Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, does each leader get 15 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. But that does not give the Senator the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Is this all being done through unanimous consent requests?

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak after the senior Senator from Michigan.

Mr. SARBANES. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia for a comment or an observation he wants to make, but I do not yield the floor.

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

Mr. SARBANES. Can I inquire who follows Senator Frist?

Mr. SARBANES. I see as part of that process, any time anyone speaks, he wants to make an observation. I would be happy to hear it so I get an opportunity to respond.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. The distinguished Senator from Virginia, I have been watching him. He is marshaling the war forces on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator agree with me the timetables which the Senator from Virginia just set out, both in 1991 and now, show a deterioration in the Senate's level of commitment in terms of debate on important matters of State? Now, we do not have to go back that far. The time period I cited was 24 years ago, just shy of a quarter of a century. We took up an important matter of foreign policy, the Panama Canal treaty--two of them, 4 weeks on one and 4 weeks on the other. Now we are here with a resolution to take us to war, and we are told, Well, you know, we have been on it not quite a week. As the Senator pointed out, there was an intervening weekend. Then we are cited as a precedent, Well, in 1991 we did it in a few days. Not only, it seems to me, does it make my point in terms of the willingness of the Senate to carry on the great national debate that ought to take place on important issues of war and peace, but this is a matter of most fundamental importance. I ask the Senator. It seems to me it would require the kind of attention and debate that is warranted by an issue of that magnitude.

Mr. SARBANES. I make this observation to my colleague. It seems to me it is a sad commentary.

Mr. SARBANES. The distinguished Senator, I think I am correct in recalling, was the leader of the Senate at the time we did the Panama Canal treaties.

Mr. SARBANES. October 4, and today is October 9. October 4, I am told by the Chair. Today is October the 9th, on a resolution that may take the Nation into war.

Mr. SARBANES. Parliamentary inquiry. When did the Senate proceed to this resolution?

Mr. SARBANES. Did the Senator recall there were two treaties, the neutrality treaty and the canal treaty itself? We went to the neutrality treaty. Floor debate began on February 6 of 1978. We voted on March 16 of 1978. So we had a period from February the 6th until March 16 to consider that treaty. We then went to the Panama Canal treaty. We began debate on March 17 of 1978 and we voted on that treaty on April 18 of 1978. In other words, roughly 6 weeks on one treaty and a month on the other treaty.

Mr. SARBANES. Neither of which involved the prospect of going to war.

Mr. SARBANES. Now, as I understand it, we are facing the prospect of, in effect, terminating all debate, precluding a lot of potential amendments, and ending this matter in about one week's time, a matter of this grave import. I ask the Senator if that is correct.

Mr. SARBANES. For what?

Mr. SARBANES. I ask the very able and distinguished Senator from West Virginia--it is my understanding that the motion to proceed to this resolution took place a week ago. Is that the Senator's understanding?

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

Mr. SARBANES. That does not strike me as going back and forth.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on September 12, 2002, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs reported out favorably S. 1210, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act, NAHASDA. The Indian Affairs Committee referred NAHASDA to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on August 28, 2002. According to the Senate Rules, all legislation affecting HUD's Indian Housing programs must be considered in the Banking Committee. This is bipartisan legislation that has the support of the National American Indian Housing Council, NAIHC. The NAHASDA Reauthorization Act extends the program originally created in 1996. The bill makes very modest changes to update the legislation, including asking HUD to explore ways to increase tribal self-determination with regards to the NAHASDA block grant. It also asks HUD to do a study of black mold, which is apparently is a growing problem on reservations. In 1996, Congress passed NAHASDA in order to strengthen federal housing assistance for tribal communities. NAHASDA provides block grants to Indian tribes or their tribally designated housing entities, TDHEs, for affordable housing activities that were previously under general housing programs, including public housing, section 8, Youthbuild, and homeless programs. Consolidating these funds into a block grant helps to meet the goal of self-determination for Indian tribes. Since its passage, NAHASDA has achieved many successes. HUD reports that through NAHASDA, 25,000 new units of housing has been produced in Indian communities. In spite of NAHASDA's successes, many of the people in these communities still live in severely substandard housing. According to the NAIHC, Native American housing is said to be six to eight times more crowded than the national average. Furthermore, it is estimated that 1 out of every 5 Indian homes lacks complete plumbing; and 40 percent of homes on Indian lands are overcrowded. These figures demonstrate the need for affordable housing programs, like NAHASDA, that benefit Native American communities.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring Jesse Helms, the senior Senator from North Carolina, for his many years of service to his State and to the Nation. While Senator Helms has served in the United States Senate for more than a quarter-century, his earlier years were equally active and productive. Following his service in the U.S. Navy during World War II, he became the city editor of the Raleigh Times. He served as Administrative Assistant to two U.S. Senators before becoming Executive Director of the North Carolina Bank Association in 1953. The Tarheel Banker became the largest State banking publication in the State while Jesse Helms was its editor. He was Executive Vice President, Vice Chairman of the Board, and Assistant Chief Executive Officer of Capitol Broadcasting Company in Raleigh, NC from 1960 until his election to the Senate in 1972. During his service in the U.S. Senate, Senator Helms has served as a member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry which he chaired in the 1980s, and the Foreign Relations Committee, of which he was a former chairman and the current ranking member. In 1973, he became the first Republican, as well as the first Senator from North Carolina, to receive the Golden Gavel, an award presented for presiding over the Senate for more than 117 hours. Senator Helms was awarded a second Golden Gavel for presiding for more than 120 hours in 1974. It goes without saying that Jesse Helms has become a fixture and a legend in this body. While Senator Helms and I have often differed over the years in our approaches and our positions to the many important issues that have come before the Senate for consideration, Senator Helms has always been a force to be reckoned with. His public service has been marked by hard work and diligence. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to serve with Senator Helms over these many years and want to join my colleagues in paying tribute to him today.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to amend the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to increase assistance for poor people in developing countries under microenterprise assistance programs. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues, Senator DeWine of Ohio, Senator Clinton of New York, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. Microenterprises play a critical role in helping poor people the world over raise their incomes, build assets, start new businesses, and improve their lives. Access to microenterprise loans and services with the attendant obligations allows poor people to establish good credit, engage in commerce, and begin to lift themselves out of poverty. The U.S. Government has been the leading donor for microenterprise development over the past two decades. In collaboration with diverse partner institutions like PVOs, private voluntary organizations, U.S. support, primarily through USAID, for microenterprise activities enables over 2 million people throughout the developing world to have access to microfinance services. The legislation I am introducing today authorizes $175 million in fiscal year 03 and $200 million in fiscal year 04 for microenterprise assistance, an increase over the $155 million authorization level in fiscal year 02. The other provisions of this legislation include a reaffirmation of the provision in the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 stipulating that 50 percent of all microenterprise assistance shall be targeted to the very poor. The term ``very poor'' has been defined in the new legislation as those living in the bottom 50 percent below the poverty line established by their respective national governments, or on less than $1 a day. The legislation also provides that the microenterprise programs should target both rural and urban poor. Ensuring that 50 percent of all microenterprise assistance is targeted to the very poor has been problematic. This legislation calls for the adoption of a monitoring system using proven effective poverty assessment tools to identify more precisely the very poor and ensure that they receive microenterprise loans, savings, and assistance authorized under this act. The legislation also stipulates that the USAID Administrator, in consultation with microenterprise institutions and other appropriate organizations, shall develop no fewer than two low-cost methods for partner institutions to use to assess the poverty levels of their current or prospective clients. By October 1, 2004, USAID shall certify that no fewer than two of such methods are being used for measuring poverty levels of current or prospective clients. Additionally, the legislation says that USAID, beginning no later than October 1, 2005, shall require all microenterprise organizations applying for U.S. assistance to use one of these methods. Finally, the legislation requires the USAID Administrator to submit a report to Congress, no later than September 30, 2005, on the development and application of the poverty assessment procedures and, beginning with fiscal year 2006, an annual report documenting the percentage of its resources allocated to the very poor, based on the certified methods and the absolute number of the very poor that was reached. The legislation, which builds on somewhat similar legislation that passed the House earlier this year (H.R. 4073), was the result of many weeks of hard work and negotiations between USAID and the Microenterprise Coalition, a group that represents the microenterprise institutions. Both USAID and the Microenterprise Coalition strongly support this legislation. I commend them for their efforts and I urge the Senate to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.