Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to bolster efforts to restore the Anacostia River. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are my colleagues Senators Landrieu, Mikulski and Allen. A companion bill has also been introduced in the House, sponsored by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton and other members of the Washington metropolitan area Congressional Delegation.

Mr. President, the Anacostia River is a resource rich in history and with tremendous natural resources and recreational potential. It is homes to 43 species of fish, some 200 species of birds, as well as more than 800,000 people whose neighborhoods border the watershed. Flowing through Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland and emptying into the Potomac at the District of Columbia, the watershed consists of a 176-square-mile drainage area. One of the most urbanized watersheds in the United States, the Anacostia suffers a series of problems including trash, toxic pollution from urban runoff, sewage pollution from leaking sewer lines and combined sewer overflows, sediment pollution from erosion, and loss of fish and wildlife and recreational resources. It is a resource that has long been abused and neglected, but one that, in my view, can and must be protected and restored.

Efforts to begin rejuvenating the Anacostia watershed began formally in 1987 when the State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and the District of Columbia signed an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement. The agreement authorized the Washington Area Council of Governments, COG, to manage the restoration program and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to protect the resources and facilitate public participation. COG created an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, AWRC, to coordinate and implement restoration projects throughout the watershed. Since that time, local, State, and Federal Government agencies, as well as the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Anacostia Citizens Advisory Committee and other environmental organizations and dedicated private citizens have contributed significant resources toward re-establishing the Anacostia watershed ecosystem.

Thanks to this cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local and private effort, we are beginning to make some progress in restoring the watershed. A Six Point Action Plan was signed in 1991 setting ambitious and broad-reaching goals for the river's restoration. In 1993 we celebrated the successful restoration of 32 acres of emergent tidal wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers at Kenilworth marsh. The project has shown significant results in improving tidal water flow through the marsh, and reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the area and demonstrates what can be achieved in urban river restoration. There have been other success stories as well in urban stream restoration in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, removing barriers to fish passage and reforestation efforts throughout the watershed, to name only a few. In 1999, a new Anacostia Watershed Agreement was signed to strengthen the regional governmental commitment to Anacostia restoration. There are today more than 60 local, State and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration. And more than $100 million has been spent cleaning up the river. There is clearly much for which we can all be proud. But the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The Anacostia is still one of North America's most endangered and threatened rivers. It is designated one of three ``regions of concern'' for toxics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The legislation which we are introducing authorizes more than $200 million in Federal assistance over the next 10 years to restore the Anacostia. Of these funds, $170 million is authorized to address the biggest pollution problems in the watershed--stormwater runoff and failing wastewater infrastructure. As the builder of much of the original infrastructure and a major user, the Federal Government has an important responsibility to help stem the flow of this pollution and comply with the Clean Water Act. The remaining funds will allow the administrator of EPA, working together with an ``Anacostia Watershed Council'' of State and local officials, to develop a comprehensive environmental protection and resource management plan for the watershed, for several Federal agencies to join in the implementation of the plan.

Mr. President, the Anacostia River suffers from centuries of impacts and changes. Once a healthy, thriving river, it is today severely degraded. This legislation is urgently needed if we are to achieve the goal of making the Anacostia and its tributaries swimmable and fishable again. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure and ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to bolster efforts to restore the Anacostia River. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are my colleagues Senators Landrieu, Mikulski and Allen. A companion bill has also been introduced in the House, sponsored by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton and other members of the Washington metropolitan area Congressional Delegation.

Mr. President, the Anacostia River is a resource rich in history and with tremendous natural resources and recreational potential. It is homes to 43 species of fish, some 200 species of birds, as well as more than 800,000 people whose neighborhoods border the watershed. Flowing through Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland and emptying into the Potomac at the District of Columbia, the watershed consists of a 176-square-mile drainage area. One of the most urbanized watersheds in the United States, the Anacostia suffers a series of problems including trash, toxic pollution from urban runoff, sewage pollution from leaking sewer lines and combined sewer overflows, sediment pollution from erosion, and loss of fish and wildlife and recreational resources. It is a resource that has long been abused and neglected, but one that, in my view, can and must be protected and restored.

Efforts to begin rejuvenating the Anacostia watershed began formally in 1987 when the State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and the District of Columbia signed an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement. The agreement authorized the Washington Area Council of Governments, COG, to manage the restoration program and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to protect the resources and facilitate public participation. COG created an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, AWRC, to coordinate and implement restoration projects throughout the watershed. Since that time, local, State, and Federal Government agencies, as well as the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Anacostia Citizens Advisory Committee and other environmental organizations and dedicated private citizens have contributed significant resources toward re-establishing the Anacostia watershed ecosystem.

Thanks to this cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local and private effort, we are beginning to make some progress in restoring the watershed. A Six Point Action Plan was signed in 1991 setting ambitious and broad-reaching goals for the river's restoration. In 1993 we celebrated the successful restoration of 32 acres of emergent tidal wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers at Kenilworth marsh. The project has shown significant results in improving tidal water flow through the marsh, and reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the area and demonstrates what can be achieved in urban river restoration. There have been other success stories as well in urban stream restoration in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, removing barriers to fish passage and reforestation efforts throughout the watershed, to name only a few. In 1999, a new Anacostia Watershed Agreement was signed to strengthen the regional governmental commitment to Anacostia restoration. There are today more than 60 local, State and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration. And more than $100 million has been spent cleaning up the river. There is clearly much for which we can all be proud. But the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The Anacostia is still one of North America's most endangered and threatened rivers. It is designated one of three ``regions of concern'' for toxics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The legislation which we are introducing authorizes more than $200 million in Federal assistance over the next 10 years to restore the Anacostia. Of these funds, $170 million is authorized to address the biggest pollution problems in the watershed--stormwater runoff and failing wastewater infrastructure. As the builder of much of the original infrastructure and a major user, the Federal Government has an important responsibility to help stem the flow of this pollution and comply with the Clean Water Act. The remaining funds will allow the administrator of EPA, working together with an ``Anacostia Watershed Council'' of State and local officials, to develop a comprehensive environmental protection and resource management plan for the watershed, for several Federal agencies to join in the implementation of the plan.

Mr. President, the Anacostia River suffers from centuries of impacts and changes. Once a healthy, thriving river, it is today severely degraded. This legislation is urgently needed if we are to achieve the goal of making the Anacostia and its tributaries swimmable and fishable again. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure and ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Saturday evening the Senate passed by voice vote the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. I want to congratulate Chairman Shelby, Chairman Oxley and Congressman Frank and all the conferees on the successful completion of the conference on this bill. This is an important piece of legislation and, as I have previously done, I want to acknowledge the thorough examination of these important issues provided by the comprehensive series of six hearings on this subject that Chairman Shelby held in the Banking Committee. The bill passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee on a voice vote on September 23, 2003 and was adopted 95-2 on the floor on November 5, 2003. These votes, I believe, are a testament to our chairman's willingness to work on a bipartisan basis.

I believe the same can be said of Chairman Oxley and Congressman Frank. Their bill was voted out of the House Financial Services Committee by 63-3 on July 24, 2003, and was passed overwhelmingly on the floor 392-30 on September 10, 2003. The conference report was passed on the floor of the House on Friday night on a vote of 379-49.

While there were a number of differences between the Senate and House passed versions, I think the conference successfully took many of the best provisions from each bill. Although I would have liked to have gone further in a few areas--in the affiliate sharing section to provide more protection for the financial privacy of consumers, and also in preserving the rights of States to act--I believe a good compromise was reached. Among other things, this legislation provides consumers with free credit reports annually from the national credit bureaus and provides consumers with an easy method to obtain their free credit reports, and easier access to their credit scores; requires that consumers be given a summary of their right to opt out of prescreened offers; provides for accuracy guidelines; requires financial institutions to send their customers written notice prior to submitting negative information about them to a national consumer reporting agency; lengthens the statute of limitations for all Fair Credit Reporting Act violations; extends the situations in which consumers are notified when adverse actions have been taken against them; prohibits the sale, transfer, or collection of identity theft debt, so that such bad debt will not be perpetuated in the credit system; limits the sharing of medical information in the financial system; with certain limitations, provides consumers with the right to opt out of solicitations for marketing purposes that result from affiliate information sharing; and helps enhance the financial literacy of all Americans.

This legislation contains a number of important consumer protections, and I want to address some of these provisions more thoroughly.

First I would like to note a significant consumer right contained in the legislation--the right to obtain a free credit report annually. This legislation will, for the first time, allow consumers to make one request, and obtain their credit report free annually from each of the national credit bureaus. Financial institutions rely heavily on credit report information to make credit decisions, and it is extremely important that consumers be aware of the information contained in their credit reports. Providing consumers with the right to obtain this important information free is a major step forward in ensuring consumers' knowledge of, and control over, their financial information.

In addition to obtaining free reports, under this legislation consumers will be informed when negative information is added to their credit reports. This important provision, combined with the consumer's right to a free report, will help improve Americans' access to and understanding of information contained in their credit reports.

This legislation will also help ensure that consumers are aware of how to opt out of the prescreening process which results in many of the unsolicited offers of credit that consumers receive in the mail. Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies may generate for creditors prescreened lists of individuals with certain characteristics to be targeted to receive a direct mailing. The success of the FTC's ``Do- Not-Call'' Registry has highlighted Americans' frustration with unsolicited telephone offers. Under this legislation, creditors making such unsolicited offers of credit to consumers by mail will be required to include a summary of consumers' right to opt-out of prescreening in their offers to consumers. The FTC in consultation with

the banking agencies and the National Credit Union Association will be required to write rules on the size and prominence of the disclosure of the opt-out telephone number that is included with offers of credit to consumers.

In order to ensure that consumers are aware of the many rights provided for them under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, this bill directs the FTC to undertake an educational campaign. The FTC is directed to actively publicize, and conspicuously post on its website, a number of important FCRA consumer rights. Among these are the right to obtain free credit reports annually, and other circumstances in which consumers may obtain free credit reports; the right of a consumer to dispute information in his or her credit report; the consumer's right to obtain a credit score from a consumer reporting agency, and a description of how to obtain a credit score; and the consumer's right to opt out of prescreened lists, and the toll-free telephone number maintained by the national credit bureaus by which consumers may opt out. This FTC campaign will help ensure that Americans are informed of their rights under the FCRA, including the new rights afforded to them by this Act.

This legislation will also add a new provision to the FCRA that would provide consumers with a notice when they receive less favorable credit terms, based on their credit report. Receiving the notice would trigger the consumer's right to examine his or her credit report free of charge. Although the new provision would give the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board broad authority to make rules regarding the form and content of the notice and when it should be delivered, the notice, by its very logic, must be given after the terms of the offer have been set based on whole or in part on the credit report. The notice should be provided as early as practicable in the transaction after the terms have been set.

This legislation will also benefit consumers by requiring Federal agencies to provide greater oversight of the accuracy and integrity of credit reports. Under this act, Federal banking regulators and the Federal Trade Commission will, for the first time, establish and maintain guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of information provided by data furnishers to credit reporting agencies. The Act also requires these agencies to prescribe regulations requiring creditors and other furnishers of information to credit bureaus to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing these guidelines. For the purposes of this section, ``accuracy'' relates to whether the information that is provided by data furnishers to credit reporting agencies is factually correct. The term ``integrity'' relates to whether all relevant information that is used to assess credit risk and to grant credit is accurately provided. Integrity of information is not achieved when furnishers do not fully provide data that, by its absence, could have a positive or negative effect on a consumer's credit score, or on his or her ability to obtain credit under the most favorable terms for which he or she qualifies.

The bill also contains important provisions relating to financial companies' ability to market to their customers based on private financial information of the customers that has been shared among affiliates. For the first time, the bill will require affiliates who share customer information to make solicitations for marketing purposes to disclose this sharing to consumers, and to provide consumers with an opportunity to opt out of marketing resulting from such sharing. Exceptions are provided for pre-existing customers, solicitations based on existing shared data, solicitations contracted for by employers, compliance with State insurance laws, service providers, and responding to consumer requests.

In addition to providing an opt-out of marketing based on affiliate sharing, this legislation helps protect consumers' private financial information by including a number of important identity theft prevention and protection provisions. I want particularly to note Senator Cantwell's leadership in the area of identity theft. Senator Cantwell's identity theft legislation passed on the floor of the Senate last year, and several of the provisions from her bill have been incorporated in the FACT Act, including an extension of the statute of limitations, provisions allowing consumers to block identity theft information from appearing on their credit reports, and a provision allowing consumers to obtain copies of business records reflecting any transactions that have been carried out in their name by identity thieves. I believe that these provisions will be beneficial to identity theft victims, and I want to commend Senator Cantwell's leadership in this area along with that of Senators Enzi and Feinstein.

After careful consideration by the conferees, the conference report provides for preemption of the States with respect to conduct required by specific listed provisions of the Act on identity theft. This narrowly focused preemption will leave States free to supplement these protections and to develop additional approaches and solutions to identity theft.

I would also like to highlight the important steps this legislation takes to improve the financial literacy of consumers by establishing a Financial Literacy and Education Commission which will coordinate promotion of Federal financial literacy efforts, and will develop a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education. I want to commend Senators Enzi and Stabenow, along with Senators Corzine, Akaka and others, for their leadership in the Senate in this area. The House had a strong interest in the development of this title, and added, among other provisions, an authorization of $3 million dollars for the development of a national public service multimedia campaign that will be consistent with the national strategy.

In closing, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the outstanding work done by the staff of the Committee on this legislation. On my staff, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the work done by Lynsey Graham as well as Dean Shahinian, Aaron Klein, Marty Gruenberg and Steve Harris.

It was a pleasure working with the staff of Chairman Shelby who are to be congratulated for their outstanding work. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Mark Oesterle, Doug Nappi and Chairman Shelby's staff director, Kathy Casey.

I would also like to thank Laura Ayoud from Senate Legislative Counsel, who has worked tirelessly and, as always, effectively, to put this package together.

I would also like to acknowledge the vital role played in developing this legislation by all of our Senate conferees: Senators Bennett, Allard, Enzi, Dodd and Johnson, and in particular by the Chairman, Senator Shelby.

Mr. President, we spend a lot of time talking about homeownership, both in the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and back in our States. I want to spend just a moment reminding everyone why some of us put so much effort into achieving this very important goal for so may American families.

Homeownership is an asset-building engine for families and neighborhoods, indeed for society as a whole. When a family buys a home, they are buying more than bricks and mortar. They are buying into a community. With each homeowner, we create another anchor in a neighborhood, another advocate for better schools, safer streets, and small business development.

Expanding homeownership, particularly in struggling areas, will help replace the vicious cycle of decline that we see in some neighborhoods with a virtuous cycle of wealth accumulation and economic growth. Once you own a home, you are able to build equity, equity that can be used to send your children to college, finance your retirement, and serve as a needed reserve to protect against emergencies.

Increasing homeownership, and especially minority homeownership, has long been a national goal. In fact, the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard points out that the 1990s was a period of significant growth in minority homeownership and in mortgage lending to minorities. Unfortunately, over the last few years, we have seen that progress level off as the economy has cooled down.

Today, we bring before the Senate S. 811, the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act, originally introduced by my colleague on the Banking Committee, Senator Allard. This bill authorizes $200 million for a downpayment assistance program targeted to first time, low-income homebuyers. I support this legislation, and I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Colorado, as well as Chairman Shelby. I also note that the bill includes important provisions to expand the supply of affordable rental housing. Senator Corzine amended the bill to raise the FHA multifamily loan limits to account for the rising costs of producing rental housing. This amendment will facilitate the annual construction of up to 6,000 units of multifamily housing affordable to working families around the country. This is an important contribution to the legislation we are considering.

Likewise, Senator Johnson has contributed a provision to make the FHA single family adjustable rate mortgage, ARMs, insurance program more effective. ARMs are an important tool in helping families achieve homeownership, and the Johnson amendment will be a welcome addition to the FHA program.

Finally, I would like to thank Senator Stabenow for bringing to the attention of the committee the special needs of a growing segment of our population, families headed by grandparents. The legislation includes an amendment that will create a demonstration program to examine how existing HUD programs can better serve these families. It also requires HUD to study ways in which barriers to existing programs for these families may be reduced.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Shelby, as well as Senators Allard and Reed, chair and ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, for all their work on this legislation and for their willingness to work in a bipartisan way to produce a good final product. I also want to thank Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, and the other members of the House Financial Services Committee for their contributions to this process and this product.

I support passage of the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act and urge it passage.

Will the Senator yield?

I listened to the able Senator from Illinois with great pleasure because I strongly share his feeling and views about Senator Byrd. I took the floor for a brief moment to underscore the extraordinary contribution that Senator Byrd has been making to the national debate in the recent period on issues of critical national importance. He has taken to the floor time and time again and spoken with a clear strong voice. He has sounded a clarion call to the country. I know from people I talk to that voice is reaching into many corners across the land and prompting Americans to think deeply about the issues that confront the Nation, and even more deeply and fundamental about how we go about conducting our business and making these decisions.

The vote last night in the House of Representatives was held over for 3 hours in order for the Republican leadership to twist arms in order to change the outcome, which was already up on the board, where they had lost by two votes. That rollcall vote was held open indefinitely. My able colleague from Maryland, Congressman Hoyer, remarked afterwards, it would be as though you had election day, the time came for the polls to close, and you held the polls open for another 15 hours while you went out and somehow found the votes to assure you the result. It is an abuse of the democratic process.

The Senator from West Virginia has always spoken. He sounded a loud trumpet about our Nation. We are deeply in debt to him and appreciate that.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Am I correct in my understanding that under this bill, the Government, through Medicare, could not, in fact, bring its weight to bear in order to lower the cost of prescription drugs through a buying program, where they are a heavyweight in the scale--

that the bill actually precludes that from happening?

Will the Senator yield for a further question?

In addition to precluding the Government from bringing its weight to bear in purchasing in order to lower the cost of drugs because they would be a very big purchaser and obviously they would have an impact, some have said: Well, let's at least allow for the reimportation of drugs from other countries, particularly Canada. Some of our people have been going to Canada in order to get their prescription drugs. They cross the border, and they can buy them at 40, 50, 60 percent less than they pay in this country. So there were provisions that passed to allow reimportation. Am I correct that, in effect, this bill eliminates that?

Will the Senator yield for a further question?

I also understand there was an effort to clear the path for generic drugs to become available. Of course, generic drugs sell at a lesser cost than brand name drugs. A lot of the pharmaceutical people are opposed to that.

It is also my understanding that this bill fails to carry through on the efforts to make it easy to bring generic drugs to market. Am I correct in that respect?

Will the Senator yield for one final question?

I hate to intrude on his time, but this is a very important point. With this legislation, the pharmaceutical companies have, in effect, slowed the ability of generic drugs to come to market, which would be one source of competition that would lower their prices. The reimportation provisions have been written in such a way that it is completely in the hands of the administration whether reimportation of drugs, say, from Canada is allowed. The administration has been very clear that they are opposed to doing that. The legislation also, in effect, knocks out the Government from being a direct purchaser and controlling the prices.

Every source that potentially could exercise some pressure or influence on the pharmaceutical companies to lower or restrain their prices is being blocked out by this legislation. So the end result is that it is an absolute bonanza for the drug companies. Would you say that is a reasonable perception of what this legislation does?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator made reference to a better bill. The very able Senator from Illinois, in the course of debate in the Senate, offered a better bill, which I was very pleased to support. That bill would have been a very significant and substantial step forward. Among other things, it did not have this ``donut'' in coverage that is in this bill.

As I understand this bill, at a certain point--I think $22.50 in drug cost--and beyond that, up to $3,600, the burden falls back on individuals; is that correct?

In the Senator's bill that didn't happen; is that correct?

Will the Senator further yield for a question?

Would we not also have been able to not have a donut hole if these moneys the Senator made reference to that are going to the HMOs--the $10 billion, I think you said--

Also $6 billion--

So that $16 billion could have been taken and put directly to improve the benefit for our seniors, could it not?

As I perceive it, all of these things that are being done--the HMOs, the medical accounts, the limitation on Medicare being able to act directly, and so forth--if this stack of papers on the desk represents the Medicare Program itself, they are circling around it to undermine and undercut it. This bill has taken on an added fundamental dimension.

So as we look at this bill, we have to look at not only its shortcomings in adding prescription drugs to the Medicare Program, but we have to perceive that built into the bill are a number of efforts being put into place that will undercut the Medicare Program itself. Is that a reasonable view of the potential of this legislation?

If the Senator will yield on that point, in confirmation of the Senator's analysis, the markets, in the last few days, have been boosting the price of the stocks of the pharmaceutical companies. The perception in the capital markets of the smart money people is that this legislation is going to significantly benefit the pharmaceutical companies, and they are building up the stock prices, which only goes to confirm and corroborate the analysis the Senator from Illinois has made on this issue.

Is that per year?

I thank the Senator. I simply want to note my agreement with the chairman and with his request to include the two letters in the Record.

Mr. President, it is difficult to know exactly how to pay tribute to Ralph J. Bunche for his extraordinary contributions to scholarship, diplomacy, civil rights, social justice and international cooperation and development. The Senate has approved H. Con. Res 71, ``Recognizing the importance of Ralph Bunche as one of the great leaders of the United States . . . The year-long centennial commemoration of his birth, which is now well underway, involves many more professional societies, educational institutions and public-policy organizations than it is possible to list; among them are the American Political Science Association, the Association of Black American Ambassadors, the American Library Association, the Council on Foreign Relations, Facing History and Ourselves, national foundation, the NAACP, the National Urban League, the New York Public Library, numerous United Nations Associations and dozens of colleges and universities in this country and abroad. At UCLA, Ralph Bunche's alma mater, the African American Studies center has been renamed in his honor. I am especially pleased to note that the American Academy of Diplomacy has chosen to honor Ralph Bunche by sponsoring the two-year Philip Merrill Fellowship for the two-year M.A. program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University.

Among his many accomplishments, Ralph Bunche received the first doctoral degree in government and international relations ever awarded by Harvard University, thereby earning the title ``Dr. Bunche.'' But Benjamin Rivlin, who is Co-Chair of the Ralph Bunche Centenary Committee, has told us that he was specifically instructed to ``cut out this doctor business'' when as a young soldier he was assigned to work for Ralph Bunche in the OSS sixty years ago.

The vast array of tributes now being paid to Ralph Bunche reflects just how extraordinary a person he was. Born in Detroit and orphaned at eleven, he went to live with his grandmother, Lucy Johnson, in what is today the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles.

By all accounts, Lucy Johnson was as extraordinary as her illustrious grandson. Writing in the Reader's Digest many years after her death, Dr. Bunche called her ``My Most Unforgettable Character . . . Caucasian `on the outside' and `all black fervor inside.' '' One of his teachers said of her, ``I have never forgotten the emanation of power from that tiny figure.'' Ms. Johnson's remark to the principal of Jefferson High School, where Dr. Johnson was valedictorian of his class and a varsity athlete, is especially memorable. In a disastrously misguided effort at flattery, the principal is reported to have said, ``We never thought of Ralph as a Negro,'' to which Ms. Johnson replied: ``Why haven't you thought of him as a Negro? He is a Negro and he is proud of it. So am

Mr. President, in July of 2001, and continuing through January of the following year, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a series of hearings to shine a bright light on the deceptive and destructive practices of predatory mortgage lenders. At those hearings, the Committee heard from housing experts, community groups, legal advocates, industry representatives and victims of predatory lending in an effort to determine how best to address this terrible problem. Today, I am introducing legislation, the ``Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003,'' along with a number of my colleagues, that would begin to address the problems that came to light in those hearings.

Homeownership is the American Dream. Indeed, the Committee has already passed legislation this year that would authorize a new $200 million downpayment assistance program to ensure that more people can achieve this goal.

We have taken this step because homeownership is the best opportunity for most Americans to put down roots and start creating equity for themselves and their families. Homeownership has been the path to building wealth for generations of Americans, wealth that can be tapped to send children to college, pay for a secure retirement, or simply work as a reserve against unexpected emergencies. It has been the key to ensuring stable communities, good schools, and safe streets. Common sense tells us, and the evidence confirms, that homeowners are more engaged citizens and more active in their communities.

Little wonder, then, that so many Americans, young and old, aspire to achieve this dream.

Unhappily, predatory lenders cynically play on these hopes and dreams to cheat people out of their wealth. These lenders target lower income, elderly, and, often, uneducated homeowners for their abusive practices. Study after study has shown that predatory lenders also target minorities, driving a wedge between these families and the hope of a productive life in the economic and financial mainstream of America.

We owe it to these hardworking families to provide protections against these unscrupulous players.

Let me share with you one of the stories we heard at our hearings. Mary Ann Podelco, a widowed waitress from West Virginia, used $19,000 from her husband's life insurance to pay off the balance on her mortgage, thus owning her home free and clear. Before her husband's death, she had never had a checking account or a credit card. She then took out a $11,921 loan for repairs. At the time, her monthly income from Social Security was $458, and her loan payments were more than half this amount. Ms. Podelco, who has a sixth grade education, testified that after her first refinancing, ``I began getting calls from people trying to refinance my mortgage all hours of the day and night.'' Within 2 years, having been advised to refinance seven times-- each time seeing high points and fees being financed into her new loan--she owed $64,000, and lost her home to foreclosure.

Ms. Podelco's story is all too typical. Unfortunately, most of the sharp practices used by unscrupulous lenders and brokers, while unethical and clearly abusive, are not illegal. This bill is designed to address that problem by tightening the interest rate and fee triggers that define high cost loans; the bill improves protections for borrowers receiving such loans by prohibiting the financing of exorbitant fees, ``packing'' in of unnecessary and costly products, such as single premium credit insurance, and limiting prepayment penalties. Finally, it protects these consumers' rights to seek redress by prohibiting mandatory arbitration, as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed unanimously in 2000.We often hear about the importance of improved enforcement as a way to combat this

problem. As the FTC pointed out, mandatory arbitration prevents homeowners from exercising any of their rights to enforce existing law.

We cannot extol the virtues of homeownership, as we so often do, without seeking at the same time to preserve this benefit for so many elderly, minority, and unsophisticated Americans who are the targets of unscrupulous lenders and brokers. This legislation will help achieve this important goal. This bill has been endorsed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Council of La Raza, the National Consumer Law Center, ACORN, National Consumer Reinvestment Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, the NAACP, the Self-Help Credit Union, the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, the National Community Development Association, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the National League of Cities, among others.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in July of 2001, and continuing through January of the following year, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a series of hearings to shine a bright light on the deceptive and destructive practices of predatory mortgage lenders. At those hearings, the Committee heard from housing experts, community groups, legal advocates, industry representatives and victims of predatory lending in an effort to determine how best to address this terrible problem. Today, I am introducing legislation, the ``Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003,'' along with a number of my colleagues, that would begin to address the problems that came to light in those hearings.

Homeownership is the American Dream. Indeed, the Committee has already passed legislation this year that would authorize a new $200 million downpayment assistance program to ensure that more people can achieve this goal.

We have taken this step because homeownership is the best opportunity for most Americans to put down roots and start creating equity for themselves and their families. Homeownership has been the path to building wealth for generations of Americans, wealth that can be tapped to send children to college, pay for a secure retirement, or simply work as a reserve against unexpected emergencies. It has been the key to ensuring stable communities, good schools, and safe streets. Common sense tells us, and the evidence confirms, that homeowners are more engaged citizens and more active in their communities.

Little wonder, then, that so many Americans, young and old, aspire to achieve this dream.

Unhappily, predatory lenders cynically play on these hopes and dreams to cheat people out of their wealth. These lenders target lower income, elderly, and, often, uneducated homeowners for their abusive practices. Study after study has shown that predatory lenders also target minorities, driving a wedge between these families and the hope of a productive life in the economic and financial mainstream of America.

We owe it to these hardworking families to provide protections against these unscrupulous players.

Let me share with you one of the stories we heard at our hearings. Mary Ann Podelco, a widowed waitress from West Virginia, used $19,000 from her husband's life insurance to pay off the balance on her mortgage, thus owning her home free and clear. Before her husband's death, she had never had a checking account or a credit card. She then took out a $11,921 loan for repairs. At the time, her monthly income from Social Security was $458, and her loan payments were more than half this amount. Ms. Podelco, who has a sixth grade education, testified that after her first refinancing, ``I began getting calls from people trying to refinance my mortgage all hours of the day and night.'' Within 2 years, having been advised to refinance seven times-- each time seeing high points and fees being financed into her new loan--she owed $64,000, and lost her home to foreclosure.

Ms. Podelco's story is all too typical. Unfortunately, most of the sharp practices used by unscrupulous lenders and brokers, while unethical and clearly abusive, are not illegal. This bill is designed to address that problem by tightening the interest rate and fee triggers that define high cost loans; the bill improves protections for borrowers receiving such loans by prohibiting the financing of exorbitant fees, ``packing'' in of unnecessary and costly products, such as single premium credit insurance, and limiting prepayment penalties. Finally, it protects these consumers' rights to seek redress by prohibiting mandatory arbitration, as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed unanimously in 2000.We often hear about the importance of improved enforcement as a way to combat this

problem. As the FTC pointed out, mandatory arbitration prevents homeowners from exercising any of their rights to enforce existing law.

We cannot extol the virtues of homeownership, as we so often do, without seeking at the same time to preserve this benefit for so many elderly, minority, and unsophisticated Americans who are the targets of unscrupulous lenders and brokers. This legislation will help achieve this important goal. This bill has been endorsed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Council of La Raza, the National Consumer Law Center, ACORN, National Consumer Reinvestment Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, the NAACP, the Self-Help Credit Union, the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, the National Community Development Association, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the National League of Cities, among others.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, Allen and Santorum.

On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation released its sixth annual State of the Bay report. The report is headlined ``The Bay's Health Remains Dangerously Out of Balance and Is Getting Worse.'' Indeed, this summer the Chesapeake Bay's so-called ``dead zone''--the area of oxygen-and life-depleted waters--extended more than 100 miles down the Bay, the largest area ever recorded. Scientists observed extensive algal blooms and watermen reported pulling up nets of dead fish and crab ``jubilees''--a rare phenomenon of crabs fleeing the water for air. The cause of the pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is clear: high levels of nitrogen coming from sewage treatment plants, air deposition, runoff from farmlands, and stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas. The water pollution caused by high levels of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, continues despite two decades of efforts from all the jurisdictions in the watershed, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, to address it.

Scientists, State and Federal agencies and citizen advocates know what must be done to address the excessive nutrients which pollute the Bay's water. The 304 major sewage treatment plants in the watershed must be upgraded to reduce the nutrients coming into the Bay. Farmers must be given the best technology and resources to keep excess fertilizer and sediments out of the Bay. Air deposition must be reduced. And new financing mechanisms must be developed to help local governments control stormwater runoff.

Earlier this year, a Chesapeake Bay Commission report entitled The Cost of a Clean Bay, found a $9.4 billion gap in the resources needed to reduce nutrients and sediments in the Bay to levels sufficient to remove the estuary from the Environmental Protection Agency's list of impaired waters. While $9.4 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that the health of Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the Nation. It is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the finfish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration.

On November 3, 2003, I was joined by the six Senators and 16 Members of the House of Representatives from the Chesapeake Bay watershed States, in a bipartisan letter to President Bush urging him to commit $1 billion to restoring the Bay's water quality. We pointed out to the President that, with a matching State funding requirement and proper targeting, these funds would provide a tremendous boost to the efforts to reduce nutrient pollution in the Bay and that this investment would pay big dividends in restoring the ecological and economic health or our nation's greatest estuary. We realize that this request is but a first step to bring to bear the necessary resources to accomplish the nutrient reduction.

The legislation which we are offering today represents the next step in the effort to close the $9.4 billion gap and help assure that the effort to reduce nutrient pollution in Chesapeake Bay will be focused properly and funded adequately for the long term. It directs the Administrator of EPA to establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing to oversee development of a comprehensive implementation plan to address the funding needs and/or regulatory requirements for reducing nutrient pollution loads in Chesapeake Bay sufficient to comply with Clean Water Act standards by the year 2010. The Commission is charged to address the appropriate responsibilities of the Federal, State and local governments in financing sewage treatment plant upgrades, agricultural and other nonpoint source runoff controls, and urban stormwater management. It is also directed to address the opportunities for enhancing the role of the private sector in financial support for nutrient reduction either directly or through public/private partnerships.

The Commission will have a vital role to play in Chesapeake Bay restoration. Through the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program and its partners, our scientific and technical understanding of what needs to be done to reduce excess nutrients going into the Bay serves as a model for the Nation. Yet these practices cannot be implemented without sufficient funding, and current estimates suggest that a doubling of nutrient reduction efforts to date will be required. The Commission is critically needed to explore responsibilities, opportunities and mechanisms for generating the financial backing needed to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Let me add that the economics of nutrient reduction is an issue faced by many regions of the country. Many of the recommendations of this Commission regarding the financing of sewage treatment plant upgrades, agricultural nutrient reduction practices, and stormwater and air pollution control could be transferred to for use elsewhere around the Nation.

It is our expectation that, in carrying out its functions, the Commission will draw upon the expertise of other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA as well as State and local governments, academia and the private and non-profit sector and establish a multidisciplinary advisory panel to assist the Commission in preparing its report and recommendations. Valuable work is now being carried out by the Chesapeake Bay Program in a great number of areas including nutrient reduction,

oyster restoration, submerged aquatic vegetation, and environmental education to mention a few and it is not intended that the Commission be in any way a substitute for the Bay Program. Rather it is to support the work of the Bay Program by dissecting financial responsibilities into component parts--Federal, State, local and private and by addressing the funding and/or regulatory requirements of the work to be done to end the Bay's water pollution from too much nutrient loading.

Establishment of the special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing will serve to kick start the critical work which must now be done to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It is supported by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission as evidenced by their letters. I ask unanimous consent that the two letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, Allen and Santorum.

On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation released its sixth annual State of the Bay report. The report is headlined ``The Bay's Health Remains Dangerously Out of Balance and Is Getting Worse.'' Indeed, this summer the Chesapeake Bay's so-called ``dead zone''--the area of oxygen-and life-depleted waters--extended more than 100 miles down the Bay, the largest area ever recorded. Scientists observed extensive algal blooms and watermen reported pulling up nets of dead fish and crab ``jubilees''--a rare phenomenon of crabs fleeing the water for air. The cause of the pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is clear: high levels of nitrogen coming from sewage treatment plants, air deposition, runoff from farmlands, and stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas. The water pollution caused by high levels of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, continues despite two decades of efforts from all the jurisdictions in the watershed, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, to address it.

Scientists, State and Federal agencies and citizen advocates know what must be done to address the excessive nutrients which pollute the Bay's water. The 304 major sewage treatment plants in the watershed must be upgraded to reduce the nutrients coming into the Bay. Farmers must be given the best technology and resources to keep excess fertilizer and sediments out of the Bay. Air deposition must be reduced. And new financing mechanisms must be developed to help local governments control stormwater runoff.

Earlier this year, a Chesapeake Bay Commission report entitled The Cost of a Clean Bay, found a $9.4 billion gap in the resources needed to reduce nutrients and sediments in the Bay to levels sufficient to remove the estuary from the Environmental Protection Agency's list of impaired waters. While $9.4 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that the health of Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the Nation. It is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the finfish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration.

On November 3, 2003, I was joined by the six Senators and 16 Members of the House of Representatives from the Chesapeake Bay watershed States, in a bipartisan letter to President Bush urging him to commit $1 billion to restoring the Bay's water quality. We pointed out to the President that, with a matching State funding requirement and proper targeting, these funds would provide a tremendous boost to the efforts to reduce nutrient pollution in the Bay and that this investment would pay big dividends in restoring the ecological and economic health or our nation's greatest estuary. We realize that this request is but a first step to bring to bear the necessary resources to accomplish the nutrient reduction.

The legislation which we are offering today represents the next step in the effort to close the $9.4 billion gap and help assure that the effort to reduce nutrient pollution in Chesapeake Bay will be focused properly and funded adequately for the long term. It directs the Administrator of EPA to establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing to oversee development of a comprehensive implementation plan to address the funding needs and/or regulatory requirements for reducing nutrient pollution loads in Chesapeake Bay sufficient to comply with Clean Water Act standards by the year 2010. The Commission is charged to address the appropriate responsibilities of the Federal, State and local governments in financing sewage treatment plant upgrades, agricultural and other nonpoint source runoff controls, and urban stormwater management. It is also directed to address the opportunities for enhancing the role of the private sector in financial support for nutrient reduction either directly or through public/private partnerships.

The Commission will have a vital role to play in Chesapeake Bay restoration. Through the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program and its partners, our scientific and technical understanding of what needs to be done to reduce excess nutrients going into the Bay serves as a model for the Nation. Yet these practices cannot be implemented without sufficient funding, and current estimates suggest that a doubling of nutrient reduction efforts to date will be required. The Commission is critically needed to explore responsibilities, opportunities and mechanisms for generating the financial backing needed to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Let me add that the economics of nutrient reduction is an issue faced by many regions of the country. Many of the recommendations of this Commission regarding the financing of sewage treatment plant upgrades, agricultural nutrient reduction practices, and stormwater and air pollution control could be transferred to for use elsewhere around the Nation.

It is our expectation that, in carrying out its functions, the Commission will draw upon the expertise of other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA as well as State and local governments, academia and the private and non-profit sector and establish a multidisciplinary advisory panel to assist the Commission in preparing its report and recommendations. Valuable work is now being carried out by the Chesapeake Bay Program in a great number of areas including nutrient reduction,

oyster restoration, submerged aquatic vegetation, and environmental education to mention a few and it is not intended that the Commission be in any way a substitute for the Bay Program. Rather it is to support the work of the Bay Program by dissecting financial responsibilities into component parts--Federal, State, local and private and by addressing the funding and/or regulatory requirements of the work to be done to end the Bay's water pollution from too much nutrient loading.

Establishment of the special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing will serve to kick start the critical work which must now be done to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It is supported by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission as evidenced by their letters. I ask unanimous consent that the two letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment, by my colleague Senator Mikulski to boost federal funding for the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving funds (SRF) by an additional $3 billion. I spoke earlier this year on a similar amendment which I offered to the Senate budget resolution and I just want to underscore some of the key reasons this amendment is needed.

The President's Fiscal 2004 budget severely short changes the funds needed by State and local governments to upgrade their aging wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. The President's budget provided only $1.7 billion for both State Revolving Funds, split equally. The Committee-approved bill provided an additional $500 million, restoring the President's budget cut to the Fiscal 2003 enacted level of funding of $2.2 million--but is still short of what is needed.

Despite important progress over the last three decades, EPA reports that more than 40 percent of our nation's lakes, rivers and streams are still too impaired for fishing or swimming. Discharges from aging and failing seweage systems, urban storm water and other sources, continue to pose serious threats to our nation's waters, endangering not only public health, but fishing and recreation industries. Population growth and development are

placing additional stress on the nation's water infrastructure and its ability to sustain hard-won water quality gains.

Combined sewer systems or so-called CSOs can be found in more than 750 communities in 32 States and the District of Columbia. EPA estimates that annual combined sewer systems discharge nearly 1,300 billion gallons of untreated or under-treated wastewater. To eliminate sewer overflows, the City of Baltimore alone must invest more than $900 million to upgrade its sewer system and comply with a consent decree with the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency. Many other cities across the nation face similar challenges. In fact, three years ago, in 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to authorize a $1.5 billion grant program to help cities reduce these wet weather flows, but funds have not been available to implement the program.

Nearly 20,000 municipalities have separate sewer systems or SSOs, serving a population of 150 million. Unlike CSOs, these separate sanitary collection systems are not intended to carry significant volumes of extraneous water, such as storm water runoff, but frequently do because of infiltration and inflow, aging systems, and other factors. EPA acknowledges that sanitary sewer overflows pose a severe problem to the environment and public health.

Across the nation, our wastewater and drinking water systems are aging. In some cases, systems currently in use were built more than a century ago and have outlived their useful life. For many communities, current treatment is not sufficient to meet water quality goals. Recent modeling of the EPA's Bay Program has found that the 304 major municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the watershed will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. Achieving this goal is estimated to cost $4.4 billion.

In April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a broad coalition of local elected officials, drinking water and wastewater service providers, state environmental and health administrators, engineers and environmentalists released a report, Clean & Safe Water for the 21st Century. The report documented a $23 billion a year shortfall in funding needed to meet national environmental and public health priorities in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act and to replace aging and failing infrastructure.

In May 2002, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that estimated the spending gap for Clean Water needs between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years and the spending gap for drinking water needs at between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years.

In September 2002, the EPA released a Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis which found that there will be a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional investments are not made. This figure does not even account for investments necessary to meet water quality goals in nutrient impaired waters, like Chesapeake Bay.

The need for additional investment in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure is clearly documented.

But, States, localities and private sources can't meet the funding gap alone.

Local communities already pay almost 90 percent of the total cost or about $60 billion a year to build, operate, and maintain their water and wastewater systems. But as former Administrator Whitman pointed out, ``(t)he magnitude of the challenge America faces is clearly beyond the ability of any one entity to address.''

Water pollution is an interstate problem. The Congress understood the interstate dynamic of pollution in 1972 when a bi-partisan majority passed the Clean Water Act and began funding waste treatment infrastructure. In 1979 and 1980, the Congress provided $5 billion in Clean Water construction grants alone to assist states and municipalities with wastewater infrastructure needs. Over the years, budgetary pressures and other factors have reduced that funding level, and in Fiscal 2003, we provided only $1.34 billion in Clean Water State Revolving loan funds.

It is vital that the Federal government maintain a strong partnership with states and local governments in averting the massive projected funding gap and share in the burden of maintaining and improving the nation's water infrastructure. Municipalities need significant resources to comply with Federal clean water and drinking water standards. In the 107th Congress, House and Senate committees approved bills to authorize $20 billion over 5 years for the Clean Water Act SRF, underscoring the recognition that something must be done to address this funding gap.

An increase in funding for the Clean Water SRF to $3.2 billion and for the Drinking Water SRF to $2 billion in fiscal 2004 is the first step necessary to meet the Federal government's longstanding commitment in this regard.

This isn't a make-work public works project. It is an investment in the health of Americans and in a clean environment. It is an investment that will pay substantial dividends.

Wastewater treatment plants not only prevent billions of tons of pollutants each year from reaching our rivers, lakes, streams, and coasts they also help prevent water-borne diseases and make waters safe for swimming and fishing.

According to the Water Infrastructure Network, ``Clean water supports a $50 billion a year water-based recreation industry, at least $300 billion a year in coastal tourism, a $45 billion annual commercial fishing and shell fishing industry, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year in basic manufacturing that relies on clean water. Clean rivers, lakes, and coastlines attract investment in local communities and increase land values on or near the water, which in turn, create jobs, add incremental tax base, and increase income and property tax revenue to local, state, and federal government. Some 54,000 community drinking water systems provide drinking water to more than 250 million Americans. By keeping water supplies free of contaminants that cause disease, these systems reduce sickness and related health care costs and absenteeism in the workforce.''

They also create jobs--indeed tens of thousands of jobs and provide stimulus to the economy.

Each $1 billion in sewer and water improvements creates an estimated 40,000 jobs. With more than $5 billion in water infrastructure projects ready for construction, these jobs would be created immediately with Federal assistance. According to OMB, every federal dollar invested in water infrastructure generates up to $4 for project loans, so the potential for job creation from this amendment is tremendous.

The case for this amendment is compelling. Today, maintaining clear, safe water remains one of our greatest national and global challenges.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help address the massive funding gap that looms on the horizon. Failure to act now risks undermining thirty years of progress in cleaning up our nation's waters.

Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question, reserving his right to the floor?

If I could have the attention of the Senator from Missouri as I pose this question? Would the Senator entertain a unanimous consent request that allowed the amendments that are lined up here to be offered and to be accepted? I understand they are all going to be taken by voice.

I am not asking. I am just inquiring of the Senator's view of that.

Mr. President, have the amendments been adopted?

Have the amendments been adopted?

Would the Chair state the parliamentary situation, please.

I will address the various issues concerning the long- term unemployed in this country. Before that, I will make a couple of comments about the judges.

Sixty-three of President Clinton's nominees were blocked from consideration. Four of President Bush's nominees have been blocked. Twenty percent of the Clinton nominees in the period of 1995 to 2000, the period when the other side controlled the Senate, the committees and the floor, were blocked and not given any opportunity to move forward. Many of those blocked were extraordinarily able people. Only four of President Bush's nominees have been blocked. Many of us feel very strongly that they represent extreme points of view outside of the legal mainstream in this country.

In a sense, the period over the last 6 years of the last century when an incredible number of the President's nominees were blocked is the genesis of the situation that people are talking about. Of course, the other side was able to do it in committee. They did not have to do it on the floor, they did it in the committee since they had a majority in the committee and they simply brought the curtain down at that point.

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an editorial entitled ``Chatter in the Cave of the Winds.'' I ask unanimous consent the full text of that editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I will quote part of it and then I will elaborate on this issue.

Senate majority Republicans might take a moment--or even a

vote--to extend reassurance to the nation's millions of

unemployed tonight during the 30-hour ersatz ``filibuster''

they plan to protest the Democrats' blocking of President

Bush's more extremist judicial appointees. The filibusters

will talk through the night, performing from a political

script in a time-wasting tableau designed to produce campaign

fodder for next year. But out there in real life, federal

emergency unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire on

Dec. 31 with no sign of notice from the Republicans in

Congress. A year ago, they blithely quit the Capitol and let

the unemployed stew through the holidays before retroactively

approving a benefit extension that was far too modest.

I recall that very well because I was involved in the effort last year to try to extend these unemployment insurance benefits and the Congress left. It went home. The unemployment benefits ran out. People found themselves in absolutely dire circumstances. When the Congress finally returned, they extended the benefits retroactively. But meanwhile, people had passed through an extraordinarily difficult time for themselves and their family.

Nearly 9 million workers are unemployed today. There are another 4.8 million, just under 5 million Americans, who want full-time jobs but can only find part-time work. Some people

choose to work part-time. These are people who want to work full time but cannot find full-time jobs so they have part-time jobs. That is almost 14 million Americans, those that are unemployed and those that are underemployed. In addition to that we have about 1.5 million Americans who were in the labor force but dropped out because they are so discouraged about the prospects of finding work.

This is the worst jobless recovery since the Great Depression. During this administration we have lost 2.9 million private-sector jobs, as measured by employees on private nonfarm payrolls. This chart shows where we were in January of 2001 and this is where we are in October of 2003. That is a loss of just under 3 million jobs.

Even the Secretary of the Treasury is not predicting that all of those jobs, will be recovered by the end of this term. He has made a prediction which a lot of people think cannot be achieved, but even the administration is not predicting that they are going to recover all of the lost jobs.

Now, if they do not recover these lost jobs, and I see no way that they can possibly do that, this will be the first presidential administration since Herbert Hoover under which the economy has lost private-sector jobs.

This chart shows presidents and private-sector jobs gained or lost during an administration, in millions. We start with President Harding and then we go to President Coolidge. The green on the chart shows there was job gain during those administrations. Then we plunge down with President Hoover and we come back for job gains, all positive, net job gains during these administrations, President Roosevelt, President Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush the first, President Clinton; and, now, the current President Bush, with a negative, net job loss.

In the past, it has been a long-standing bipartisan policy to extend unemployment insurance during periods of labor market weakness. Unemployment insurance benefits were actually extended four times during the Reagan administration and three times during the first Bush Administration. The month we are in is the 31st month since the recession began. At this point during the 1990s recession, every worker was eligible for a minimum of 20 weeks of additional benefit. The basic benefit is 26 weeks. We then seek to extend it if the labor market is not improving, so people can support their families. Actually, the benefit they get is less than 50 percent of what they were earning and in order to draw an unemployment insurance benefit you must have built up an employment record. So by definition, you were working and you had a job, you lost your job, and only then do you get the unemployment insurance benefit. The benefit is designed to help carry you and your family through difficult circumstances.

Now we have 13 weeks of extended benefits but that pales in comparison with what was done in previous times. It certainly is inadequate in the face of a labor market in which we are not recovering jobs. What are these people to do who lose their jobs, they start drawing unemployment benefits, the benefits run out, they have been looking for work, they cannot find work, and then they no longer receive benefits. How do they support their family at a minimum level? They cannot do it.

As the New York Times said in this article:

After the tax-cutting binges President Bush and Congress

engineered for the affluent, failure to renew the nation's

helping hand to the jobless would present a scandalous

holiday scenario worthy of Dickens. More than talk, action is

required.

They are absolutely right. Mr. President, 1.4 million American workers have exhausted their benefits and are unable to find work. They are out in the cold with no support. We now have over 2 million long- term unemployed. That is people who have been out of work for 26 weeks or more.

When President Bush came into office in January of 2001, the number of long-term unemployed, people unemployed for more than 26 weeks, was 660,000. The number of long-term unemployed in October of 2003, is just over two million. The number of long-term unemployed has tripled in the course of this administration. It now constitutes 23 percent of the entire unemployed population.

The last time such a large percentage of the unemployed were the long-term employed--in other words, people out of work for more than 26 weeks--was 20 years ago. This is the worst performance in 20 years, in two decades. Obviously, we need to extend these unemployment benefits and repeated efforts to do so have been blocked. The leadership is talking about leaving at the end of next week until next year. Of course, what that means is millions more will run out of their benefits and be unable to sustain their families.

There is money in the unemployment insurance trust fund for this purpose. That money is paid in, in good times, in order to address the situation in bad times. But that money is not being used. It was specifically set aside for this purpose. The extension of unemployment insurance benefits is a policy we have followed in the past. It has support from both sides.

These benefits are for people without jobs. I am hearing lamentations about four people who did not get their Federal judgeships. They have other jobs. These people have no jobs.

We made repeated efforts to bring the legislation up. I will make such an effort right now, once again. There is legislation pending to address this issue in the Finance Committee. It would help these workers. It would help our economy. It would ensure that we did not go through the travail and the turmoil which occurred at the end of last year, as well. It would provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits to those who have already exhausted their benefits.

[From the New York Times, Nov. 12, 2003]

Chatter in the Cave of the Winds

Senate majority Republicans might take a moment--or even a

vote--to extend reassurance to the nation's millions of

unemployed tonight during the 30-hour ersatz ``filibuster''

they plan to protest the Democrats' blocking of President

Bush's more extremist judicial appointees. The filibusterers

will talk through the night, performing from a political

script in a time-wasting tableau designed to produce campaign

fodder for next year. But out there in real life, federal

emergency unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire on

Dec. 31, with no sign of notice from the Republicans in

Congress. A year ago, they blithely quit the Capitol and let

the unemployed stew through the holidays before retroactively

approving a benefit extension that was far too modest.

This filibuster has no practical purpose. In the older

days, a single lawmaker had to talk nonstop to block a hated

bill; nowadays, the leadership merely counts heads to see if

enough senators want to block a bill and then it is silently

hung up. So if the retro-orators just want to make rhetorical

points today and run short of topics, we beg them to ponder

their jobless constituents instead of resorting to

boilerplate sound bites and creaky filibuster stunts (in sad

memory there was Alfonse D'Amato's singing an ``Old

McDonald'' parody).

Serious help is needed for the 2.4 million more recent

jobless facing the end of their state benefits, not to

mention the 2.1 million long-term unemployed who have slipped

off the job-hunting scope. The promising uptick in the deep

hiring slump--126,000 new jobs in October--is less than half

the rate needed to even begin to dent the backup of

joblessness. To deal realistically with the problem, Congress

needs to double--to 26 weeks from 13 weeks--the federal

emergency benefits that are available when state benefits run

out. This would be similar to the help offered during the

recession of a decade ago when long-term joblessness,

especially in manufacturing, was hardly the problem it is

now.

After the tax-cutting binges President Bush and Congress

engineered for the affluent, failure to renew the nation's

helping hand to the jobless would present a scandalous

holiday scenario worthy of Dickens. More than talk, action is

required.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1853

Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session, that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President I made a unanimous consent request, which is pending.

The Senator does not modify the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I join with my colleagues on this Veterans Day in paying tribute to those men and women who have so ably served in our Nation's Armed Forces and honoring the tremendous sacrifices they have made for this great country.

I firmly believe that those citizens who have been called upon to defend our Nation, to risk and in many cases sacrifice their lives, deserve our utmost respect and gratitude, for these noble men and women are responsible for the peace and freedom which we, as Americans, cherish.

As we use this time to reflect upon the heroic deeds of the past, we should also recognize the significance of these deeds for the present and the future. Due to the unselfish efforts of those of who have served, those who serve now, and the efforts of all of those who are no longer here with us, the world continues to be a safer place and the principles of democracy survive.

I have often said we ought not be sunshine patriots, that our dedication to the men and women who have served should not solely be reserved for days such as this. Rather, we should be cognizant of their contributions every day of the year.

Throughout my time in Congress, I am pleased to have fought hard on behalf of the issues of importance to our Nation's veterans: improving veterans

health care and making it more accessible, protecting our veterans' benefits, including the authorization of concurrent receipt, and ensuring that each veteran has a proper burial.

This week, the Senate may take up the Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill--which will fund VA and its programs during the current fiscal year. I am pleased to have joined with many of my colleagues in working to increase the VA budget by $1.3 billion--to ensure that all veterans receive the benefits to which they are entitled. I am hopeful that this increase will ultimately be included in the bill when it is sent to the President for signature.

In my view, we have a responsibility to adequately fund these programs--programs critical to the continued health and welfare of our Nation's veterans. It is simply a matter of fairness and is, indeed, the very least we can do to honor their commitment and service to this Nation.

Mr. President, this is the legislation we spent all day yesterday on. We worked through the issues, I think, in a reasonable and collegial fashion and the measure is now before us for final passage. I thank the chairman of the committee for his many courtesies.

I yield back the remainder of my time.