Paul Sarbanes

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.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with Senators Warner and Mikulski, to reauthorize and enhance the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Protection and Restoration Program. This program, which was first established in Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide design and construction assistance to State and local authorities in the environmental restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. In 1994, when I first introduced the legislation to create this program, I spoke about the need for this assistance and the unique capabilities the Army Corps of Engineers brings to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. I want to underscore some of those arguments today and the vital importance of continuing and enhancing this program. The Army Corps of Engineers has been an integral part of the Chesapeake Bay Program for many years. In 1984 the Corps completed one of the most comprehensive investigations of the entire Chesapeake Bay basin, a landmark report which identified many of the serious problems facing the Bay. The Corps played a vital role in the development of the Bay Program's state-of-the-art computer model and has undertaken a variety of major projects in the 6-state Chesapeake Bay watershed including the Poplar Island beneficial use of dredged material project, oyster reef restoration, and removal of blockages to fish passage. The agency is currently conducting investigations on sedimentation, shoreline erosion, and environmental problems in specific watersheds that we hope will result in additional projects to restore the Bay. And I am delighted that the Environment and Public Works Committee has just approved our new Study Resolution directing the Corps to integrate these existing and future work efforts into a coordinated, comprehensive master plan. But while these projects and studies continue and the master plan is being developed, it is vital that environmental restoration efforts be sustained and expanded. Two years ago, the States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the Federal Government conducted an extensive evaluation of cleanup progress since the 1980s and determined that, despite important advances, efforts must be redoubled to restore the integrity of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. A new Chesapeake 2000 agreement was signed to serve as a blueprint for the restoration effort over the next decade. To meet the goals established in the new agreement, it is estimated that the local, State and Federal Governments must invest more than $8.5 billion over the course of the next ten years. Nutrient and sediment loads must be significantly reduced, oyster populations must be increased, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and wetlands must be protected and restored, and remaining blockages to fish passage must be removed, among other actions. As the lead Federal agency in water resource management, the Corps has an essential role to play in this effort. Since the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program was first established and funding was appropriated, requests from State and local governments for assistance under the program has grown dramatically. The design- construct nature of this program, which enables the Corps to streamline its process of undertaking on-the-ground environmental restoration projects, is particularly appealing to State and local governments. To date, the Corps of Engineers has constructed or approved $9.3 million in projects under the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program including oyster restoration projects in Virginia, shoreline protection and wetland/sewage treatment projects at Smith Island in Maryland and the upgrade of the Scranton Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pennsylvania to reduce the amount of nutrients delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. These projects have nearly exhausted the current $10 million authorization. The legislation which I am introducing increases the authorization for this program from $10 million to $30 million. Consistent will all other environmental restoration authorities of the Corps of Engineers, it enables States and local governments to provide all or any portion of the 25 percent non-Federal share required in the form of in-kind services. It also establishes a new small-grants program for local governments and nonprofit organizations to carry out small-scale restoration and protection projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The program would be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which has extensive experience and expertise in managing these kinds of grants for other Federal agencies. Ten percent of the funds appropriated each year under this program would be set-aside for these grants. In view of the great need and the many requests for assistance from the Bay area states, this legislation is clearly warranted and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring this legislation are my colleagues, Senators Warner and Mikulski. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987-1997 or almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling storm water runoff, erosion and air pollution, all critical to the Bay clean-up effort. Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Administered through the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, this program has worked closely with Federal, State and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration and stewardship activities, can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. Over the past 12 years, it has provided modest levels of technical and financial assistance, averaging approximately $300,000 year, to develop collaborative watershed projects that address watershed forest conservation, restoration and stewardship. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; assess the Bay's forest lands; and provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands. To address these goals, the USDA Forest Service must have additional resources and authority, and that is what my amendment seeks to provide. This legislation codifies the roles and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment and planning efforts. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations and citizen groups in conducting on- the-ground conservation projects. It also establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-state, 64,000 square mile watershed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with Senators Warner and Mikulski, to reauthorize and enhance the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Protection and Restoration Program. This program, which was first established in Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide design and construction assistance to State and local authorities in the environmental restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. In 1994, when I first introduced the legislation to create this program, I spoke about the need for this assistance and the unique capabilities the Army Corps of Engineers brings to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. I want to underscore some of those arguments today and the vital importance of continuing and enhancing this program. The Army Corps of Engineers has been an integral part of the Chesapeake Bay Program for many years. In 1984 the Corps completed one of the most comprehensive investigations of the entire Chesapeake Bay basin, a landmark report which identified many of the serious problems facing the Bay. The Corps played a vital role in the development of the Bay Program's state-of-the-art computer model and has undertaken a variety of major projects in the 6-state Chesapeake Bay watershed including the Poplar Island beneficial use of dredged material project, oyster reef restoration, and removal of blockages to fish passage. The agency is currently conducting investigations on sedimentation, shoreline erosion, and environmental problems in specific watersheds that we hope will result in additional projects to restore the Bay. And I am delighted that the Environment and Public Works Committee has just approved our new Study Resolution directing the Corps to integrate these existing and future work efforts into a coordinated, comprehensive master plan. But while these projects and studies continue and the master plan is being developed, it is vital that environmental restoration efforts be sustained and expanded. Two years ago, the States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the Federal Government conducted an extensive evaluation of cleanup progress since the 1980s and determined that, despite important advances, efforts must be redoubled to restore the integrity of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. A new Chesapeake 2000 agreement was signed to serve as a blueprint for the restoration effort over the next decade. To meet the goals established in the new agreement, it is estimated that the local, State and Federal Governments must invest more than $8.5 billion over the course of the next ten years. Nutrient and sediment loads must be significantly reduced, oyster populations must be increased, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and wetlands must be protected and restored, and remaining blockages to fish passage must be removed, among other actions. As the lead Federal agency in water resource management, the Corps has an essential role to play in this effort. Since the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program was first established and funding was appropriated, requests from State and local governments for assistance under the program has grown dramatically. The design- construct nature of this program, which enables the Corps to streamline its process of undertaking on-the-ground environmental restoration projects, is particularly appealing to State and local governments. To date, the Corps of Engineers has constructed or approved $9.3 million in projects under the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program including oyster restoration projects in Virginia, shoreline protection and wetland/sewage treatment projects at Smith Island in Maryland and the upgrade of the Scranton Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pennsylvania to reduce the amount of nutrients delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. These projects have nearly exhausted the current $10 million authorization. The legislation which I am introducing increases the authorization for this program from $10 million to $30 million. Consistent will all other environmental restoration authorities of the Corps of Engineers, it enables States and local governments to provide all or any portion of the 25 percent non-Federal share required in the form of in-kind services. It also establishes a new small-grants program for local governments and nonprofit organizations to carry out small-scale restoration and protection projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The program would be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which has extensive experience and expertise in managing these kinds of grants for other Federal agencies. Ten percent of the funds appropriated each year under this program would be set-aside for these grants. In view of the great need and the many requests for assistance from the Bay area states, this legislation is clearly warranted and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring this legislation are my colleagues, Senators Warner and Mikulski. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987-1997 or almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling storm water runoff, erosion and air pollution, all critical to the Bay clean-up effort. Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Administered through the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, this program has worked closely with Federal, State and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration and stewardship activities, can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. Over the past 12 years, it has provided modest levels of technical and financial assistance, averaging approximately $300,000 year, to develop collaborative watershed projects that address watershed forest conservation, restoration and stewardship. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; assess the Bay's forest lands; and provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands. To address these goals, the USDA Forest Service must have additional resources and authority, and that is what my amendment seeks to provide. This legislation codifies the roles and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment and planning efforts. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations and citizen groups in conducting on- the-ground conservation projects. It also establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-state, 64,000 square mile watershed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, every year the Congress designates the September 15--October 15 period as Hispanic Heritage Month, but even as we do so we know that the contributions Hispanic Americans make to our national life are much greater than the modest tribute we pay them. Of all the varied cultures and traditions that are woven together into the distinctive fabric of American life, Hispanic Americans have some of the most distinctive, vigorous, and sustained culture and traditions. In recent years the Hispanic American population in the United States has grown very rapidly. According to the 2000 census it stands at 35 million, which represents an increase of 58 percent in the previous decade alone. Projections show that by mid-century Hispanic Americans will make up 24 percent of the population; put another way, just about one in every four Americans will be of Hispanic-American origin. We have see this trend very clearly in my own State of Maryland, where the Hispanic American population has grown more than 82 percent since 1990, and now makes up more than 4 percent of the population statewide. But numbers and percentages, while impressive, only hint at the vigor and the variety of the Hispanic contribution to Maryland's culture and economy. Just as the U.S. population is diverse, so is the Hispanic American community itself. There have long been established Puerto Rican and Dominican communities in New York City, Central American communities in the Washington metropolitan area, Cuban Americans in Florida, Mexican Americans in California and the Southwest; but Hispanics from many different countries now live in cities and towns and villages in every corner of the Nation, and they bring to the communities in which they settle the rich cultures of the nations from which they have come. They are moving forward to take their place in community and political institutions at every level. They are changing the face of America, and changing the way we see America. As Hispanic Americans participate increasingly in every aspect of our national life grows, they bring a new dimension to ethnic diversity; with their presence they challenge the old, corrosive assumptions that divided the world into black and white. We must see to it that Hispanic Americans, like all others Americans, have access to all the opportunities that make our society stronger, opportunities for education, employment, health care and housing. We must also see that language barriers do not create unnecessary and unproductive impediments to participation. Sensitivity to cultural differences is important in our schools and clinics, our financial institutions, government offices and courts; appropriate bilingual materials can often solve problems of communication. Hispanic Americans have given much to our national life, and with adequate opportunities they will give much more. Succeeding generations of immigrants have come to this country in search of a better life. They have worked hard, often against the most difficult odds, to make a place for themselves and their families, and to realize fully the promise this Nation offers. Diversity has always been the hallmark of the Republic; the attacks of September 11 a year ago have brought home to us, perhaps more so than ever in the past, that in the diversity of our people lies one of our greatest strengths. Hispanic Americans are now helping to write an important new chapter in our history, and I am pleased and proud to offer this tribute to Hispanic Heritage Month, which recognized and celebrates their accomplishments.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise in very strong support of the legislation to extend unemployment insurance benefits, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, which Senator Wellstone and others have introduced. I am very pleased to have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. I have a few points to make in the limited amount of time that has been allotted to me this morning. First of all, we have extended unemployment benefits in every previous recession. The concept behind extending benefits is that when the economy goes soft and people lose their jobs, in order to help support them, we extend unemployment benefits beyond the standard 26 weeks. Otherwise, benefits are limited to 26 weeks. Let me underscore we are talking about working people. One cannot draw unemployment insurance if one has not been working. So by definition, the people we are trying to help are people who were working and producing and helping to move our economy forward and, because of conditions beyond their control, find themselves out of a job. Therefore, they are out of income that is needed in order to support themselves and often their families. Traditionally, we give benefits for 26 weeks and then we figure that people will find a job and go back to work. But when the economy goes soft, then we have a very difficult problem on our hands, which is there are not any jobs to go back to. Most of the economic indicators now are trending downwards. We continue to face a serious economic problem, and the effort to extend the unemployment insurance benefits is a response to this pressing need. This need is felt by unemployed workers all across the country as they confront the problem of how will they take care of their families, and where will they find the income with which to make it from day to day. Unemployment insurance pays only a small percentage of what people were previously earning. When a person is receiving unemployment insurance benefits their income takes a real hit. In any event, these benefits provide unemployed workers some support so that they are not completely cast out without any means of sustenance. Unemployment insurance has been carefully devised to be a countercyclical measure against recession because it provides extra income at a time of economic downturn. Almost by definition this money will be spent since the formerly employed workers are receiving benefits that are far below what they were previously earning. Thus, these benefits will all go into the income stream. They will help to provide an impetus to the economy. Those who talk about how can we get the economy moving again, this is one way to do it. Furthermore, there is a trust fund that is designed to take care of paying these unemployment benefits. Payments have been made into the trust fund in good times, such as when we experienced low unemployment rates over the last 7 or 8 years, and as a result of this we have well over $20 billion in that Federal trust fund. That money is in the trust fund because it was paid for the purpose of paying unemployment benefits when we confronted an economic downturn. People ask: Where is the money going to come from? It is going to come from the trust fund. It ought to come from the trust fund. That is why the trust fund is there, and that is why the money has been paid into the trust fund--for the purpose of providing a safety net at the very time that we run up against the kind of economy we are witnessing today. So the rationale for extending these unemployment benefits is overwhelming. It is consistent with past precedents. We have done it in every previous recession. It conforms to the structure of the system in the sense that we have paid into a trust fund to pay this money out. It will meet the pressing needs of formerly employed workers now confronting the very real problem of how they are going to support their family now that they have lost their income, and it will provide a boost to the economy because this money will be paid to formerly employed workers who will spend this money back into the economy, helping to boost this economy.

Mr. SARBANES. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I have been allocated 5 minutes to speak?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Five minutes. We are saving 15 minutes for Senator Lieberman. It will be 5 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Given this display of dedication on the part of these public employees, why now all of a sudden are we seeking to take away from them these basic rights and protections? If someone came in and said what a dismal performance we have, and, therefore, we ought to give the management more leeway to sort of beat on these people or something of that sort, I don't know that I would buy that argument. But at least it would be something of an argument. Instead, you have this exemplary performance, this manifestation of real dedication. And despite that, some now are coming along and, in effect, wanting to beat on people who have behaved in the most extraordinary, dedicated, and selfless fashion.

Mr. SARBANES. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on either side?

Mr. SARBANES. So there are 7 minutes on the other side and 32 minutes left with the Senator from Connecticut?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise, first of all, to commend the very able chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, for the very fine work he has done on this legislation, particularly on this issue of Federal employees, and the care and sensitivity with which he has struck the balance. Obviously, on the one hand we have national security concerns. But as the Senator indicated in the quotes he took right from the legislation, the actual words of the legislation, the flexibility that is necessary to deal with national security questions or emergency situations is contained in this legislation. Those would be stripped out by the amendment. The Gramm-Miller proposal would then move the balance. Really, it would eliminate the balance. It would provide no significant or meaningful protections for the Federal employees. In one sense it raises the question: What is the nature of the society we are trying to protect? What is the nature of the society we are trying to protect? How far are we prepared to go in denying the essential freedoms and essential protections in the name of national security? Not in the reality of national security because the Senator from Connecticut has protected that reality. Their proposal would give unfettered authority to the Executive in dealing with their employees--the very employees we have to draw upon to protect the Nation and to respond to the challenges we face. I want to assert in unequivocal terms that, in my judgment, our Federal employees are loyal and committed workers who are dedicated to providing a high level of service. Legislation creating the new Department of Homeland Security should protect the rights of those workers to engage in collective bargaining and to protect their rights under the current civil service system unless critical questions of national security or emergency are presented. And those questions have been dealt with carefully, skillfully, and thoughtfully by the able Senator from Connecticut. I commend him for those efforts. I don't understand why some are engaged in beating up on the Federal employees. Why is this happening? Have the terrorist strikes driven some to this point? Do they not recall the Federal office building in Oklahoma that was blown up by a terrorist, albeit a domestic terrorist? Do they not recall that, and those dedicated lives that were lost? People all across the country who were working in similar office buildings went back in the next morning to do their job on behalf of the country to serve the public interest--all across America--despite the fact that some of their colleagues had just suffered this grievous blow. Why do we have this assault taking place? The Federal managers have much of this flexibility. The legislation has the emergency flexibility in it. The civil service law was originally put in place to protect against politicizing the public service. It has been adjusted and amended over the years. These arguments that it impedes productivity have been addressed again and again by the chairman's committee. Adjustments have been made in the light of changing circumstances. But no one has ever come before the committee and said we ought to take away all of those protections which have given us a public service with some integrity to it, and which is not subject to political whim. How are you going to call upon people to serve above and beyond the basic requirements of their job description if you do not treat them with some dignity and respect? I don't know. Some around here may find that they draw the best out of those who work for them by sort of beating up on them; that if you are sort of whipping them all the time and driving them without any protections, completely at your whim, that enables you to bring out of them the best response. That has never been my experience. I don't know of any labor-management text or treatises by noted experts in the field who say that is the best way to get a stellar performance out of your workers. I haven't seen that treatise yet. In fact, the ones I have looked at say that is exactly the wrong thing to do if you want to draw out a quality and stellar performance from your workers. There are a lot of very dedicated employees across the country. I think employee rights and the civil service protections which we have are essential to the effective workings of our Government. Some come and try to portray this as some special interest. The public interest is served by having these arrangements because those arrangements enable us to get better people into the public service, and to draw on them and their full capabilities. I rise in very strong opposition to the provisions in this amendment that have been offered by Senator Gramm and Senator Miller which would strip away from our Federal employees these important collective bargaining rights and these important civil service protections. In my judgment, given the balance which the chairman has already struck on important national security questions, to do what this amendment does-- taking away those bargaining rights and those civil service protections--will harm our national security, not help our national security. It will harm our national security. For that reason, I very strongly oppose the provisions that are contained in this amendment that deal with our committed and dedicated Federal employees.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleagues in honoring Senator Strom Thurmond and his lifetime of service to South Carolina and our Nation. A career like that of the senior Senator from South Carolina will almost certainly never be duplicated. Although I am the ``senior Senator'' from Maryland, my colleague Senator Thurmond was a practicing attorney in Edgefield, SC when I was born in 1933. And by that time, Senator Thurmond already had begun his distinctive career in the public interest. Born in 1902, Senator Thurmond received his bachelor's degree from Clemson University in 1923 and was a teacher and athletic coach for 6 years while serving in the U.S. Army Reserves. In 1929, he became the Superintendent of Education in Edgefield County, SC and soon thereafter was admitted to the State Bar, studying law under his father, Judge J. William Thurmond. While practicing law, Strom began his political career as a South Carolina State Senator and Circuit Judge. Senator Thurmond took a four-year leave of absence from his judicial duties from 1942 to 1946 in order to serve with the 82nd Airborne Division in World War II. During the War, Senator Thurmond served in the American, European and Pacific Theaters; landed in Normandy on D-Day; and earned eighteen decorations, medals and awards including, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star for Valor, Purple Heart, Belgian Order of the Crown, and French Croix de Guerre, during his military service. If Strom's service to our Nation ended in 1946 with his military career, it would have been a remarkable record of achievement. But his contributions to education, the legal profession, and the military make up just the beginning of Senator Thurmond's legacy. From 1947 to 1951, Strom was known as Governor Thurmond, as he led his beloved State of South Carolina. After his 1948 bid for the presidency, Strom returned to the practice of law and, in 1954, launched a successful write-in candidacy for election to the U.S. Senate. Pursuant to a promise made during his write-in campaign, Strom resigned from the Senate in April 1956 to run in the Democratic primary election. Strom was reelected to the Senate in November 1956 and resumed his duties and has been elected to the Senate seven more times by the people of South Carolina. Reaching the age of 100, as Senator Thurmond will do this December 5, is, alone, a remarkable achievement. The 2000 Census counted just 50,500 Americans 100 or older. And Strom is a clear example for those older Americans, and citizens of all ages, of the remarkable impact one person can have on our Nation. For most of the past 48 years, Senator Thurmond has been a fixture and a legend in the United States Senate. He has held positions of power, including President Pro Tempore, and Committee chairmanships. In the Senate, he has worked with ten Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. He is the longest serving Member of the Senate, and cast his 15,000th vote in September 1998. It goes without saying that throughout his time in this distinguished body, and over the course of his lifetime, Strom has seen our Nation change in remarkable ways. His service in this great deliberative body has given the Senate a perspective and continuity unparalleled in our history. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to serve with him over these many years, and to join my colleagues today in paying tribute to a true public servant, Senator Strom Thurmond.

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise in support of the Byrd amendment and urge my colleagues to back this very important amendment. But I also rise to thank the very able Senator from West Virginia for his firm and constant leadership on this very important issue. I particularly appreciate the careful way in which he has formulated this amendment. This amendment actually would achieve the establishment of the Department within the same timeframe that is contained in the bill brought from the committee. The only difference is it would do it in stages and would give the Congress a continuing role to examine carefully how this is being done, how the directorates are put into place, and would give us a better chance to carefully examine the full range of implications of many of the important principles, including worker protections, civil liberties, privacy, secrecy, and which functions to transfer and how they should be transferred. This is an enormous undertaking. The Senator from West Virginia has made a singular contribution in developing the potential ramifications and consequences of that with which we are dealing. Senator Byrd is given to quoting Roman history. A lot of my colleagues tend to consider that as interesting but not always directly relevant. I disagree. I think he reaches back and draws out lessons which are of extreme importance to us. I particularly like the quote he used in this debate of Gaius Petronius Arbiter, who was an adviser to Nero: We trained hard . . . but it seems that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization. What an apt quotation as we consider the important issue before us today. The Baltimore Sun ran an editorial actually concluding that they were against establishing the Department of Homeland Security. Senator Byrd's amendment does not do that. Senator Byrd is prepared to establish the Department, but he wants to be very careful in how we do it. The Sun, in that editorial, pointed out that in trying to establish this Department, we are taking the focus off the need for tighter oversight of the Nation's security systems; that shifting 22 Federal agencies and 170,000 employees is a massive undertaking, and it needs to be done very carefully. That is what the Senator from West Virginia has stressed again and again. We need congressional involvement which will help to ensure that we will craft the best possible legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. Additional oversight is required in order to assure that this is done in the right manner. We have agencies with multiple functions. Some relate to homeland security; some do not. How are we going to accommodate that complexity? The Byrd amendment, by requiring further timely participation of the Congress, will give us the opportunity for additional scrutiny to ensure that a massive governmental reorganization is done carefully and effectively. We do not want to create chaos and confusion which will set us back in our efforts to deal with homeland security. The Senator from West Virginia has underscored how carefully we did the National Security Act that reorganized the Department of Defense. That is not being done in this instance. I very strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to back it. I ask unanimous consent the Sun editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. I want to underscore what the Senator said. Senator Lieberman has done fine work on this legislation. It is no detraction from Senator Lieberman's fine efforts to support the Byrd amendment. In fact, I think the two can be perceived as being complementary. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this measure would authorize the Smith Island, Maryland ecosystem restoration project. Joining me in sponsoring this measure is my colleague Senator Mikulski. Smith Island, is one of the last remaining inhabited islands in the Chesapeake Bay and an area of unique cultural, historical and environmental significance. Because of its location and elevation, it is highly susceptible to the damaging forces of nature. In the past 150 years, more than 3,000 acres of the island have eroded into the Chesapeake Bay. As a consequence, the communities of Ewell, Tylerton and Rhodes Point are seriously threatened, the Federal navigation channels shoal within months after dredging, and habitat and other natural resources are being lost at an alarming rate. Since 1993 alone, the Smith Island vicinity has lost over 2400 acres of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, SAV ecologically valuable wetlands have also been lost. This habitat is critical to the health of the Bay and the area's fishing and crabbing industry. Over the years, Senator Mikulski and I have worked very closely with the citizens of Smith Island, the Somerset County Commissioners, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other State and Federal resource agencies to address the serious erosion problem and other needs on the island. Among other projects, we secured funding to help protect the eroding shoreline of Tylerton, to dredge the channels and repair of the stone jetties leading into Ewell, which has also helped with the erosion problem in that community, to construct a new sewage treatment facility, and to expedite completion of the Corps of Engineers' feasibility study for Smith Island. That latter study was completed in May of 2001 and the Chief of Engineers report on this project was transmitted to the Congress in October, 2001. The reports recommend construction of off-shore segmented breakwaters and back-filling to create additional wetlands along the coastline of Martin National Wildlife Refuge to stop or reverse the tremendous loss of SAV around parts of Smith Island. The recommended plan is expected to protect approximately 720 acres and restore about 1,400 acres of wetland and SUV habitat. The legislation, which we are introducing today, would authorize construction of this project at a total cost of approximately $7.5 million. It is our hope that this measure will be included as part of a broader package of water resource projects being developed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this measure would authorize the Smith Island, Maryland ecosystem restoration project. Joining me in sponsoring this measure is my colleague Senator Mikulski. Smith Island, is one of the last remaining inhabited islands in the Chesapeake Bay and an area of unique cultural, historical and environmental significance. Because of its location and elevation, it is highly susceptible to the damaging forces of nature. In the past 150 years, more than 3,000 acres of the island have eroded into the Chesapeake Bay. As a consequence, the communities of Ewell, Tylerton and Rhodes Point are seriously threatened, the Federal navigation channels shoal within months after dredging, and habitat and other natural resources are being lost at an alarming rate. Since 1993 alone, the Smith Island vicinity has lost over 2400 acres of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, SAV ecologically valuable wetlands have also been lost. This habitat is critical to the health of the Bay and the area's fishing and crabbing industry. Over the years, Senator Mikulski and I have worked very closely with the citizens of Smith Island, the Somerset County Commissioners, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other State and Federal resource agencies to address the serious erosion problem and other needs on the island. Among other projects, we secured funding to help protect the eroding shoreline of Tylerton, to dredge the channels and repair of the stone jetties leading into Ewell, which has also helped with the erosion problem in that community, to construct a new sewage treatment facility, and to expedite completion of the Corps of Engineers' feasibility study for Smith Island. That latter study was completed in May of 2001 and the Chief of Engineers report on this project was transmitted to the Congress in October, 2001. The reports recommend construction of off-shore segmented breakwaters and back-filling to create additional wetlands along the coastline of Martin National Wildlife Refuge to stop or reverse the tremendous loss of SAV around parts of Smith Island. The recommended plan is expected to protect approximately 720 acres and restore about 1,400 acres of wetland and SUV habitat. The legislation, which we are introducing today, would authorize construction of this project at a total cost of approximately $7.5 million. It is our hope that this measure will be included as part of a broader package of water resource projects being developed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleagues Senator Jeffords and Senator Sessions, which will help preserve significant sites associated with the Civil War. A similar companion bill has been introduced and has bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. According to the Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, prepared by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, CWSAC, in July, 1993, of the 384 principal Civil War battlefields, less than 20 percent have been protected for posterity and 60 percent have been lost or are in imminent danger of being fragmented by development and lost as coherent historic sites. To adequately address this problem, CWSAC recommended a federal investment of $10 million a year for seven years with a one-to-one Federal/non-Federal match. While Congress has yet to fund Civil War battlefield preservation at the levels recommended in the 1993 report, in recent years it has taken important steps to preserve our Civil War heritage. In Fiscal Years 1999 and 2002, the Congress appropriated a total of $19 million in matching grants for battlefield protection. Thus far, these grants have preserved over 7,000 acres of key Civil War battlefields in 11 States. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to build upon these successes by directing the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Civil War Battlefield Acquisition Grant Program. The bill authorizes Civil War battlefield acquisition matching grants of $10 million per year for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008. The legislation requires a non-Federal share of at least 50 percent, thus leveraging $20 million annually. State and local governments and non-profit organizations will be eligible to receive grants under the program. All lands acquired by these grants must be identified in the 1993 report and may only be purchased from landowners who voluntarily sell their interests. The legislation also directs the Secretary to update the Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields to reflect the activities carried out on the battlefields during the period between original publication of the report and the time of the update, including any changes or relevant developments relating to the battlefields during that period. In my view, this legislation represents an important opportunity to maintain and preserve tangible links to our past so that future generations may experience firsthand this most critical period in our nation's history. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation, together with my colleagues Senator Jeffords and Senator Sessions, which will help preserve significant sites associated with the Civil War. A similar companion bill has been introduced and has bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. According to the Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, prepared by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, CWSAC, in July, 1993, of the 384 principal Civil War battlefields, less than 20 percent have been protected for posterity and 60 percent have been lost or are in imminent danger of being fragmented by development and lost as coherent historic sites. To adequately address this problem, CWSAC recommended a federal investment of $10 million a year for seven years with a one-to-one Federal/non-Federal match. While Congress has yet to fund Civil War battlefield preservation at the levels recommended in the 1993 report, in recent years it has taken important steps to preserve our Civil War heritage. In Fiscal Years 1999 and 2002, the Congress appropriated a total of $19 million in matching grants for battlefield protection. Thus far, these grants have preserved over 7,000 acres of key Civil War battlefields in 11 States. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to build upon these successes by directing the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Civil War Battlefield Acquisition Grant Program. The bill authorizes Civil War battlefield acquisition matching grants of $10 million per year for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008. The legislation requires a non-Federal share of at least 50 percent, thus leveraging $20 million annually. State and local governments and non-profit organizations will be eligible to receive grants under the program. All lands acquired by these grants must be identified in the 1993 report and may only be purchased from landowners who voluntarily sell their interests. The legislation also directs the Secretary to update the Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields to reflect the activities carried out on the battlefields during the period between original publication of the report and the time of the update, including any changes or relevant developments relating to the battlefields during that period. In my view, this legislation represents an important opportunity to maintain and preserve tangible links to our past so that future generations may experience firsthand this most critical period in our nation's history. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his excellent presentation with respect to the state of our economy. He has described in very straightforward terms the serious economic problems we confront: weak economic growth, rising job losses, declining business investment, a falling stock market, eroding consumer confidence, and a deteriorating Federal Government fiscal position. Just this morning, the Wall Street Journal reported: What looked like a brief dip in economic activity a month ago looks increasingly like a protected slowdown. . . . The Federal Reserve said Tuesday that industrial production fell 0.3 percent in August from July, the first decline since December, when the recession was ending. The majority leader made a compelling case, in my view, for focusing the attention of the Congress and the President on the urgent economic challenges we confront at home, as well as the significant security and foreign policy challenges we confront abroad. I wish to take a few moments to focus briefly on a very pressing economic challenge that is before us right now and which ought to be addressed before the end of the year: the problem of the long-term unemployed and the need to extend unemployment insurance benefits. I urge the administration to submit to the Congress a proposal for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. On September 9, the New York Times ran a front page story entitled, ``Long-Term Jobless Rose by 50 Percent Last Year.'' The article stated--and I now quote from it-- . . . the number of people who have been jobless for months has climbed to a level more typical of a deep downturn. Almost three million people nationwide have been out of work for at least 15 weeks, up more than 50 percent from a year ago. Half of them have not worked for at least 6 months. Another million Americans appear to have dropped out of the labor force in each of the past two years, no longer looking for work or counted as unemployed. . . . Many people who have not worked in months have begun spending retirement savings that were already diminished by the stock market's fall. Others are considering low-wage jobs at a fraction of their old pay. In either case, their stretches of unemployment could define their financial futures for years. It goes on to say: Many unemployed people . . . see little sign that companies will soon begin hiring in large numbers. And some are growing increasingly nervous because unemployment benefits that were extended . . . will expire soon. I want to make a very simple but important point in light of this rise in the long-term unemployed and the challenge that it presents. I strongly urge the administration to address it and to send the proposal to the Congress. We extended the unemployment compensation program earlier this year to provide an additional 13 weeks beyond the basic 26 weeks. But this program is scheduled to end on December 31 of this year, which means that someone who is then in the 27th week of their benefits at the end of 2002 could receive no further unemployment benefits. This program is scheduled to end at the very time when the number of long-term unemployed is not coming down, but is increasing. The projections on the unemployment front are not encouraging. The CBO predicts the unemployment rate will remain near 6 percent until the second half of next year. When we enacted the extension, it was at 5.7 percent. Unemployment is projected to stay high well into next year, while the extension is scheduled to expire on December 31 of this year. Now, in previous recessions--and it is important to note this--we extended the increase in the time period to collect unemployment benefits. Back in the recession of 1990-1991, unemployment benefits were extended five separate times. In fact, not only were they initially extended by 13 to 20 weeks but then the period was lengthened again to between 52 and 59 weeks. I am very frank to tell you I think we have to confront this situation. States are reporting larger increases in the exhaustion of unemployment benefits during this recession than during the last recession. So for those people who have been thrown out of work--and I am not going to go through the litany of it; much of it has hit the dot-com industry--they either have or are close to having exhausted their unemployment benefit payments. They are going to be in even deeper trouble once they cross that threshold and exhaust their unemployment benefit payments. I am not seeking anything that is out of the ordinary in terms of past experience, but I think these benefits must be extended. Let me make one final point. The temporary provision of additional Federal benefits to the unemployed, in the wake of economic downturns, has long served a dual purpose. Beyond providing needed income support to those whose spells of unemployment are lengthened by recessionary conditions, it is also very well designed to give the economy a boost. Unemployment benefits are quickly injected into the economy. Benefits can be paid immediately through the existing unemployment insurance system. They are targeted to areas where the downturn has hit the hardest. They go to areas with large concentrations of newly unemployed who qualify for benefits. They stimulate demand where it has deteriorated the most. They are very effective in boosting the economy. And, of course, they come to the rescue of people who have found themselves out of work and are under extreme stress in order to meet the financial demands of supporting themselves and often their family as well. So we need to extend unemployment benefits. We need to fill in the weaknesses in the system. We need to give the people who have lost their jobs, and are now confronting a very severe situation, some support in these trying circumstances. We have extended unemployment benefits before repeatedly. It has worked. It has been seen to work. We need to do so again. I very strongly urge the administration to face this challenge and to send to the Congress--promptly and immediately--a proposal with respect to unemployment insurance benefits that would help to assure that the millions of people across the country, who already have or may in the future exhaust their unemployment benefits, will not find themselves without any income support at the same time that they are confronting an economy in which job restoration is not taking place. If job restoration were taking place, and the economy was on the upswing, and one could reasonably say to people, well, opportunities are returning and, therefore, you can find work. But that is not what is happening. You have people facing an economy which is softening, as the Wall Street Journal reported just this morning, as they said, ``What looked like a brief dip in economic activity a month ago looks increasingly like a protracted slowdown. . . .'' We must at a minimum provide this assistance. I yield the floor.