Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield for a question?

If the Senator's chart continued out into this year--I take it the chart stops in 2003?

If it continued out into this year, it would show a descending line, would it not?

I want to focus on----

That is all I wanted to hear.

Madam President, I was struck by the fact that when my colleague from Alabama presented his chart on economic growth, it stopped at the end of last year and did not carry forward into this year. Of course, had it carried forward into this year, it would have shown a declining trend in economic growth and that is a matter, obviously, of very deep concern. In fact, there was a story last week, a Reuters news story last week, that said:

Top U.S. executives are pessimistic about next year's U.S.

economy. About 70 percent of the chief executives surveyed by

the Business Council projected flat to 2 percent U.S.

economic growth. More bearish than forecasts by major

economists, the Business Council survey, often seen as a

gauge of corporate sentiment, was released ahead of a meeting

of the group's members, about 125 CEOs from companies . . .

Then they cite a number of the large companies in the country, saying generally CEOs are a bit more pessimistic, referring to the difference of opinion between executives and economists.

The U.S. economy actually grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the second quarter of this year. Now these chief executives are projecting a flat to 2-percent growth. My colleagues on the other side, if you bring these uncomfortable facts to their attention, they say, well, you are talking doom and gloom. But how are we going to realistically deal with our problems if we do not face what our problems are?

I want to address one question, because the previous presentation talked as though the only relevant factor is economic growth. It never addressed job growth. It only addressed job growth in the sense of saying if you had economic growth, you would have job growth. If you didn't have economic growth, you would have job loss. But the problem is more complicated than that, the problem we are confronting right now. I want to point out a couple of factors in that regard.

This chart shows how unemployment has moved in previous postwar recoveries, and how it is moving in this one. What it shows: Of course, you obviously get a downward trend in employment as you go into a recession. Then you try to come out of a recession. Of course, recessions are measured by economic growth figures. In the average of postwar recoveries, this is what has happened with respect to employment. We have had this kind of growth. So we have had a good, rising trend in employment.

In this recession, this is what has happened to employment. There is a huge gap here in terms of the recovery with respect to jobs. That is why we are so concerned about jobs. That is why we continuously stress that point.

This figure was underscored earlier in the conversation we had about the number of long-term unemployed, which has jumped so substantially. One question becomes, Why are we not getting the jobs? I think one answer to that is to be found in these two charts. What we see in recent years is a sharp increase in productivity. In other words, that is what a worker can produce for each hour of work. But we do not see an increase in worker wages. Productivity is growing much faster than worker wages. The workers who are producing more for each hour worked are, in effect, not sharing in the benefits and their wages are running virtually constant.

One might ask, What happened in other recessions? What usually happens is that worker wages, as you come out of the recession, rise commensurate with their share of the economy, which is about two- thirds. But here is what is happening this time. The worker wages are not rising, but the corporate profits are rising 65 percent. So most of the benefit from the economic growth in this partial recovery is not going to the workers, but it is going to corporate profits. This is in marked contrast with previous recoveries. I want to underscore that point. This is a very different pattern than we have seen in the past. Of course, part of the reason for that is the policies of this administration.

Then the counterargument is made on the other side: If you give the corporation these profits, they will invest them and therefore strengthen the economy, build the economy and create jobs. But here is what has happened in this Bush administration. These are the growth rates of plant and equipment investment by U.S. corporations. As you can see, it actually is down, negative during this Bush administration, compared with previous administrations in which it was a positive figure. So what is happening is the benefits are being skewed away from the workers, but those receiving the benefits are not investing them in the economy in order to build businesses and create jobs. That, of course, explains in part, in my view, why there is such a tremendous lag in this recovery in terms of producing jobs. There is no way you can get around the fact.

I listened earlier. No one actually challenged any of the figures or facts about the employment situation. There is no way you can get around the fact that this is the first administration in 75 years not to have a net gain of jobs in the course of the administration. They are still down 825,000 jobs from where they were when they came into

office. They are down 1.6 million jobs in the private sector and they are down 2.7 million manufacturing jobs.

My colleague from Alabama says we have produced this year a gain of 93,000 jobs. He says that is a good thing. It is a good thing in the sense that we want to be positive in producing manufacturing jobs. It is not such a good thing if you put it in the context of the fact that we have lost 2.7 million jobs since January of 2001. If you put the figure in context, I am relieved that we gained a few manufacturing jobs this year. That is certainly better than losing them. But if you are looking at the record of this administration, the fact is in the course of this administration they have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs.

You can come to the floor and say we gained 93,000 manufacturing jobs this year, and that is a good thing. As far as that statement goes, it is a good thing. But it is in the context of the fact that we lost 2.7 million jobs over this time period, over the entire time period. That also relates, of course, to the points that are being made now about the gain in jobs that has taken place--well, the month that is usually used by my colleagues on the other side is, I think, August of 2003. I am pleased and relieved that we have gained some jobs. But the fact remains these job gains have tailed off in recent months.

The other side would have a story to tell if they had sustained job gains. They might have gotten out of the hole and actually produced more jobs, a net gain of jobs in the course of their administration. The Treasury Secretary was projecting it would create a huge number of jobs. It has not happened.

As this chart indicates, we are on a descending line month to month in terms of job creation going back to the beginning of this year. That is the concern about jobs.

It is fine and good to come to the floor and show economic growth charts, although one would have hoped that the chart would have carried out into this year and not stopped at the end of last year.

Second, one has to take into account what people are now saying about what to expect on economic growth, and particularly the story from last week about the Business Council meeting. The leading U.S. corporation chief executives met in Irving, TX, where the top U.S. chief executives said they are pessimistic about next year's economy. About 70 percent of the chief executives surveyed by the Business Council projected flat to 2 percent U.S. economic growth.

That is why we are concerned. That is why the public is concerned. That is why working people are concerned. They feel it.

You may come to the floor and say everything is a rosy scenario. But if you are long-term unemployed, you know it is not a rosy scenario. Long-term unemployed now as a share of the unemployed is at the highest figure it has been--over 20 percent now for 24 straight months.

Trying to portray a rosy scenario is not going to take care of the problem of the long-term unemployed. We tried to do something about that in the Senate. We tried to extend the unemployment benefits, but that was beaten back, regrettably. People who exhaust their benefits and aren't able to find a job find themselves in dire circumstances in terms of meeting the needs of their families.

I think we have a serious job unemployment situation. I think we need to face it. I don't think it helps to simply try to brush it away, paper it over. These trend lines, regrettably, are not working in the right direction.

Now, with this forecast from these top U.S. executives of the Business Council, we can see that we face an even greater challenge as we move towards 2005.

I simply close with the observation that this administration has not produced a net gain of jobs in the course of its tenure. You have to go all the way back to Herbert Hoover to find an administration, whether Democrat or Republican, through that period that failed to produce a net gain of jobs in the course of that administration. That, of course, is one of the very key reasons this election that comes before us on November 2 is so important for the future of our country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Was the Senator disappointed by the jobs figures for the month of September of 96,000?

The Senator has to go back to March of this year to get the kind of job figures he is talking about.

The concern is that these job figures are coming down like this. It seems to me that the Senator has to face the fact that this is where the job figures have been trending over the last 6 months.

No.

I would like to answer the question he just put to me.

Not in the last 3 or 4 months, earlier in the year. Employment, again for the last 4 months, totaled 400,000 in the last 4 months. So it has averaged about 100,000 a month.

He inherited a very strong economy in terms of the number of people who were working. And participation in the labor force was up very high. We broke records in terms of job production in the 1990s in the number of people we put to work.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my pleasure that yesterday the Senate incorporated an important amendment I authored with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Harkin, into the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Our amendment strengthens Congress's role in protecting our civil liberties as we move forward with the reform of our intelligence structure. The randomness of the terrorist acts of September 11, and the relative ease with which they were perpetrated, exposed serious gaps and deficiencies in our intelligence and security systems. In the aftermath of those attacks, we established the 9/11 Commission, which through its seminal report and recommendations has helped to clearly identify critical problem areas and recommend solutions to remedy them. And now, through this National Intelligence Reform Act, we are working to implement these recommendations in a way that strengthens the intelligence infrastructure and increases synergy and coordination within our intelligence community.

But in the aftermath of September 11--in our vigilance to protect against future attacks and to comprehensively overhaul our intelligence system--we run the risk of enacting procedures that could diminish or overrun our civil liberties. The Commission recognized this risk and in one of its most important recommendations has wisely suggested the establishment of a civil liberties oversight board within the executive branch. In the spirit of that recommendation the authors of the underlying bill have provided for such a board whose purpose it is to continuously review the impact on civil liberties of intelligence gathering initiatives and operations devised under the new National Intelligence Program, NIP. To that end, the board will be charged with reviewing new proposals under the NIP, advising on the civil rights implications of those proposals, and determining whether proposals will expand powers at the expense of our civil liberties.

The question arises, however, as to what the board can do with a finding that a violation has occurred. Under the bill as currently drafted the Board is not authorized to intervene or put any stopgaps in place through the legislative or regulatory process. I recognize that the intelligence community must have the ability to implement its proposals and operations with a level of flexibility and expedience. But, I also recognize that the board must have the ability to check initiatives that infringe on our most sacred constitutional rights. Our amendment strikes a balance between these two goals by making Congress aware of specific instances in which the board has significant concerns about a given proposal's adverse effect on civil liberties. Specifically, this amendment requires that the board include, within its biannual reports, a detailed accounting of each time the board finds that: No. 1, a proposal to create a new means of gathering intelligence will unnecessarily infringe on civil liberties; and No. 2, that finding is not adequately addressed by those implementing or creating the means.

By receiving this information, Congress will be able to keep pace with the implementation of national intelligence reform as well as provide guidance on ways to refine and calibrate new intelligence gathering initiatives so that we balance security interests with constitutional rights. In short, the amendment provides Congress the information it needs to accomplish a critical part of its oversight function, ensuring that while we work to keep our country safe we also safeguard the constitutional freedoms upon which it was founded. Again, I thank the managers for including this important

amendment in the underlying legislation.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the very able Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, for offering this amendment. I am pleased to join with him as a cosponsor.

Senator Reed has played a leading role in the Congress on the issue of transit security. In fact, in the last Congress he held a series of hearings on transit issues, and a good deal of the focus of those hearings was on the transit security challenges we face.

This is a vitally important amendment needed to better protect the American people. I observe to my colleagues that throughout the world, public transportation systems have been a target of terrorist attacks. A terrorist attack against a passenger train in Madrid, attacks against transit systems in both Moscow and South Korea demonstrate that transit and rail systems are a target of terrorists worldwide.

Despite the significant threat which obviously exists to transit and rail systems, security funding has been grossly inadequate. As a result, our Nation's transit and rail systems have been unable to implement necessary security improvements, in many instances even those that have been identified as necessary by the Department of Homeland Security.

To take one example, Washington Metro's greatest security need at the moment is a backup operations control center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration in its initial security assessment, and then identified again by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security assessment. Regrettably, this critical need remains unaddressed because of a lack of funding.

Last March, I, along with Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Allen, wrote to Secretary Ridge urging funding for this and other critical needs such as chemical detection and decontamination systems, but the money is not there and the needs remain.

In May of this year, the Banking Committee undertook to address these issues on a national basis. My colleague from Rhode Island played an instrumental role in considering this issue in the committee. The committee, on a bipartisan basis, with a unanimous vote, passed the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act. Regrettably, we have not yet been able to move that legislation forward on the Senate floor. This amendment tracks many of the provisions of that legislation. It addresses the need for increased transit security by providing for grants along the lines of the bill that was reported out of the committee.

I note in that regard that Banking Committee Chairman Shelby took a keen interest in this issue and we appreciate his recognition of the need to increase transit security and his support for the legislation that was brought from the committee.

I might note that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recently took action with respect to transit security that is similar to what is proposed in this amendment.

In the last Congress, Senator Reed and I requested the GAO to conduct a study of the security needs of transit systems. In its report the GAO found that, in analyzing the needs of eight transit systems, that they required $711 million for security purposes just for those eight systems. There are 6,000 public transit agencies throughout our Nation. The need is very great. The challenge is very real.

We know that transit and rail systems are serious potential targets for terrorist attacks. We obviously know the vital role that these systems play in our Nation's economic and security infrastructure. We must address the vulnerabilities that have already been identified in security assessments which have already been conducted.

The funding to do this is just not there. We need to harden tunnels, to provide detection teams, to train frontline employees, to update infrastructure so that a transit system can continue to function even if attacked. The list of security needs goes on and on and on.

I strongly commend to my colleagues the amendment that my able colleague from Rhode Island has put forward. I am pleased to join with him as a cosponsor. I urge support of the amendment. This is a very real need, with very important implications for our national security and for the functioning of our economy. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004. This legislation extends basic consumer protection rights to those who send remittances, and it creates new avenues and incentives for federally insured financial institutions to provide remittance and basic banking services to those who currently do not use such institutions to send remittances.

The practice of sending remittances is not new. Immigrants to the United States traditionally have used remittances to provide financial assistance to family members who remained in their country of origin, but the practice has been largely overlooked; it has not been systematically studied and its implications have not been fully understood. The 2000 census shows that 30 million people in this country are foreign-born--the largest number in our Nation's history and the vast majority of them--22 million--are citizens or legal residents. More than 40 percent of our Nation's foreign-born population immigrated to the United States in the 1990s, and some 15.4 million, or more than half the immigrant community, have come from Latin American countries. Immigrants make a vital contribution to the economic and social life of our Nation.

In a recent study, Sending Money Home: Remittances to Latin America from the US, 2004, the Inter-American

Development Bank (IADB) found that nationwide over 60 percent of Latin American immigrants send remittances. On average, each immigrant sends $240 at a time, 12 times per year. Although these individual transactions are not large, they have constituted an aggregate amount of over $30 billion from America to our Latin American neighbors in this year alone.

In my State of Maryland, we have 175,000 immigrants from Latin America and the vast majority send remittances back home. According to the IADB's study 80 percent of Maryland's immigrants from Latin America send remittances. The typical sender remits an average of $245, 14 times per year--in other words, remittances are a monthly matter, with special gifts for Christmas and Mother's Day.

The subject of remittances has been a major interest of mine for some time. As chairman of the Banking Committee, in February, 2002, during the 107th Congress, I chaired what I understand was the first congressional hearing devoted exclusively to the subject. Dr. Manuel Orozco, a leading researcher on remittances at the Inter-American Dialogue, told the committee that remittances from the U.S. to Latin America had grown substantially--at that point to an estimated $20 billion in 2001--and that between 15 to 20 percent--$3-$4 billion--was being lost in fees and other transaction costs. Since Dr. Orozco testified, remittances to Latin America have grown by $10 billion, 50 percent, in just 3 years, and continued growth is expected.

That an estimated 15 percent to 20 percent of the money sent in remittances is diverted to fees and other transaction costs, often hidden from the remittance sender, is evidence of the abusive practices that exist in the remittance market. There are two primary factors that account for this abuse. First, studies have shown that people who send remittances tend to be relatively low-wage earners, with modest formal education and relatively little experience in dealing with this country's complex system of financial institutions. As a result they are susceptible to unscrupulous actors who can take advantage of them by charging all sorts of exorbitant fees, which are often hidden or misrepresented. The exchange rate conversion is often the mechanism for this abusive practice.

Second, remittances are currently not subject to the requirements set by Federal consumer protection law, including the disclosure of fees. There is no requirement that a remittance transfer provider disclose to the consumer the exchange rate fee that will be applied in the transaction. Without knowing the exchange rate fee that the company is charging, a consumer has little ability to gauge accurately the full cost of sending a remittance. As Sergio Bendixen, a leading researcher of public opinion and behavior, with a specialty among Hispanic consumers, testified before the Banking Committee: ``an overwhelming majority of Hispanic immigrants are unaware that their families in Latin America receive less money than what they send from the United States.'' Further, a remittance sender cannot effectively shop between remittance transfer providers. The lack of basic information limits the amount of competition in this market.

The legislation I am introducing today extends basic consumer rights to those who send remittances. Further, by requiring clear and understandable disclosures to the remittance sender of the cost of the remittance, thus presenting to the consumer the full cost of sending money, the legislation will enhance competition, which in turn should lead to an overall decrease in the cost of sending remittances. As Sergio Bendixen testified to the Banking Committee, ``Full disclosure should unleash market forces that, hopefully, will result in a significant reduction in the cost of sending cash remittances.''

This legislation amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), which is the primary vehicle for providing basic protections to most persons who engage in electronic transactions, to cover remittances, and to provide the basic rights associated with EFTA to remittance transactions. The two most important components of EFTA are the requirement of full disclosure of fees and the establishment of a process for the resolution of transactional errors. These rights have been an integral part of the regulations that govern our banking infrastructure since EFTA's enactment in 1978. The new legislation will build upon the success of EFTA by extending these basic rights to remittance senders.

The cornerstone of this legislation is the requirement that remittance transfer providers make three key disclosures to their consumers: (1) The total cost of the remittance, represented in a single dollar amount; (2) the total amount of currency that will be sent to the designated recipient, and (3) the promised date of delivery for the remittance. These disclosures follow the core recommendations of the InterAmerican Development Bank, which in its publication, Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean: Goals and Recommendations, states: ``Remittance institutions should disclose in a fully transparent manner, complete information on total costs and transfer conditions, including all commissions and fees, foreign exchange rates applied and execution time.''

The total cost disclosure will include the cost of the exchange rate conversion as well as all up-front fees. This single item will both give consumers a more accurate representation of the cost of the remittance transaction and allow consumers to more effectively compare costs between remittance transfer providers.

In order to calculate the cost of the exchange rate conversion, which is part of the total cost, the legislation requires that the Treasury Department post on its website, on a daily basis, the exchange rate for all currencies. At present the Treasury receives this information on a daily basis, but posts it only on a quarterly basis on the Treasury website. By posting the information daily, the Treasury could create a uniform and credible source for exchange rate information.

To calculate the cost to the consumer of the exchange rate differential, remittance transfer providers will use the difference between the previous business day's exchange rate, as posted on the Treasury website, and the exchange rate that the remittance transfer provider offers. Using the exchange rate posted by the Treasury will ensure that the exchange rate cost is calculated on a uniform basis. When the exchange rate cost is disclosed to the consumer as part of the total cost of the remittance transfer, the consumer will be better able to understand the full cost of the transaction and to shop between different remittance transfer providers.

In addition to fee disclosure requirements, this legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism so that consumers whose remittance transactions experience an error have a fair, open, and expedient process through which they may resolve those errors with the institution that conducted the flawed transaction. This basic right is already afforded to consumers who are protected by EFTA, and now this right will be extended to cover consumers who send remittances as well. Further, the legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism for remittance transfer errors that is responsive to the different types of errors that can occur in a remittance transaction and is reflective of the unique characteristics of the remittance market and its participants.

Under this legislation, a consumer has 1 year from the date that the remittance transfer company promised to deliver the money to notify the company that an error has occurred. The company is then required to resolve the error within 90 days. To resolve the error, the company must either (1) refund the full amount of the remittance that was not properly transferred, (2) resend that amount at no additional cost to the consumer or the designated recipient, or (3) demonstrate to the consumer that there was no error. The Federal Reserve Board is also granted the authority to establish additional remedies for specific situations that cannot be addressed by the three specific remedies that are described in the legislation.

It is urgent that we continue to encourage efforts to bring those who send remittances into the financial mainstream. In his testimony to the Banking Committee, Dr. Orozco pointed out that, ``About two-thirds of immigrants cash their salary checks in check cashing stores that charge exorbitant fees.

Many of these same immigrants then use what remains of their income to send remittances back home. In this common scenario, immigrants are penalized in both receiving and sending their earnings.'' In order to further bank those who are currently unbanked, the legislation that I am introducing today requires that the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration provide guidelines to financial institutions regarding the offering of low-cost remittance transfers and no-cost or low-cost basic consumer amounts. This legislation also amends the Federal Credit Union Act to allow credit unions to offer remittances and to cash checks for persons who are in their field of membership but are not credit union members. The guidelines set out in the legislation will help educate the financial services industry about the importance and potential profitability of providing these services.

The sending of remittances in a fair and scrupulous manner is likely to be profitable for the institution that provides the remittance service, and indeed we have begun to see aggressive moves into the remittance market by many of the largest banking institutions. Individuals who send remittances but are currently unbanked represent an expanded and profitable customer base for financial institutions.

By its very nature, remittances is an issue that involves both the United States and other nations. As Professor Susan Martin of Georgetown University, who also testified at our hearing, told the Banking Committee: ``Until relatively recently, researchers and policy makers tended to dismiss the importance of remittances or emphasize only their negative aspects . . . but recent work on remittances show a far more complex and promising picture. . . Experts now recognize that remittances have far greater positive impact on communities in developing countries than previously acknowledged.'' In fact, the size of the remittance market is such that for six Central American and Caribbean nations--Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guyana and Jamaica--remittances constitute more than 10 percent of GDP; Haiti and Jamaica receive more in remittances than in revenues from trade. The World Bank estimates that Mexico receives more in remittances than it does in foreign direct investment. Reducing the costs of remittances is in the interest of both the United States and the countries that receive them.

Given the growing importance of annual remittance flows, we must work to increase their efficiency. One mechanism for accomplishing this objective, and for increasing the ability of financial institutions to offer remittances is linking our banking infrastructure with the banking infrastructures of other nations. The Federal Reserve operates an international automated clearing house system (ACHi) that is currently linked to seven countries, of which the vast majority are highly developed trading partners that receive relatively low levels of remittances. The ACHi was recently connected to Mexico, however, which will allow financial institutions throughout the United States, especially those institutions of smaller size, to provide remittance services more easily and cheaply to Mexico. This legislation directs the Fed to take into account the importance of remittance flows to other countries as it continues to expand the ACHi system. Linking the ACHi to countries that receive significant remittances has the potential to result in great benefits to consumers who send remittances from America as well as to those who receive the remittances around the world.

Finally, I am acutely aware of the need for better and more broadly available financial literacy and education for all Americans. I am pleased to report that in the last Congress, as part of the reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we established a Presidential Financial Literacy and Education Commission, which is charged with developing a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education. The Act addresses the issue of remittances by including in the commission's work a focus on increasing the ``awareness of the particular financial needs and financial transactions, such as the sending of remittances of consumers who are targeted in multilingual financial literacy and education programs and improve the development and distribution of multilingual financial literacy and education materials.'' The legislation that I am introducing today builds on that framework by instructing the bank and credit union regulators to work with the commission to specifically increase the financial education efforts that target those persons who send remittances.

Millions of Americans send remittances to family members around the world, for a total far exceeding the $30 billion that goes to Latin America alone. Yet almost all of these transactions take place without the basic consumer rights and protections that apply to other electronic transfers. Consumers who send remittances are often immigrants and workers who earn modest wages, who are not aware of the full costs of each remittance, as a practical matter have no way of finding out and, as a consequence, in the aggregate pay billions of dollars in costs and hidden fees. They do not have available to them an established procedure for resolving transactional errors. This legislation rectifies this situation by extending to remittances the basic consumer rights established in EFTA. The bill also contains provisions that, when implemented, will allow more insured financial institutions to provide remittance services--and potentially at lower costs to consumers. The bill contains important provisions to help bring the unbanked--men and women without an account at a bank or credit union--into the financial mainstream. Taken together, these measures will increase transparency, competition and efficiency in the remittance market, while helping to bring more Americans into the financial mainstream.

A broad range of community, civil rights, and consumer groups have endorsed this legislation including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, United Farm Workers of America, the Farmworker Justice Fund, the NAACP, Casa de Maryland, the National Federation of Filipino American Associations, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Center for Responsible Lending, U.S. PIRG, ACORN, Woodstock Institute, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Intemational Remittance Consumer Protection Act be printed in the Record, together with letters in support of the bill from the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Casa de Maryland, and a letter from Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. PIRG.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004. This legislation extends basic consumer protection rights to those who send remittances, and it creates new avenues and incentives for federally insured financial institutions to provide remittance and basic banking services to those who currently do not use such institutions to send remittances.

The practice of sending remittances is not new. Immigrants to the United States traditionally have used remittances to provide financial assistance to family members who remained in their country of origin, but the practice has been largely overlooked; it has not been systematically studied and its implications have not been fully understood. The 2000 census shows that 30 million people in this country are foreign-born--the largest number in our Nation's history and the vast majority of them--22 million--are citizens or legal residents. More than 40 percent of our Nation's foreign-born population immigrated to the United States in the 1990s, and some 15.4 million, or more than half the immigrant community, have come from Latin American countries. Immigrants make a vital contribution to the economic and social life of our Nation.

In a recent study, Sending Money Home: Remittances to Latin America from the US, 2004, the Inter-American

Development Bank (IADB) found that nationwide over 60 percent of Latin American immigrants send remittances. On average, each immigrant sends $240 at a time, 12 times per year. Although these individual transactions are not large, they have constituted an aggregate amount of over $30 billion from America to our Latin American neighbors in this year alone.

In my State of Maryland, we have 175,000 immigrants from Latin America and the vast majority send remittances back home. According to the IADB's study 80 percent of Maryland's immigrants from Latin America send remittances. The typical sender remits an average of $245, 14 times per year--in other words, remittances are a monthly matter, with special gifts for Christmas and Mother's Day.

The subject of remittances has been a major interest of mine for some time. As chairman of the Banking Committee, in February, 2002, during the 107th Congress, I chaired what I understand was the first congressional hearing devoted exclusively to the subject. Dr. Manuel Orozco, a leading researcher on remittances at the Inter-American Dialogue, told the committee that remittances from the U.S. to Latin America had grown substantially--at that point to an estimated $20 billion in 2001--and that between 15 to 20 percent--$3-$4 billion--was being lost in fees and other transaction costs. Since Dr. Orozco testified, remittances to Latin America have grown by $10 billion, 50 percent, in just 3 years, and continued growth is expected.

That an estimated 15 percent to 20 percent of the money sent in remittances is diverted to fees and other transaction costs, often hidden from the remittance sender, is evidence of the abusive practices that exist in the remittance market. There are two primary factors that account for this abuse. First, studies have shown that people who send remittances tend to be relatively low-wage earners, with modest formal education and relatively little experience in dealing with this country's complex system of financial institutions. As a result they are susceptible to unscrupulous actors who can take advantage of them by charging all sorts of exorbitant fees, which are often hidden or misrepresented. The exchange rate conversion is often the mechanism for this abusive practice.

Second, remittances are currently not subject to the requirements set by Federal consumer protection law, including the disclosure of fees. There is no requirement that a remittance transfer provider disclose to the consumer the exchange rate fee that will be applied in the transaction. Without knowing the exchange rate fee that the company is charging, a consumer has little ability to gauge accurately the full cost of sending a remittance. As Sergio Bendixen, a leading researcher of public opinion and behavior, with a specialty among Hispanic consumers, testified before the Banking Committee: ``an overwhelming majority of Hispanic immigrants are unaware that their families in Latin America receive less money than what they send from the United States.'' Further, a remittance sender cannot effectively shop between remittance transfer providers. The lack of basic information limits the amount of competition in this market.

The legislation I am introducing today extends basic consumer rights to those who send remittances. Further, by requiring clear and understandable disclosures to the remittance sender of the cost of the remittance, thus presenting to the consumer the full cost of sending money, the legislation will enhance competition, which in turn should lead to an overall decrease in the cost of sending remittances. As Sergio Bendixen testified to the Banking Committee, ``Full disclosure should unleash market forces that, hopefully, will result in a significant reduction in the cost of sending cash remittances.''

This legislation amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), which is the primary vehicle for providing basic protections to most persons who engage in electronic transactions, to cover remittances, and to provide the basic rights associated with EFTA to remittance transactions. The two most important components of EFTA are the requirement of full disclosure of fees and the establishment of a process for the resolution of transactional errors. These rights have been an integral part of the regulations that govern our banking infrastructure since EFTA's enactment in 1978. The new legislation will build upon the success of EFTA by extending these basic rights to remittance senders.

The cornerstone of this legislation is the requirement that remittance transfer providers make three key disclosures to their consumers: (1) The total cost of the remittance, represented in a single dollar amount; (2) the total amount of currency that will be sent to the designated recipient, and (3) the promised date of delivery for the remittance. These disclosures follow the core recommendations of the InterAmerican Development Bank, which in its publication, Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean: Goals and Recommendations, states: ``Remittance institutions should disclose in a fully transparent manner, complete information on total costs and transfer conditions, including all commissions and fees, foreign exchange rates applied and execution time.''

The total cost disclosure will include the cost of the exchange rate conversion as well as all up-front fees. This single item will both give consumers a more accurate representation of the cost of the remittance transaction and allow consumers to more effectively compare costs between remittance transfer providers.

In order to calculate the cost of the exchange rate conversion, which is part of the total cost, the legislation requires that the Treasury Department post on its website, on a daily basis, the exchange rate for all currencies. At present the Treasury receives this information on a daily basis, but posts it only on a quarterly basis on the Treasury website. By posting the information daily, the Treasury could create a uniform and credible source for exchange rate information.

To calculate the cost to the consumer of the exchange rate differential, remittance transfer providers will use the difference between the previous business day's exchange rate, as posted on the Treasury website, and the exchange rate that the remittance transfer provider offers. Using the exchange rate posted by the Treasury will ensure that the exchange rate cost is calculated on a uniform basis. When the exchange rate cost is disclosed to the consumer as part of the total cost of the remittance transfer, the consumer will be better able to understand the full cost of the transaction and to shop between different remittance transfer providers.

In addition to fee disclosure requirements, this legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism so that consumers whose remittance transactions experience an error have a fair, open, and expedient process through which they may resolve those errors with the institution that conducted the flawed transaction. This basic right is already afforded to consumers who are protected by EFTA, and now this right will be extended to cover consumers who send remittances as well. Further, the legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism for remittance transfer errors that is responsive to the different types of errors that can occur in a remittance transaction and is reflective of the unique characteristics of the remittance market and its participants.

Under this legislation, a consumer has 1 year from the date that the remittance transfer company promised to deliver the money to notify the company that an error has occurred. The company is then required to resolve the error within 90 days. To resolve the error, the company must either (1) refund the full amount of the remittance that was not properly transferred, (2) resend that amount at no additional cost to the consumer or the designated recipient, or (3) demonstrate to the consumer that there was no error. The Federal Reserve Board is also granted the authority to establish additional remedies for specific situations that cannot be addressed by the three specific remedies that are described in the legislation.

It is urgent that we continue to encourage efforts to bring those who send remittances into the financial mainstream. In his testimony to the Banking Committee, Dr. Orozco pointed out that, ``About two-thirds of immigrants cash their salary checks in check cashing stores that charge exorbitant fees.

Many of these same immigrants then use what remains of their income to send remittances back home. In this common scenario, immigrants are penalized in both receiving and sending their earnings.'' In order to further bank those who are currently unbanked, the legislation that I am introducing today requires that the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration provide guidelines to financial institutions regarding the offering of low-cost remittance transfers and no-cost or low-cost basic consumer amounts. This legislation also amends the Federal Credit Union Act to allow credit unions to offer remittances and to cash checks for persons who are in their field of membership but are not credit union members. The guidelines set out in the legislation will help educate the financial services industry about the importance and potential profitability of providing these services.

The sending of remittances in a fair and scrupulous manner is likely to be profitable for the institution that provides the remittance service, and indeed we have begun to see aggressive moves into the remittance market by many of the largest banking institutions. Individuals who send remittances but are currently unbanked represent an expanded and profitable customer base for financial institutions.

By its very nature, remittances is an issue that involves both the United States and other nations. As Professor Susan Martin of Georgetown University, who also testified at our hearing, told the Banking Committee: ``Until relatively recently, researchers and policy makers tended to dismiss the importance of remittances or emphasize only their negative aspects . . . but recent work on remittances show a far more complex and promising picture. . . Experts now recognize that remittances have far greater positive impact on communities in developing countries than previously acknowledged.'' In fact, the size of the remittance market is such that for six Central American and Caribbean nations--Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guyana and Jamaica--remittances constitute more than 10 percent of GDP; Haiti and Jamaica receive more in remittances than in revenues from trade. The World Bank estimates that Mexico receives more in remittances than it does in foreign direct investment. Reducing the costs of remittances is in the interest of both the United States and the countries that receive them.

Given the growing importance of annual remittance flows, we must work to increase their efficiency. One mechanism for accomplishing this objective, and for increasing the ability of financial institutions to offer remittances is linking our banking infrastructure with the banking infrastructures of other nations. The Federal Reserve operates an international automated clearing house system (ACHi) that is currently linked to seven countries, of which the vast majority are highly developed trading partners that receive relatively low levels of remittances. The ACHi was recently connected to Mexico, however, which will allow financial institutions throughout the United States, especially those institutions of smaller size, to provide remittance services more easily and cheaply to Mexico. This legislation directs the Fed to take into account the importance of remittance flows to other countries as it continues to expand the ACHi system. Linking the ACHi to countries that receive significant remittances has the potential to result in great benefits to consumers who send remittances from America as well as to those who receive the remittances around the world.

Finally, I am acutely aware of the need for better and more broadly available financial literacy and education for all Americans. I am pleased to report that in the last Congress, as part of the reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we established a Presidential Financial Literacy and Education Commission, which is charged with developing a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education. The Act addresses the issue of remittances by including in the commission's work a focus on increasing the ``awareness of the particular financial needs and financial transactions, such as the sending of remittances of consumers who are targeted in multilingual financial literacy and education programs and improve the development and distribution of multilingual financial literacy and education materials.'' The legislation that I am introducing today builds on that framework by instructing the bank and credit union regulators to work with the commission to specifically increase the financial education efforts that target those persons who send remittances.

Millions of Americans send remittances to family members around the world, for a total far exceeding the $30 billion that goes to Latin America alone. Yet almost all of these transactions take place without the basic consumer rights and protections that apply to other electronic transfers. Consumers who send remittances are often immigrants and workers who earn modest wages, who are not aware of the full costs of each remittance, as a practical matter have no way of finding out and, as a consequence, in the aggregate pay billions of dollars in costs and hidden fees. They do not have available to them an established procedure for resolving transactional errors. This legislation rectifies this situation by extending to remittances the basic consumer rights established in EFTA. The bill also contains provisions that, when implemented, will allow more insured financial institutions to provide remittance services--and potentially at lower costs to consumers. The bill contains important provisions to help bring the unbanked--men and women without an account at a bank or credit union--into the financial mainstream. Taken together, these measures will increase transparency, competition and efficiency in the remittance market, while helping to bring more Americans into the financial mainstream.

A broad range of community, civil rights, and consumer groups have endorsed this legislation including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, United Farm Workers of America, the Farmworker Justice Fund, the NAACP, Casa de Maryland, the National Federation of Filipino American Associations, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Center for Responsible Lending, U.S. PIRG, ACORN, Woodstock Institute, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Intemational Remittance Consumer Protection Act be printed in the Record, together with letters in support of the bill from the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Casa de Maryland, and a letter from Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. PIRG.

Mr. President, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which authorized the Federal highway, transit, and safety programs,

expired 1 year ago today. Although both the Senate and the House have passed comprehensive, multiyear legislation to reauthorize those programs, a conference agreement still has not been worked out. As a result, today the Senate is passing an 8-month extension, the sixth short-term extension since TEA-21 expired. The inherent uncertainty of short-term extensions has made it difficult for State and local governments and transit agencies to make decisions regarding construction, maintenance, and operations.

I want to speak for a moment about the transit program, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee. In the Banking Committee's reauthorization hearings, we heard extensive testimony on the critical role of transit in reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and improving our quality of life. Transit ridership is at record levels, a testament to Americans' growing need for safe, reliable transportation choices. The same can be said for the other modes as well: demand is increasing along our entire transportation network.

Increased investment is essential if we are to keep up with this demand. The U.S. Department of Transportation has estimated that an average of $127 billion per year is needed over the next two decades to maintain and improve the condition of our highways, bridges, and transit systems. Other estimates show an even greater need. I believe that failure to make the needed investment will result in the continued deterioration of our existing infrastructure, threatening our future mobility and economic strength. Such investment would also have a positive impact in the near term: according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, each $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs.

In an effort to begin addressing these needs, the Banking Committee passed a reauthorization of the Federal transit program in February of this year. That bill authorized $56.5 billion over 6 years for transit, a substantial increase over TEA-21. As a result of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby's leadership in developing that piece of legislation, the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2004 was reported out of the Banking Committee unanimously. The Banking Committee bill was incorporated into S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a 6-year multimodal reauthorization bill, which passed through the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Notwithstanding the passage in both the Senate and the House of reauthorization bills calling for substantially increased investment, the administration has not been willing to support the kind of investment needed to meet our pressing transit and highway needs. Without a serious commitment from the administration to make such investments, it has been impossible to move forward in the conference process.

Until that process is completed, it is essential that our States and local communities be able to continue to operate and maintain our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems. The legislation considered by the Senate today would allow Federal assistance to continue through May 31, 2005, and provides that once a multiyear reauthorization bill is completed, the budgetary firewalls protecting highway and transit spending will be extended around the total amounts authorized for fiscal year 2005 in that multiyear bill. I hope that in the next 8 months the Administration will work cooperatively with the Congress to produce a comprehensive reauthorization bill that will provide the needed resources to address the Nation's urgent transportation needs.

Mr. President, the 2004 Summer Olympic Games in Athens, which took place between August 13-29, have added a vivid and memorable chapter to the Olympic tradition, which first took shape in Greece nearly three millennia ago, and which in its modern form dates back to 1896. The Athens 2004 Organizing Committee, the U.S. Olympic Committee, the International Olympic Committee and dozens of other organizations, the U.S. Olympic Team and thousands of athletes from all over the world, the unwavering determination to meet unprecedented challenges and the good will and hard work of the people of Greece all contributed to assuring the success of the Games. In tribute to their magnificent achievement, today I am joined by a number of my colleagues in introducing a resolution to express our gratitude and congratulations.

Greece took on a daunting challenge when, in 1997, the nation was designated by the International Olympic Committee to serve as host to the 2004 Summer Games. With the exception of Finland, where the 1952 Games took place, in terms of population Greece is the smallest Olympic host ever. To prepare for the return of the Games to Athens, where the first modern Olympics were held in 1896, the whole nation came together in a great common effort. The President and Managing Director of the Athens 2004 Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games and their associates worked closely with the Mayor of Athens, the Ministries of Public Works and Culture and other government agencies to assure a setting and facilities uniquely appropriate to the great events. The people of Greece, in Athens and also in communities around the Nation, gave their full support to the preparatory efforts and opened their hearts to the athletes.

The events of September 11, 2001 raised the challenge of preparing for the Olympic Games to unprecedented heights, for they fundamentally changed the security and logistical context for all major international events--and indeed, as we know from our recent political conventions, for all large gatherings. As the Athens Games were the first summer Games to occur after 9/11, Greece had neither precedents nor guidelines upon which to rely in planning for the security of some 10,500 Olympic athletes, 5,500 team officials and literally millions of visitors. The challenges were all the more formidable because many of the events, including soccer and shot put, were held in places as distant from Athens as Thessaloniki and ancient Olympia.

Greece undertook to do everything ``humanly possible'' to ensure the safety and success of the Games. The Athens 2004 Organizing Committee carried out a careful study and analysis of the security arrangements for the somewhat smaller Winter Games that had taken place in 2002, in Salt Lake City.

A specially trained security force of 45,000 men and women was deployed, which included military and air force personnel, coast guards, fire fighters, law enforcement officials and private security contractors. The government of Greece worked in close collaboration with the United States, Britain, Israel, France, Germany, Australia, and Spain, along with NATO, guided by two principles: every single nation had an interest in having its athletes compete safely, and all nations working toward a common objective--the ultimate success of the Games--would provide the most effective deterrent to a terrorist act. As a result, while security measures were comprehensive and complex they were expertly and unobtrusively carried out, in no way detracting from the spirit of the Games. Athletes and visitors alike moved about unimpeded, and competition went forward in the finest Olympic tradition.

Major investments in infrastructure also contributed significantly to the smooth functioning of the Games. Athens today is a city transformed. Since 1997, when the International Olympic Committee designated Greece as the host country for the 2004 Games, transportation and telecommunications systems have been expanded and modernized. The investments Greece has made in connection with the Olympics have created unprecedented opportunities for the future. The Olympic stadium complex, which includes the aquatic and tennis center, as well as the indoor arena and main stadium, will serve as major training facilities for many years to come. The soccer facilities will be highly sought after for international soccer events. Overall, infrastructure improvements have laid a sound foundation for economic growth and prosperity nationwide. Having met a daunting challenge, Greece is now poised to take on new responsibilities in an expanded European Union, and in the broad international community. Where the cherished tradition of the Summer Olympics is concerned, Greece has shown what can be accomplished. The experience in Athens will surely prove invaluable to China, which fours years from now will play host to the Games in Beijing.

As a Marylander, I am especially proud of the signal accomplishments of Maryland athletes, and I am sure my colleagues take similar pride in the athletes from their respective states. The performance of the U.S. Olympic Team members in one stirring event after another will long be remembered, as anyone fortunate enough to have witnessed the competition firsthand will attest.

Above and beyond the excitement and the triumphs of the different events, however, the Athens Olympics gave us something more. The 2004 Games showed that even in uncertain and turbulent times, it is possible with determination and planning and foresight to bring together men and women of good will from every corner of the globe in a great common endeavor. This is for all of us a both a reminder and an inspiration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the American athletes for their participation in the 2004 Olympic Games. These athletes made us proud not only of their victories, but also of their sportsmanship. The heart, focus and perseverance exhibited by these men and women offered us an opportunity to reflect on the values and characteristics that embody the very best of the American Spirit.

All of our athletes should be commended, but because they played a very prominent role in these games, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Maryland's Olympic athletes. This year, we were very fortunate to have fourteen Marylanders compete. This group of athletes, which included both the youngest and the oldest members of the U.S. team, represented Maryland and the United States with honor and dignity and excelled in their various competitions. Marylanders participated in a variety of sports ranging from swimming and track and field, to whitewater slalom canoeing and table tennis. Our State boasted household names like Michael Phelps and Carmelo Anthony as well as rising stars like Bernard Williams and Courtney Kupets. The delegation included individuals from all over the State, from the City of Annapolis to Howard County, from Bethesda to Gaithersburg to Baltimore City, and from Upper Marlboro to Towson and Abingdon.

And although they come from a diversity of backgrounds, each demonstrated the common spirit of what it means to be a true Olympian. We saw that spirit in Carmelo Anthony's refusal to quit after the men's basketball team suffered a series of difficult and surprising losses. We saw it in the decisions of Liz Filter and Nancy Haberland to compete in the face of challenging life circumstances. It was reflected in the wisdom and experience of Libby Callahan as well as the youthful exuberance of 15 year-old swimmer Katie Hoff. It shined through Jun Gao when on day four of the table tennis competition, as the only member of the U.S. team still in competition, she shouldered the hopes of her teammates.

The Olympic spirit was further reflected in paddlers Joe Jacobi and Scott Parsons, who focused on the experience and joy of the performance. Courtney Kupets and Rhadi Ferguson showed enormous bravery by overcoming serious injuries to make the U.S. team and compete for their country. Ms. Kupets brought home two medals, a silver in the team competition and a bronze in the individual uneven bars. And Michael Phelps, who won six gold and two bronze medals, showed that the team is more important than individual accomplishment when he yielded his spot on the 4 x 100 medley relay squad and an opportunity for further glory to teammate Ian Crocker.

Finally, Maryland's track and field athletes should be commended for their heart and concentration. Tiombe Hurd, who is legally blind, overcame her vision obstacles to finish 22nd in a crowded triple jump field. Bernard Williams and James Carter, who hail from Baltimore public schools, Carver Vocational-Technical High School and Mergenthaler Vocational-Technical High School, showed the world the kind of talent and poise Baltimore City's public schools can produce, taking home a silver in the 200 meter sprint and a fourth place finish in the 400 meter hurdles.

Maryland, and America, should be proud of their Olympic athletes. Through their actions both on and off the field of competition, they exhibited the grace, sportsmanship, and determination that signify a true Olympian. Congratulations are due to all of our athletes both for their individual successes and for the way they, as a team, showed the world the best our nation has to offer.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues the release on June 15 of the 2004 Report to Congress of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

The Commission was created by Congress on October 30, 2000, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2001. Its principal sponsor in the Senate was Senator Byrd. The charter of the Commission provides that it be composed of 12 Commissioners, 3 of whom are appointed by each of the Congressional leaders in both the House and Senate. The Commission is thus bipartisan, and reflective of the leadership of both the House and the Senate.

The purpose of the Commission, according to its charter, is to ``monitor, investigate and report to Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.'' The Commission is required by its charter to submit an annual report to Congress, which must include a full analysis, along with conclusions and recommendations for legislative actions, if any, of the national security implications for the United States of trade and current account balances, financial transactions, and technology transfers with the People's Republic of China.

In preparation for its 2004 annual report, the Commission held 11 public hearings, including field hearings in Columbia, SC, and San Diego, CA. Through these hearings the Commission heard the perspectives of members of Congress, current and former senior government officials, representatives of industry, labor and finance, academics, journalists, and citizens. The Commission took testimony from more than 130 witnesses.

The Commission's fact-finding and examination process also included funding statistical analyses of China's role in world trade and investment, and its compliance record with its WTO commitments. Moreover the Commission contracted for the translation of articles from influential publications within China discussing Beijing's economic and security strategies and its perceptions of the United States.

During the course of its deliberations, the Commission developed a broad bipartisan agreement on the issues it was charged by Congress to

examine, and adopted its 2004 report by a unanimous vote.

Among the key findings of the report are that in 2003 the United States ran a global goods trade deficit of $545.5 billion, of which $124 billion was attributable to U.S. trade with China. The U.S. trade deficit with China constituted over 23 percent of the total U.S. goods deficit. Further, with U.S. exports to China of $28 million and imports from China of $152 billion, U.S. trade with China constitutes our most lopsided trading relationship. The report notes that over the past 10 years, the U.S. trade deficit with China has grown at an average rate of 18.5 percent, and if it continues growing at this rate, it will double to $248 billion within 5 years. The report further notes that since 1998, the United States has moved from a global trade surplus in advanced technology products, ATP, of $29.9 billion to a deficit of $27 billion in 2003, of which $21 billion is attributed to our trade with China.

The Commission report unanimously finds that, ``The magnitude of the goods trade deficit threatens the nation's manufacturing sector, a sector that is vital for our national and economic security.'' It further notes that China has a ``coordinated sustainable vision for science and technology development'' and urges our country to develop a ``comprehensive national policy to meet China's challenge to our scientific and technological leadership.''

The report finds that China is systematically intervening in the foreign exchange market to keep its currency undervalued, and that this has contributed to the size of the U.S. trade deficit with China and has hurt U.S. manufacturers. The report further notes that China has policies in place to attract foreign direct investment ($57 billion in 2003) and to develop its national productive capacity in ``pillar industries''. These policies include tariffs, limitations on access to domestic marketing channels, requirements for technology transfer, government selection of partners for joint ventures, preferential loans from state banks, privileged access to land, and direct support for research and development.

In order to begin to help correct our trading relationship with China, the Commission urges that the U.S. immediately seek to have the yuan revalued substantially upward against the dollar and then to be pegged against a trade weighted basket of currencies. After such an immediate revaluation, the Commission recommends that China, as it addresses problems in its banking system, move to a market-based currency. It further recommends that Congress should charge USTR and the Commerce Department to undertake a comprehensive examination of China's industrial policies, described in the report, to determine which may be illegal under provisions of the WTO, and to lay out specific steps the U.S. can take to address these practices through the WTO or other means. It urges the U.S. to make more active use of WTO dispute settlement if we cannot persuade China by negotiation to carry out its WTO commitments.

The report discusses a number of other aspects of United States-China trade and political relations. It makes a number of recommendations to help manage the relationship to minimize security risks and to enhance prospects of moving China toward a more open, democratic and law-based society to the benefit of both countries.

In my view, this 2004 report of the Commission makes a very valuable contribution to our policy deliberations on China. I salute Senator Byrd for his wisdom in calling for the creation of the Commission, and thank all the Commissioners for their contribution to our knowledge of the United States-China economic and political relationship. The Baltimore Sun ran an editorial which strongly praised the report and found that ``the case for `urgent attention and course corrections' to U.S. policies on China is well made.'' I ask that the Baltimore Sun editorial be inserted in the Record after my statement.

I strongly commend the 2004 report of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission to my colleagues.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide financial support to ensure that uninsured children who have failed vision screenings are able to obtain the glasses or eye treatments they need.

Almost every State in the Union has a system in place to detect vision problems at an early age. Indeed, 30 states and the District of Columbia require vision screening for children beginning with their entry into the school system and eleven additional states recommend such screenings for preschool children. But this system is incomplete. When children fail the screen, there is no requirement that they receive treatment of any kind. And if they are uninsured, their families often cannot afford a visit to the ophthalmologist and obtain the treatment they need to address the problem identified by the screening.

Mr. President, taking steps to identify a problem, but to then fail to address it doesn't make sense; in particular when delay in treatment can have lifelong consequences. For example, one of the most common eye diseases of early childhood, amblyopia or ``lazy eye,'' responds to treatment 95 percent of the time when it is addressed by the age of three. If treatment is delayed until the age of five, however, the likelihood that the problem can be corrected is reduced to 10 percent. Children who cannot correct these refractive vision problems start school at an enormous disadvantage in terms of their ability to learn.

The legislation I am introducing today would help to obviate this deficit. Simply put, it would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Center for Disease Control Director, to provide $75 million worth of grants to states for exams and necessary treatment for uninsured children who have failed a vision screening and cannot afford follow-on treatment.

Ample evidence underscores the need for this type of legislation. A study conducted by Dr. Mark Preslan and Audrey Novak of the Maryland Center for Sight, entitled The Baltimore Vision Screening Project found that strabismus--also known as cross-eyes--amblyopia and refractive errors, occurred in higher frequencies and remained untreated for a population sample of youth in schools in lower income areas. The study's main conclusion stated, ``Children with limited access to specialized eye care must be provided with a mechanism for obtaining these services.''

This disparity exists at the national level as well, and our minority populations are especially underserved. A team of researchers from the University of Michigan documented a national example of differential access to vision treatment. Their research showed that minority children and uninsured children are far less likely to get complete eye exams or glasses. A study in January's Optometry and Vision Sciences demonstrated that uninsured African American and Hispanic children were far less likely to receive vision correction, and that this disparity results from lack of services as opposed to less frequent occurrences of eye problems in these populations.

A study by the Kaiser Commission on the Uninsured reveals that uninsured children are over five times more likely to have an unmet need for medical care. According to a report by the Caring Foundation for Children, 20 percent of uninsured children have untreated vision problems. According to Prevent Blindness America data, 12.1 million school-aged children have vision impairment. Among preschool-aged children, more than 5 percent have a problem that can cause permanent sight loss if left untreated, and almost 80 percent of that 5 percent never get an exam. Another study by the Vision Council of America reported that 40 percent of children who fail a vision screen do not receive the recommended follow-up care. The same study found the average delay between a failed screening and follow-up evaluation by an eye-care professional was 4.1 years.

Most of our States are taking the important first step of identifying young children with vision problems through mandatory vision screening. This legislation simply takes the next step to help provide a remedy for those children who cannot afford treatment.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide financial support to ensure that uninsured children who have failed vision screenings are able to obtain the glasses or eye treatments they need.

Almost every State in the Union has a system in place to detect vision problems at an early age. Indeed, 30 states and the District of Columbia require vision screening for children beginning with their entry into the school system and eleven additional states recommend such screenings for preschool children. But this system is incomplete. When children fail the screen, there is no requirement that they receive treatment of any kind. And if they are uninsured, their families often cannot afford a visit to the ophthalmologist and obtain the treatment they need to address the problem identified by the screening.

Mr. President, taking steps to identify a problem, but to then fail to address it doesn't make sense; in particular when delay in treatment can have lifelong consequences. For example, one of the most common eye diseases of early childhood, amblyopia or ``lazy eye,'' responds to treatment 95 percent of the time when it is addressed by the age of three. If treatment is delayed until the age of five, however, the likelihood that the problem can be corrected is reduced to 10 percent. Children who cannot correct these refractive vision problems start school at an enormous disadvantage in terms of their ability to learn.

The legislation I am introducing today would help to obviate this deficit. Simply put, it would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Center for Disease Control Director, to provide $75 million worth of grants to states for exams and necessary treatment for uninsured children who have failed a vision screening and cannot afford follow-on treatment.

Ample evidence underscores the need for this type of legislation. A study conducted by Dr. Mark Preslan and Audrey Novak of the Maryland Center for Sight, entitled The Baltimore Vision Screening Project found that strabismus--also known as cross-eyes--amblyopia and refractive errors, occurred in higher frequencies and remained untreated for a population sample of youth in schools in lower income areas. The study's main conclusion stated, ``Children with limited access to specialized eye care must be provided with a mechanism for obtaining these services.''

This disparity exists at the national level as well, and our minority populations are especially underserved. A team of researchers from the University of Michigan documented a national example of differential access to vision treatment. Their research showed that minority children and uninsured children are far less likely to get complete eye exams or glasses. A study in January's Optometry and Vision Sciences demonstrated that uninsured African American and Hispanic children were far less likely to receive vision correction, and that this disparity results from lack of services as opposed to less frequent occurrences of eye problems in these populations.

A study by the Kaiser Commission on the Uninsured reveals that uninsured children are over five times more likely to have an unmet need for medical care. According to a report by the Caring Foundation for Children, 20 percent of uninsured children have untreated vision problems. According to Prevent Blindness America data, 12.1 million school-aged children have vision impairment. Among preschool-aged children, more than 5 percent have a problem that can cause permanent sight loss if left untreated, and almost 80 percent of that 5 percent never get an exam. Another study by the Vision Council of America reported that 40 percent of children who fail a vision screen do not receive the recommended follow-up care. The same study found the average delay between a failed screening and follow-up evaluation by an eye-care professional was 4.1 years.

Most of our States are taking the important first step of identifying young children with vision problems through mandatory vision screening. This legislation simply takes the next step to help provide a remedy for those children who cannot afford treatment.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute today to Bruce Mundie, Director of the Office of Regional Aviation Assistance for the Maryland Aviation Administration. Bruce is retiring after a distinguished career serving the public and the aviation community and I would like to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his tremendous public service.

When the next chapter in Maryland's aviation history is written, Bruce Mundie's name is likely to figure prominently as one of the key leaders who helped make the sky more accessible and greatly improved Maryland's air transportation infrastructure. Over the past 17 years, Bruce has worked tirelessly to enhance aviation at Maryland's 34 regional general aviation airports and more than 100 private airports. Among his many other accomplishments, Bruce was instrumental in the development of the Maryland Aid to Private Airports program, the Maryland Airport Equipment Loan Program, and the Maryland Airport Managers Association. He also introduced the innovative system of using automated weather stations, allowing for the institution of all-weather commercial service at eight new airports. In addition, he oversaw the replacement of 27 visual approach slope indicators that violated FAA standards and introduced new units that will save Maryland 95 percent of the cost of new equipment.

I have had the privilege of working closely with Bruce since he was first appointed to the Maryland Aviation Administration. Over the years we worked to bring a new control tower to Salisbury-Ocean City-Wicomico Regional Airport, expand the runways at Hagerstown, Garrett County, and Carroll County Airports, and create a bi-state compact for the Greater Cumberland Regional Airport, to name just a few projects. In every instance, Bruce exhibited an extraordinary commitment to elevating airport efficiency and safety standards in Maryland.

But Bruce's passion for flying and aviation was not just exemplified in his work. As a founding member of Opportunity Skyway, Bruce introduced programs that target students at risk of dropping out of school, benefiting citizens across the State and allowing students to pursue their interests in aviation. He has worked to integrate aviation into school curriculums through an aerospace workshop for teachers entitled ``Take It to the Top.'' Bruce also contributed to area institutions of higher education, teaching Aviation Management at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore.

Bruce's contributions and accomplishments to aviation and public service have been recognized numerous times with prestigious honors, including his National Association of Aviation Officials Distinguished Service Award in 2000. He also received the Distinguished Flying Cross in Vietnam and left the service a Lieutenant Colonel after a 26-year career in the United States Air Force.

It is my firm conviction that public service is the highest calling, one that demands the most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens and country. Throughout his career Bruce has exemplified a firm commitment to meeting this demand, constantly and tirelessly devoting his energy to improving Maryland airports and the community through his education initiatives that have fostered local interest in aviation and encouraged adolescents to remain in school.

It has been a pleasure working with a man who has followed his passion to make aviation safer, more efficient, and accessible to young people. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his years of hard work and dedication and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I support the passage of S. 2238, as amended, and want to urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation which ensures the continuation of the National Flood Insurance Program, which covers over 4.4 million properties around the country. Unless we quickly act to reauthorize this program, it will expire at the end of this month. In addition to extending the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years, this bill establishes a loss mitigation pilot program to help mitigate flood risks for properties that have been flooded numerous times.

This bill has been drafted in a bipartisan manner, and I particularly want to thank Senators Bunning and Shelby for working collaboratively with me to craft this legislation and also for accepting my amendment which makes a number of administrative changes to the National Flood Insurance Program designed to strengthen the program and ensure that flood victims can fairly and adequately recover for flood losses. While Federal flood insurance was created almost 40 years ago to ``provide the necessary funds promptly to assure rehabilitation or restoration of damaged property to pre-flood status or to permit comparable investment elsewhere,'' unfortunately, the program is not working as Congress envisioned. Recent flooding in Maryland as a result of Hurricane Isabel in September 2003, showed that under the strain of a major flooding event, the National Flood Insurance Program was unable to withstand the pressure. Unfortunately, many of the 6,000 Marylanders who filed claims after Hurricane Isabel found the process of recovering under their flood insurance policies to be difficult, time-consuming and frustrating. Too many victims were given incomplete or inaccurate information or were coerced into settling claims that came nowhere near close to providing adequate funding for repairs.

My amendment, as contained in this bill, ensures that policyholders are provided with accurate and timely information about their policies as well as what to do in the event of a flood. As a result of this legislation, FEMA will be required to establish a formal appeals process for complaints; disseminate a claims handbook so that families know exactly what to do if they are flooded; provide simple forms and disclosures so that all policyholders know what coverages are available and what coverages they are purchasing; and, establish minimum agent training requirements so that insurance agents, the main points of contact for flood victims, have a better understanding of this program. In addition, this bill asks the General Accounting Office of conduct a thorough review of the flood insurance program, with particular emphasis on limitations in the flood insurance policy and FEMA's interpretations of this policy. We need to have a detailed understanding of what these limitations are and what the consequences are of broadening coverage. As a result of these changes, I am hopeful that flood victims around the country will not face the same obstacles to receiving fair payments as Marylanders faced last year.

In addition to the administrative changes we are making in this bill, I have been working with my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and FEMA to ensure that FEMA does all it can to improve its processes and policies so that flood victims can better navigate the flood insurance program and more fairly settle their claims. I believe that FEMA is working to fix those problems that were brought to its attention, and I want to thank Mr. Anthony Lowe, former Federal insurance administrator, and Mr. Trey Reid, acting insurance administrator, who now oversees the program, for working with me and my colleagues to go back and make sure that Hurricane Isabel flood victims are treated fairly. After Hurricane Isabel, I received numerous complaints that flood victims were pressured into accepting settlements far below what they consider fair, in addition to our findings that FEMA distributed inaccurate price guidelines for the costs of repairs. When confronted with these issues, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Reid, and FEMA staff quickly responded. Letters have now been sent to all flood victims who believe they were treated unfairly can have their claims reviewed. While I appreciate these efforts, I understand that there is some concern that these reviews are not being conducted in an independent way, and I have urged FEMA to take all actions to ensure that this process is fair. The process of reviewing these claims is a fair and necessary step in maintaining the integrity of the National Flood Insurance Program, and I will continue working with FEMA to ensure that all victims are able to have their claims reviewed in an unbiased manner.

This is an important piece of legislation. In addition to the changes contained in my amendment, this bill will help to strengthen and stabilize the flood insurance program by providing $40 million a year to states and communities to mitigate flood risks. While the National Flood Insurance Program has primarily been able to cover losses through the premiums it collects, there have been times when it has had to borrow funds from the Treasury, and this is in large part due to a relatively small number of properties. According to FEMA, these repetitive loss properties account for only 1 percent of policies, but over 35 percent of all losses in the flood insurance program. This bill makes funding available so that communities can assist families who are stuck in a cycle of repeated flooding to get out of harm's way, and so that these properties are less of a drain on the National Flood Insurance Program.

Once again, I thank Senators Shelby and Bunning for working with me in such a collaborative manner on this bill.