inherent right of military--I want to say to my good friend from Connecticut, it is painful to me to see a former able and distinguished attorney general of the State of Connecticut twist and turn to try to do this, what he is trying to do, to the very well-crafted amendment of the Senator from Michigan. It is painful. It is painful to see this.

Mr. SARBANES. I think that is a point we have not really touched on much in this debate, but I think it is an extremely important point. What has happened--you pass this resolution, you make a major grant of war-making authority to the President, but then if subsequently you decide it ought to be pulled back or ought not be exercised by the President, it is extraordinarily difficult to do that, so not only have you given the President this broad power to begin with, but the way the system is constructed, he can hold on to that power, even if a majority of both Houses of the Congress which gave the power want to take it back. Is that not correct?

Mr. SARBANES. It is worth engaging in this discussion just to underscore the sweep of authority that is being provided. Again, I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue and especially commend him for what I thought was a very thoughtful and powerful article. I encourage people across the country to read this article. It is a very succinct, analytical, and perceptive statement of the issues that are at stake.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Will you withdraw the use of the word ``only''?

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

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. When would the President have to decide whether he was going to use this authority? Let's assume with respect to passing it later in the evening--although I will oppose it--assuming it is passed and the Congress authorizes the President to go to war, in effect, with Iraq, is there a limit on the time period in which the President could then use that power to launch war against Iraq?

Mr. SARBANES. That underscores what the distinguished Senator says in this op-ed piece that appeared in this morning's New York Times. I quote: We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time. Yet that is what we are being asked to do [in the resolution before the Senate].

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator from Delaware. I strongly commend the Senator from Michigan for how carefully thought-out and reasoned and constructive his amendment is, as was just reflected in the exchange which he had with the Senator from Connecticut. Obviously, this amendment, which is before us and which I support, has been very carefully thought through to deal with all these eventualities. I commend the Senator from Michigan for it.

Mr. SARBANES. Where is the word ``only''? If the Senator will yield to me, I think the Senator----

Mr. SARBANES. This, of course, is a decision with far-sweeping consequences, certainly as it deals with Iraq and all of its implication. But the precedent is being established in terms of the future, it seems to me, and that constitutes a major erosion of the role of the Congress with respect to the Nation going to war.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield me 10 seconds?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on October 1, I introduced legislation, together with Senator Mikulski, to redesignate Catoctin Mountain Park as the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. Catoctin Mountain Park is a hidden gem in our National Park System. Home to Camp David, the Presidential retreat, it has been aptly described as ``America's most famous unknown park.'' Comprising nearly 6,000 acres of the eastern reach of the Appalachian Mountains in Maryland, the park is rich in history as well as outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors can enjoy camping, picnicking, cross-country skiing, fishing, as well as the solitude and beauty of the woodland mountain and streams in the park. Catoctin Mountain Park had its origins during the Great Depression as one of 46 Recreational Demonstration Areas, RDA, established under the authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Federal Government purchased more than 10,000 acres of mountain land that had been heavily logged and was no longer productive to demonstrate how sub-marginal land could be turned into a productive recreational area and help put people back to work. From 1936 through 1941, hundreds of workers under the Works Progress Administration and later the Civilian Conservation Corps were employed in reforestation activities and in the construction of a number of camps, roads and other facilities, including the camp now known as Camp David, and one of the earliest, if not the oldest, camps for disabled individuals. In November 1936, administrative authority for the Catoctin RDA was transferred to the National Park Service by Executive Order. In 1942, concern about President Roosevelt's health and safety led to the selection of Catoctin Mountain, and specifically Camp Hi-Catoctin as the location for the President's new retreat. Subsequently approximately 5,000 acres of the area was transferred to the State of Maryland, becoming Cunningham Falls State Park in 1954. The remaining 5,770 acres of the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was renamed Catoctin Mountain Park by the Director of the National Park Service in 1954. Unfortunately, the Director failed to include the term ``National'' in the title and the park today remains one of eleven units in the National Park System, all in the National Capital Region, that do not have this designation. The proximity of Catoctin Mountain Park, Camp David, and Cunningham Falls State Park, and the differences between national and State park management, has caused longstanding confusion for visitors to the area. Catoctin Mountain Park is continually misidentified by the public as containing lake and beach areas associated with Cunningham Falls State Park, being operated by the State of Maryland, or being closed to the public because of the presence of Camp David. National Park employees spend countless hours explaining, assisting and redirecting visitors to their desired destinations. My legislation would help to address this situation and clearly identify this park as a unit of the National Park System by renaming it the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. The mission and characteristics of this park, which include the preservation of significant historic resources and important natural areas in locations that provide outdoor recreation for large numbers of people, make this designation appropriate. This measure would not change access requirements or current recreational uses occurring within the park. But it would assist the visiting public in distinguishing between the many units of the State and Federal systems. It will also, in my judgment, help promote tourism by enhancing public awareness of the National Park unit. I urge approval of this legislation.