Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the nomination of Roger W. Titus to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

I have always believed that one of the most important roles I have as a United States Senator is the responsibility to provide ``advice and consent'' with respect to nominees to the Federal judiciary, and it is with sober deliberation that I consider all nominations made by our Presidents. When considering nominees, I apply a high standard to determine whether to support them for the Federal bench. A candidate should have had a career that has provided the breadth and depth of experience necessary to be a Federal judge, have contributed to the legal profession of our State, and have been an active participant in Maryland's civic community. All of these factors taken together must have elevated the nominee to a position of respect and esteem in our State that demonstrates that the nominee is ready and worthy for the challenges of a Federal judgeship.

Applying these standards, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of Roger Titus and urge the Senate to confirm his nomination. Roger Titus clearly meets these requirements, and will make a valuable contribution on the District Court.

Roger Titus received his undergraduate degree from Johns Hopkins University and his juris doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center. His legal career has spanned more than 30 years, during which time he has held a variety of positions in the public sector; private sector, with more than 30 years in private practice at firms large and small; and the academic field, as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

Roger Titus' career in private practice has been broad in scope--a fact that will serve him well on the bench. Concentrating in litigation, he has significant experience in State and local government law, general litigation, constitutional litigation, complex commercial litigation, as well as appellate work. Roger Titus has also been a leader in Maryland's legal community, most notably serving as President of the Maryland State Bar Association, but also devoting his time to numerous other legal organizations on a State, local and national level including the Bar Association of Montgomery County, American Bar Association, Maryland Municipal Attorneys Association, and the National Conference of Bar Presidents, among others. During this busy career, he has been active in the Maryland community, devoting substantial time to the Maryland Bar Foundation and as Chairman and member of the Board of Trustees for Suburban Hospital.

Given this record, it is no surprise that the American Bar Association gave Roger Titus a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating in its evaluation of his nomination. He has also received a number of prestigious awards for his career and record of service, including the Daily Record's first Leadership in the Law Award, which recognizes members of the legal community for their devotion to the betterment of the profession and their communities, and the Century of Service Award from the Montgomery County Bar Association, for his outstanding contributions to the legal profession and community during the twentieth century.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Roger Titus' nomination to the Federal

bench, and I would like to congratulate him and his family on his confirmation. It is truly indicative of the exemplary career he has had in the legal profession, his commitment to our State, and the esteem with which Marylanders view his accomplishments.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join this morning in bringing to the floor of the Senate, along with my able colleague from Alabama, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003.

This legislation is important to millions of Americans as we work to ensure fair, accurate, and effective credit reporting practices, and this legislation is designed to accomplish that objective.

First, I acknowledge and actually commend the distinguished chairman for the comprehensive series of six hearings on this legislation that were held in the Banking Committee. Chairman Shelby structured extremely productive hearings. There was a systematic approach to examining all aspects of this issue, and we heard from a broad range of interests in the witnesses who came before the committee. I think it is fair to say we covered all the bases.

Not all the bases got what they wanted. It never quite works that way when you do legislation. But I think we had a very open, transparent process, with people having an opportunity to present their positions. They were very carefully and thoughtfully considered. In the end, the legislation was reported out of the committee, on a voice vote, unanimously on September 23. I think that vote reflects the response to the chairman's willingness to work with all members of the committee.

Now, it goes without saying, each of us, if we could write the bill by ourselves, would have somewhat different aspects to the bill. There are areas where I would have sought to do more with respect to some consumer issues. But I think we sought to craft a balanced package here. We understand the need for a national credit reporting system for Americans all across the country. It means an opportunity to carry out their economic transactions swiftly, efficiently, and effectively. At the same time, of course, you have to be very alert to ensuring there are protections so people cannot be abused or taken advantage of in the process.

One of the things this legislation does--and I am going to refer to it in some detail very shortly--is it really seeks to address this issue of identity theft which has provoked so much misery and grief for people who are hit by it. It is really the central focus of people's attention now when they consider problems they are having with consumer financial matters. This legislation has some very significant provisions in that regard, and we were able to move those forward with the strong support of the members of the committee.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, which this legislation, of course, affects provides for the ways in which credit information is gathered, disseminated, and used.

During the hearings, we received a number of recommendations for improving the operation of the act.

Among other things, the suggestions addressed: combating fraud and identity theft, protecting consumers' financial privacy, clarifying the credit scoring process and the use of credit scores, enhancing regulatory and enforcement authority, improving the accuracy of credit reports, improving consumers' understanding of the credit reporting process, combating abusive marketing practices, and finding ways to improve the financial literacy and education of all consumers.

I believe we have taken important steps to address all of these issues. The Senate bill includes a number of provisions that will result in enhanced consumer protections by helping to ensure accuracy of credit report information and fair practices in the collection and use of credit information and in the granting of credit.

Among other things this legislation will: provide consumers with free credit reports annually from the national credit bureaus and provide consumers with an easy method to obtain their free credit reports. This has heretofore not been available. It will require a summary of consumers' rights to opt out of prescreened offers; provide for accuracy guidelines; lengthen the statute of limitations for all FCRA violations; enhance identity theft penalties; extend the situations in which adverse action notices are provided to consumers; prohibit the sale, transfer, or collection of identity theft debt, so that such bad debt will not be perpetuated in the credit system; provide consumers with the right to opt out of marketing that results from affiliate information sharing, with certain exceptions to that right. Finally, of course, it will help enhance the financial literacy of all Americans.

Let me discuss some of these items in a little more detail.

First, accuracy. I don't think it needs much elaboration for people to understand that accuracy of credit reporting information is integral to our reporting process. Erroneous information on credit reports can often take a significant investment of time and money to remove. They can be extremely costly to consumers by significantly raising borrowing costs. Insurers, mortgage banks, and other financial institutions rely significantly on credit scores to make credit decisions. Therefore, inaccuracies in the underlying credit reports can make it more difficult and more expensive for Americans seeking to make major purchases. Yet we heard testimony in those extensive hearings, to which I referred earlier, that credit report inaccuracies is one of the major problems that plague consumers. This legislation addresses that with substantial measures in that regard.

In order to enhance the accuracy of credit reports, the bill directs the Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Association, and the Federal Trade Commission to issue guidelines and promulgate regulations with respect to the accuracy and completeness of credit report information.

Second, free credit reports. The bill allows consumers to receive a free credit report annually from each of the three national credit reporting agencies. The bill also requires the FTC to take steps to make it easier for consumers to obtain their free report, including: setting out rules requiring that a centralized, streamlined method be established so consumers can easily obtain free reports, and actively publicizing and conspicuously posting on its Web site--the FTC Web site--the rights available to consumers under the FCRA, including the consumer's right to a free report.

The provision of free credit reports is a significant step in helping consumers

to ensure the accuracy of their credit report information, and helping them identify possible instances of identity theft.

As to prescreening, under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies may generate for creditors prescreened lists of individuals with certain credit characteristics to be targeted to receive a direct mailing. This prescreening process results in much of the unsolicited mail credit offers that consumers receive and about which they often complain.

The success of the FTC's Do Not Call Registry has highlighted the frustration of Americans with unsolicited telephone offers. Under the Senate bill, creditors making such unsolicited offers of credit to consumers by mail will be required to include a summary of the consumers' rights to opt out of prescreening in their offers to consumers. In addition, this Senate bill increases the effective period of the telephone opt-out of prescreening from 2 to 7 years.

With regard to adverse action notices, under the current law, the FCRA, a consumer receives an adverse action notice after denial or cancellation of insurance, a denial of credit, or a denial of employment, based on information in the consumer's credit report. This adverse action notice then triggers a consumer's right to a free credit report and other of CRA disclosures.

Those are the provisions that have heretofore been in the law. What has happened, of course, is that, as the industry has grown more sophisticated in the technology, we are having a move to risk-based pricing. So there are many circumstances in which a consumer may apply for credit, but rather than receiving an outright denial, which is what happened in earlier days, which then was an adverse action and gave the consumer certain rights, the consumer may receive credit at an elevated rate or cost because of information on the consumer's credit report. In these situations, because a consumer has received credit, albeit at more rigorous terms, the consumer is not considered to have experienced an adverse action. Therefore, no FCRA rights are triggered.

This legislation now before us incorporates a recommendation made to us by the Federal Trade Commission to update the provision of adverse action notices so consumers are aware that information in their credit report is negatively affecting the rates they are paying for credit. Therefore, because they become aware of it, it gives them an opportunity to examine that information and to correct it if, in fact, it should be inaccurate.

Finally, in addition, the Senate bill takes important steps to improve the financial literacy of consumers by establishing a financial literacy and education commission within the Federal Government, which will coordinate the promotion of Federal financial literacy efforts, and will develop a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education.

I commend Senators Enzi and Stabenow, along with Senators Corzine and Akaka, and many others, for their leadership in this important area of financial literacy. Senator Enzi and Senator Stabenow and Senator Corzine and Senator Akaka, for a long time--really, since I have known them--have been interested in this issue. We are pleased there is a title in the bill that carries forward important efforts in this regard.

Let me turn to identity theft. I indicated at the outset that this was an issue of increasing concern across the country. Before I do that, I will simply mention a step that we took in this legislation with respect to affiliate sharing. This legislation contains provisions relating to the ability of financial companies to market to their customers based on private financial information of the customer that has been shared among affiliates.

The bill would require affiliates who share customer information for solicitation or marketing purposes--and most of the concern we have heard in this area has been with the use of this information for solicitation or marketing purposes--to disclose such sharing to consumers and to provide them with an opportunity to opt out of the marketing resulting from such sharing of information.

There are exceptions in the legislation with respect to this provision for preexisting customers, for service providers, and for the institutions responding to a consumer request. So on the solicitation for marketing, we are trying to address much of the concern that has been expressed to us, but we have been trying to do it in a very careful way so that the basic purposes of the legislation can be carried forward.

I want to spend just a few moments on identity theft because it is such an important issue now. We heard some absolute horror stories before the committee from witnesses who had experienced identity theft and what it has done to their lives--virtually destroyed their lives. Obviously, we have to deal in every way that is reasonably possible with this issue. It has become an increasing problem in recent years.

The Federal Trade Commission reported that the number of identity theft complaints it received last year far exceeded complaints about any other type of consumer fraud. Americans have serious concerns about this issue. Businesses incur significant costs dealing with identity theft. Honest citizens who are victims of identity theft incur very high costs in money, in time, in anxiety, and in an effort to correct and restore their spoiled credit histories and good names. Someone steals their identity and then uses it, and their whole credit record is being destroyed. Then it is almost impossible for them to function in a normal economic way in our society.

This bill contains a number of important provisions that will address identity theft, and I commend not only the chairman but the members of the committee--all of the members of the committee--who were prepared to focus on this issue and give it a very high priority as we sought to move this legislation forward.

The bill will allow consumers to place fraud alerts on their consumer reports. It will allow military personnel to place alerts on their reports indicating their active duty status. So there is a special concern for our men and women in the military.

The bill provides for free credit reports after a fraud alert. Consumers will be able to get two free credit reports in the year after a fraud alert is placed in their file, as they seek to clean up the situation and to remedy it.

As to account blocking, the bill will allow identity theft victims to direct consumer reporting agencies to stop furnishing information regarding the accounts associated with identity theft.

``One call'' policy: The bill will require that the national credit reporting agencies that receive consumer calls about identity theft direct the complaint to the other national agencies so that identity theft victims need not contact each agency separately. They can make one contact, and then the information is disseminated on identity theft.

With regard to notification of fraudulent information, the bill will require debt collectors who learn that information in a consumer report is fraudulent, maybe the result of identity theft, to notify the creditor of the fraudulent information.

On truncation of account numbers, the bill will require that businesses truncate credit or debit card numbers on electronic receipts.

And on prohibition of the sale of identity theft, the bill protects consumers by prohibiting the sale, transfer, or collection of a debt where a consumer is an identity theft victim with respect to that debt. This will help to prevent identity theft debt from being perpetuated within the credit system.

I want particularly to note the leadership of Senator Cantwell with respect to identity theft. Her identity theft legislation actually passed on the floor of the Senate last year, and this bill incorporates many of the provisions that were in her legislation, including an extension of the statute of limitations and the blocking provisions. I know she has worked closely with Senator Enzi in that regard in trying to address this identity theft issue.

I also want to acknowledge the work that Senator Feinstein has also done on the identity theft question. We are most appreciative of her efforts in this regard as well.

This is just a summary of a number of the provisions of this legislation

which I think extends important protections to consumers. The bill provides a number of important improvements in the credit reporting system.

As I mentioned earlier, this legislation was voted out of the committee on a voice vote. There are certain provisions of the existing legislation that will expire on January 1, 2004. Therefore, it is important this legislation be enacted before the end of this session.

I close by again thanking the chairman for the very fair and balanced way in which the hearings were conducted and in which the markup took place. We sometimes put down or minimize the importance of process. It is not a very catchy word, ``process,'' but a good deal of what we try to do here and when you try to make this democratic process work involves process. It involves how you go about considering issues and how open and fair you are in doing it; how the majority treats the minority and how the minority responds to the treatment it receives from the majority. I believe a good process contributes to good legislation, that it is an important part of formulating legislation and arriving at the building of a consensus to address important problems.

I simply want to say to my colleagues that I think the process that was followed in this instance was as it should have been, and I think the fact we bring this legislation to the floor out of the committee with a unanimous vote is, in part, a consequence of that process. I again thank and commend the chairman in that regard.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield to me for just 30 seconds?

Mr. President, we are having two major statements on unrelated issues. We have an amendment pending. We are trying to work through these amendments. We think there is an opportunity to dispatch them in good order. So I certainly encourage people who want to speak on the pending Feinstein amendment to come to the floor so they can be heard and we can complete that debate and then move to a vote on or in relationship to that amendment and then follow on with the other amendments and move this bill toward completion.

I know there is no one in the Chamber wishing to speak now, and we certainly think the Senator from Illinois ought to be able to offer his statement, so this is not directed at him. I want to certainly assure him of that. But as we proceed, thereafter, if we could follow along, I think it would be very helpful.

Mr. President, does the Senator from Colorado wish to speak?

Before the Senator begins, I want to renew the call we made a few minutes ago. I know the chairman agrees with me in doing this. To those who want to speak on the pending amendment, we hope you will come to the floor and do so. We hope others who have amendments they want to offer will be prepared, once we dispose of the current amendment, to present their amendments so we can move along.

There is a possibility I think we can finish this bill in good order. I know that is what everyone would like to accomplish. I know Chairman Shelby is anxious to, on the one hand, move things along and, on the other hand, ensure people have an opportunity to address these matters. In order for them to do that, we need them to come to the floor, so we are putting out that call.

I am happy to yield to the distinguished leader for a question.

I will be quick because I know the chairman intends to move ahead with respect to this amendment. I will make some very basic points.

Some of this discussion has been along the lines that under existing law this information is shielded and we are taking something away from people. The fact is, under existing law there are no limitations on the sharing of information with affiliates. That is the existing law.

What the committee has sought to do is place the limitation on the sharing of information with affiliates for solicitation for marketing purposes, which is the biggest complaint we have heard flowing out of the sharing of information. That is what people have complained to us about. We are trying to provide that protection for the consumer.

The California law and the amendment take a different approach. They, in effect, say you cannot share information with an affiliate or the consumer has to be given the opportunity to opt out. But the California law has some exceptions or exemptions from that requirement. The amendment that is pending has 17 such exemptions.

To evaluate this--it is very complex; I agree with my colleague from California when she says this is a complex area; it is very complex-- but to evaluate these exemptions, you have to work through all of the exceptions and see where that leads as opposed to what is in the committee bill.

Let me give an example. One exception is if a company is in the same line of business, a common brand, then the provisions of the amendment do not apply with respect to restricting and sharing of information. What the committee has reported out would, in fact, apply a limitation, an opt-out limitation in that instance for soliciting for marketing purposes.

As I said earlier, that is generally what we have heard as being the source of people's concern and discontent. In that sense, what is in the bill is for that purpose broader than what is in the amendment.

These extensive exceptions will involve a great deal of litigation. We do have a preexisting customer relationship exception, our provision, which we expect the regulators to define, to give it more content and more meaning.

Second, the amendment has an exemption for a common database and the information that goes into a common database. In fact, it says a person does not disclose information or share information with an affiliate solely because information is maintained in a common information system or database and employees of the person and its affiliate have access to that common information system or database. That is another provision in the amendment, a major provision, which in fact restrains or restricts the consumer's ability to opt out.

I could go on with this form of analysis, but I have probably given enough to underscore my thoughts. I appreciate the commitment of the two Senators from California, Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Boxer, on this issue. They have been champions and leaders on this issue. Many Members have been with them on these matters and presumably will remain with them.

But we are trying to craft a bill to deal with the FCRA. It is not comprehensive. We are dealing with that subject alone. What is in the bill from the committee is a significant improvement over existing law. I don't think there is any question about that. I think there is an arguable case that, in fact, it may provide more protection for the consumer than the amendment that is pending. Therefore, I am supportive of the chairman and his efforts with regard to this issue.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2059

Mr. President, we are happy to take this amendment. I wish to echo the chairman in thanking Senator Cantwell and Senator Enzi for their work on this important issue. This is an issue they have been addressing for quite some time, and we are very pleased that there are important identity provisions as the bill came from the committee, and I think this is a positive addition.

Mr. President, I actually wish to commend the Senator from California because she has introduced some specificity into a provision that is in the committee-reported bill. I am very frank to say I think this will be very helpful, and I join the chairman in supporting the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2061

I join with my colleague in accepting the amendment. I commend the Senator from California. Actually, medical information is something that people feel very keenly about and the Senator's amendment will strengthen the provision that was in the bill adopted in the committee. We thank her very much for the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2062

Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Illinois because he saw a problem and fastened on it and as a consequence, we at least have a solution, at least at the regulatory level. I understand the Senator may well pursue it statutorily, although Sallie Mae is not under the jurisdiction of our committee, as he understands.

I share his concern. I think this was an unacceptable situation which existed. Because of the actions of the Senator from Illinois and also the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl--who also took a keen interest in this issue--I think we have the resolution of it. I appreciate the Senator's action.

I share the chairman's view. I think the Senator from New York has spotlighted a very important issue, but probably the best way to proceed now is with this joint letter to the Federal Reserve. Then we would have the benefit of their study of this issue as we move ahead to try to address it.

The amendment of the Senator from New Jersey makes a positive contribution to this legislation. I am certainly happy to accept it.

I also thank the Senator for all the work he did in the committee on so many provisions in this legislation. He had a major hand in shaping the bill. I deeply appreciate that.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I would anticipate we would be ready to go to final passage. I think we can move fairly quickly. I know Senators have conflicting demands on them, and we are trying to move along.

Madam President, I understand the data mining amendment encompasses the legislation which the Senator introduced and which is pending in the Judiciary Committee, if I am not mistaken. At least I am informed of that. So it is not within the scope of the work of our committee, I say with all due respect to the Senator.

I share some concerns about the issues he is raising, and I think they are worth paying attention to. But we have tried very hard to deal only with amendments that are relevant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle, upon hearing that, have refrained or withheld from offering amendments that are outside that parameter, and we are very grateful to them for doing that. Obviously, it has enabled us to move this legislation along.

I think we have had a very open process in dealing with amendments that affect the provisions of the FCRA. We tried to keep it open and I think, in a sense, we have bent over backward to do that. But we have tried to dissuade the offering of amendments that are outside that scope.

I think this amendment falls into that category, and therefore I will be supportive of the chairman in the statement he made. This is not to speak to the substance of the Senator's amendment in any developed way; I assure him of that. But it seems to me this is not within the scope of what we do in the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

Mr. President, I support this amendment. Senator Nelson of Florida has focused on an important issue involving the disposal of consumer financial records. We commend the amendment to our colleagues.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I simply want to observe that we had a fair and open working relationship in the committee in bringing the legislation forward. All Members participated from both sides. I would expect that same relationship to then continue in the conference committee. We have been dealt fairly by the chairman. I presume we will continue to be dealt fairly by the chairman. I just wanted to add that perception to this relationship.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I echo the chairman in expressing my deep appreciation to the staff people he enumerated: Kathy Casey, Doug Nappi, and Mark Oesterle on the Republican side, and Steve Harris, Lynsey Graham, Dean Shahinian, and Marty Gruenberg on the Democratic side.

We are fortunate in the Banking Committee that we have a very committed, able, dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle. Furthermore, they have been able to work with one another in a very productive and cooperative fashion. The chairman and I are keenly aware of the fact of how much we rely upon them, and we want them to know how much we appreciate their terrific effort, which was reflected in this legislation and in many other matters with which the committee deals.

I am a cosponsor of the Mikulski-Landrieu amendment, and I say to my colleague from Wyoming, before he leaves, the more I listened to him, the more committed I became to this amendment. In fact, with each passing minute as he spoke, I was increasingly strengthened in my view that it is the right and honorable thing to support this amendment and to urge my colleagues to support it. I will outline why that is the case.

Before I do that, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor.

The Senator from Wyoming spoke as though the amendment is going to repeal public-private competition sourcing.

My colleague talked about what was done in 2001 and the competitions that have taken place since that date. So, as one listened to him, one was thinking: Well, is this whole competitive arrangement going to be stopped in its tracks? Nothing could be further from the truth.

What this amendment seeks to do is to stop an OMB revision, of last May 29, with respect to the terms on which these competitions are going to take place. That is all it does. When I was first listening to the Senator from Wyoming, I thought to myself: Well, surely we would meet what seems to be his concern if we just went back to the system that prevailed before the OMB revision. But then, at the end, he became clear and said, no, he wants those revisions as well. That is what I am very much opposed to.

This amendment seeks to ensure the Government work is allocated in a fair and equitable manner. I believe it would provide the American taxpayers with the best value for Government services and for their tax dollars.

Often--in fact, federal employees win most of these competitions. There seems to be a premise on the part of the Senator from Wyoming that savings is most often achieved when work goes to the private sector. That is not the case.

What has happened is the OMB is driving an ideological agenda. It has rewritten the rules governing competitive sourcing, which, I think, in effect, jeopardizes fair competition, jeopardizes getting the best value for Government services, and jeopardizes the taxpayers' dollars.

Earlier this year, the Office of Management and Budget, on May 29, issued a new circular, a new ruling that rewrote the rules by which this competition takes place. The concept of public-private competitions or competitive sourcing is not new, but the manner in which it is to be conducted is drastically altered by the rules of May 29 put forward by OMB.

The new process established by OMB unfairly favors private sector contractors over Federal employees, opens highly specialized Government jobs to the lowest bidder, imposes arbitrary quotas and deadlines on Government

agencies, and, I think, lead, in fact, leads to a waste of Government money rather than saving Government money.

We all seek to make the Federal Government more cost effective and efficient. However, to achieve these goals, there are certain tests which should be met.

First, we need to demonstrate with certainty that cost savings are achieved through the outsourcing of work to the private sector. No effective method has been put in place for oversight of the private contractors doing work for the Federal Government. This is most apparent at the Department of Defense where competitive sourcing has been most prevalent. It is my understanding that DOD cannot fully account for how many contract workers they currently employ or the cost to the American taxpayers for the work they do.

Second, we must ensure that Federal employees are given the opportunity to compete on fair terms. Often, in these public-private competitions Government employees can be placed at a distinct disadvantage by making proprietary information about the Government bid available to their commercial competitors at a time when that information can be used to unfairly enhance the commercial offering. Government employees are not offered the same opportunity to enhance their bids.

There is a great temptation that with this access to proprietary information for the commercial bidder to lowball their bid to win the contract, and then increase prices once the competition is eliminated.

Unfortunately, because there is so little Government oversight of contractors, it is difficult to assess the costs of contractor work. When contract costs escalate, it is difficult to fix the problem.

Thirdly, I am concerned that many highly specialized Government jobs will be let out to the private sector without proper consideration of qualitative factors. I believe many of these positions are inherently governmental and should not be awarded to the lowest bidder.

The Senator from Wyoming, in effect, dismissed concrete examples offered by my colleague with respect to the problems. But how do we understand this issue if we do not focus on concrete examples?

At NIH, competitive sourcing, it has been asserted to us, threatens not only the critical scientific work conducted there but also the security of the installation itself.

NIH scientists have testified before a joint House-Senate hearing that they believe competitive sourcing has created a wave of unnecessary anxiety and bureaucratic duplication, and that the implementation of the initiative at NIH was not well thought out.

Additionally, the administration rejected a request by NIH officials to exempt the fire department from competitive sourcing. Because the nature of the work done at NIH often involves hazardous materials, the Federal firefighters assigned to NIH have specialized training in the handling of chemical, biological, and radiological events.

This kind of expertise cannot be matched in the private sector, and losing this asset would certainly be to the detriment of NIH's mission. Yet the administration refused to classify the firefighters as core public employees who would not be privatized.

I want to add another dimension to this consideration as one of the largest employers in the country, the Federal Government should serve as a model for other businesses.

In recent years, we have made great strides in extending employment to disadvantaged groups. I believe the Government must lead by example in this area. At Bethesda National Naval Medical Hospital, competitive sourcing threatens the jobs of mentally challenged workers who perform important services in the hospital's scullery.

My very able colleague from Maryland outlined this situation. To counter what I thought was a very powerful statement of this point, the Senator from Wyoming sort of dismissed it as, quote, an emotional argument.

Is it an emotional argument to register the fact that the National Naval Medical Hospital is seeking to provide some dignity and self- respect for mentally challenged workers to do these basic, virtually custodial, services in the hospital's scullery?

This employment enables these individuals to lead independent lives. There is no accounting for that in this OMB circular. These are real examples. These are real people. This problem ought not to be dismissed. It is one of the consequences of the revision of this OMB circular.

The House has passed its version of the Mikulski amendment by a vote of 220 to 198. Obviously, when it was considered by our colleagues on the other side, they saw merit in it.

Furthermore, this proposal from OMB artificially inflates the cost of the Federal employees' bid by arbitrarily assuming a 12-percent overhead as part of the bid. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense has said the 12-percent overcharge arbitrarily placed on all in-house bids is insupportable and that either a new overhead rate must be established or an alternative methodology must be devised to allow overhead to be calculated on a competition-specific basis.

If we are to have this competition--and we have had it, as the Senator from Wyoming pointed out when he went back in earlier references, for some period of time--it needs to be on a fair basis. You need to make sure the playing field has not been tilted. The regulations of May 29 tilted the playing field unfairly, not only to the disadvantage of the Federal worker but to the disadvantage of the Federal taxpayer.

It needs to be understood that if the rules of competition are not fair, the awarding of the work to the private contractor may cost the taxpayer more money with a less quality product. That is what is at issue here. This amendment doesn't stop the competitive sourcing process. It only stops the revised regulations, the radical revised regulations that were put into place on May 29 and which have tilted the playing field, have moved away from a fair process, and resulted in a bad deal for the American taxpayers. We need to have an even playing field. We need to make sure the rules of competition are fair. This amendment is designed to accomplish that, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I will seek the floor on my own accord, if the Senator is finished.

I listened very carefully to my distinguished colleague from Ohio. I don't gainsay his concern about the Federal workers. I accept his assertion in that regard, and it has been my own experience in dealing with him in the past. I was concerned about one thing when he listed the members of this Commission.

He talked about this very diverse Commission, but it is my understanding that Commission, when it made its recommendations, had unanimity with respect to some and differences of opinion with respect to others. In any event, the OMB circular issued on May 29, the matter that is at issue here with the Mikulski-Landrieu amendment, does not track the recommendations of the Commission. In other words, it departs from it in significant respects, and much of the problem we are talking about is a consequence of that departure.

What we have before us is not something that has been worked out and a consensus has developed, although we had a broad group that went into the deliberations and it doesn't reflect a consensus in the Congress. Witness, the vote in the House of Representatives where a majority of the House of Representatives supported the House version of the Mikulski amendment. So there is no consensus on that score.

All this amendment would do would be to say: No, we are not going to let the OMB hand down these revisions, this new circular, to rewrite the rules in this way. We will put that on hold, and we will go back and look again at this issue to see if we can't come up with a solution which commands a consensus.

I feel very strongly that is the way we should seek to deal with this matter. This isn't repealing competitive sourcing. All it is saying is that this OMB circular, which was put into place a few months ago and which many very strongly feel does not give you a level playing field or fair competition, that is going to be put on hold and provide us an opportunity then to revisit this issue in a more careful, balanced, and judicious way, and out of that process hopefully come up with a consensus.

I think that is a reasonable way to proceed in the circumstance. It doesn't nullify or vitiate the competitive sourcing approach. It only seeks to assure that it will be done in a fair, balanced, level playing field way. I think that is an important objective to achieve, and it is not reflected in the May 29 OMB circular.

I certainly yield to the Senator.

Is my colleague asserting that the members of the panel supported or support the OMB circular of May 29?

It is my understanding that a number of members of that panel disagree with the OMB circular of May 29, and if that is the case, I don't see how the Senator can be using this panel as supportive of the OMB circular.

The Senator mentioned this panel that was studying it and he went through the membership of the panel.

He emphasized how diverse it was in terms of where it drew people from. But it is my understanding that the OMB circular does not reflect the position of a number of members of the panel. Is the Senator asserting to the contrary?

Mr. President, I have the floor, I believe. I am not going to press my colleague further because I think it is manifest by the comments he just made in terms of deficiencies in the OMB circular, that the members of this panel who studied this matter did not concur or support the OMB circular.

Obviously, by his own statement just now, a number of concerns and problems were raised with respect to the OMB circular. I, therefore, renew my very strong support for the amendment of my colleague in an effort to try to, in effect, hold things in place while we try to figure out what constitutes a fair and reasonable solution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I simply make the observation that the offering of this amendment by the Senators from Wyoming and Ohio clearly admits and sends the signal that the OMB circular issued on May 29 was grossly deficient.

Now, they are addressing it in certain limited respects. And to the extent that is the case, so be it. But it does not really solve the basic problem which we confront, and that is that OMB handed down this circular which grossly tilts the playing field and which structures an unfair competition.

It seems to me the best way to resolve this situation is to adopt the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, which in effect would hold the May 29 OMB circular. We could then revisit this question and address the range of the deficiencies that are in that circular. My own view is, if people of good will undertake that enterprise, we will be able, I hope, to reach a consensus and have a better product as a consequence.

I think this is, in a sense, elemental fairness for the Federal employee and for the Federal taxpayer. This issue is always portrayed as though contracting out to the private sector is beneficial to the Federal taxpayer. That is clearly not the case. In fact, there has been instance after instance in which Federal employees win competitions, therefore validating the argument that they are better for the

taxpayer than putting it out into the private sector.

Now, OMB, because it is not meeting its targets--these ideological targets that have been placed upon them, which they in turn are imposing upon the agencies because they cannot get the outcome they seek--has come in with a new circular, of May 29, which tilts the playing field in an unfair way. That really cries out for the passage of the very well considered amendment of my colleague from Maryland.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2003, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Allen. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for Federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the nation.

All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms

of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2001 Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $69.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation options in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years.

Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2002 to $100 per month.

Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average.

In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work.

According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, by 2001 more than 110,000 employees--approximately one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region.

The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover the more than 100,000 Federal employees in the legislative and judicial branches, and the dozens of independent Federal agencies located in the Washington, D.C. region. While many of these organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit.

Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow Federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations.

The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By 2005, FDA estimates 1,700 employees will work at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees.

This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop.

The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to an additional 100,000 employees in the Washington, DC region.

Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown 236 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging Federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life.

I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give Federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to Federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by Federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with their letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2003, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Allen. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for Federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the nation.

All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms

of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2001 Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $69.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation options in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years.

Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2002 to $100 per month.

Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average.

In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work.

According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, by 2001 more than 110,000 employees--approximately one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region.

The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover the more than 100,000 Federal employees in the legislative and judicial branches, and the dozens of independent Federal agencies located in the Washington, D.C. region. While many of these organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit.

Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow Federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations.

The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By 2005, FDA estimates 1,700 employees will work at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees.

This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop.

The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to an additional 100,000 employees in the Washington, DC region.

Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown 236 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging Federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life.

I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give Federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to Federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by Federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with their letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.

Mr. President, H.J. Res. 52 recognizes the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry in Baltimore as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States. It passed the House unanimously and is a companion measure to legislation I introduced in the Senate, together with Senator Mikulski, S.J. Res. 12.

The principal purpose of this legislation is to help educate the public about the critical importance of oral health

to the overall health of all Americans. Three years ago, U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher issued a comprehensive report entitled ``Oral Health in America,'' which identified the problem of dental and oral disease as a ``silent epidemic'' facing the country. The report called for the development of a National Oral Health Plan, and recommended that actions be taken to ``change perceptions regarding oral health and disease so that oral health becomes an accepted component of general health.'' By designating an official national museum and learning center dedicated to dentistry, this legislation takes an important step toward the achievement of this goal.

The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry is the largest and most comprehensive museum of dentistry in this country, and, indeed, the world. An affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum sits on the grounds of the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, founded in 1840 as the world's first dental college. With over 7,000 square feet of exhibit space, the Museum showcases the people, objects, and events that created and defined the dental profession, including one of George Washington's famed ivory dentures. The Museum's vast archives also act as an important resource for research and serious academic study of dentistry's past, with a unique collection of historical dental journals and other one-of-a-kind documents.

By designating the Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry as the official national museum of dentistry, we will not only recognize the critical role that dentists and oral health professionals have played in the history of our Nation's health care system, but enhance awareness and understanding of the importance of dentistry to public health.

I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the work of the Hous-

ing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, MD. Today, the Housing Opportunities Commission is celebrating the 10th anniversary of its Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program, which helps low-income families with section 8 housing vouchers or living in public housing meet their educational and employment goals. The Housing Opportunities Commission has established a wonderful program that provides resources to low-income families to help them find and retain employment along with the opportunity for families to put away savings. These savings allow families to pay for educational opportunities, transportation or even the purchase of a home. While many housing authorities operate Family Self Sufficiency programs, I believe that the Housing Opportunities Commission has done an extraordinary job of helping its residents achieve economic independence.

In the 10 years that the Commission has operated the Family Self Sufficiency program, almost 350 people have graduated and are well on their way to financial independence. These families faced significant barriers to gaining employment--33 percent were on welfare or were unemployed, many had no high school degree and 95 percent are single parents. Despite these obstacles, all 347 graduates have been able to retain stable employment, and 25 percent of the FSS graduates have purchased their own homes, a remarkable achievement.

The Housing Opportunities Commission, HOC, has been committed to this important program for 10 years. By providing intensive case management, opportunities for education and job training and assistance in finding and paying for child care, HOC has ensured that the families enrolled in FSS can make the transition from welfare to work a successful one.

In addition to working to better the lives of Montgomery County residents, the Housing Opportunities Commission has been a strong advocate for the program, helping me and others in Congress fight to continue and even expand the FSS program. In 1998, my colleagues and I fought to keep this program and thankfully, we were able to strengthen it by requiring that certain increases in income were disregarded for purposes of determining the amount of rent a family pays. Families who take part in FSS and increase their incomes are able to save money in an escrow account instead of paying more in rent. This is a great encouragement for families to find better employment, and it ensures that funds are available when necessary for emergencies. In addition, last year, I introduced legislation which would expand the program so that families living in project-based section 8 developments could also benefit from a housing agency's self-sufficiency programs.

The Family Self Sufficiency program is one that changes lives for the better, and that is evident when looking at this year's participants in HOC's program. This year, 36 new families will graduate from the FSS program in Montgomery County, and I want to recognize the work that they have done to become self-sufficient. Ninety-two percent of these graduates have participated in education and/or job training courses and seven graduates have become homeowners.

These individuals are not only better positioned to participate in the job market, but they are providing stability for their families and models for their communities. The staff at HOC and the graduates of the FSS program, present, past, and future, are to be commended for their efforts.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I say to the Senator from West Virginia, this is a very important item. We do this provision, we set out all these numbers--

We link the numbers with particular activities, and then, when you go over and look at the next page, and look at the fine print, you discover the President can reallocate the funds provided under this heading.

This is giving the President $20,304,000,000 in effect to do as he pleases, without reference to the money figures that are set out.

We may argue about how much should be appropriated and what it should be appropriated for, but there ought not to be any argument it is the Congress that is to determine what the appropriations are to be and what the money is going to go for. To simply hand over $20 billion, and then have a clause that enables the President to use it for any of these purposes he chooses is to completely abdicate the congressional responsibility and the power of the purse.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Warner, which seeks to address the damages at Department of Defense installations in those States impacted by Hurricane Isabel.

The State of Maryland was particularly hard hit by Hurricane Isabel and the strong winds and flooding that accompanied it. Entire communities were submerged, power was lost in some areas for a week and countless individuals sustained damage to their homes, businesses and property. A number of Maryland's military facilities were similarly affected.

Perhaps the hardest hit was the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis which suffered approximately $39 million in damage. Several weeks ago, I met with the Academy's Superintendent, Vice Admiral Rodney Rempt, who shared with me photographs of the destruction brought on by the hurricane. Hurricane-related swelling of the Chesapeake Bay, the Severn River and the Annapolis Harbor resulted in the flooding of academic buildings and laboratories, the submerging of athletic fields and the destruction of electrical systems. Our future Naval officers are now forced to take classes wherever they can be offered in the chapel, on a Navy barge, in administrative offices.

Hurricane destruction was not limited to Annapolis alone. Officials at the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground, Patuxent River Naval Air Station and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division, among others, also report significant amounts totaling in the millions of dollars to repair roofs and buildings, replace piers, and clean up debris related to the storms.

As you know, Operation and Maintenance funding at our bases is routinely among the most thinly stretched. And that is in years without a major natural disaster. This amendment provides $500 million to cover the much-needed cost of repair at facilities along the East Coast facilities whose continued operation are vital to our national defense. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting its passage.

Will the Senator from Indiana yield for a question?

Does the Senator have control of the time?

No.

Mr. President, does the time then come back to the Senator from Indiana?

Mr. President, I will defer until the Senator concludes, and then I will seek to have an exchange with the Senator.

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

I want to make sure, as I understand the Senator's amendment, $10 billion of this $87 billion which he proposes as a loan on the reconstruction side, under the very terms of his amendment would be forgiven if 90 percent of Iraq's outstanding debt were forgiven by other countries; is that correct?

I want to commend the Senator for the wisdom of his amendment. If we do not adopt this amendment, the United States presumably will go to a debtors conference trying to persuade people that they should forgive the debt to Iraq. If your amendment passes, the United States is in a position at that debtors conference to say: If you will forgive your debt, we will forgive this debt. In fact, the amendment, by its terms, would require that.

If we make it all a grant, we will go to the debtors conference and we will say to them: We made a grant. Now you should forgive your debt.

They are going to say: Well, that is over and done with. That is water over the dam. That grant has happened. What do you have to give us here at this conference?

So presumably at that point, we are going to come up with another chunk of money, would that be correct?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to the Maryland Watermen's Association which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. I have had the opportunity to work closely with the MWA and its members over the years on a number of important issues--from improving our commercial harbors and historic seaports to restoring oyster reefs in Chesapeake Bay--and I have great respect for the men and women who make their living working Maryland's waters.

For many people, Maryland's watermen conjure up romantic images of solitary oystermen sailing the Chesapeake Bay in skipjacks and harvesting the Bay's bounty. Their independent lifestyle in the outdoors represents a significant part of the culture of the Chesapeake Bay. But a Maryland waterman's life is not easy. It is arduous work harvesting crabs, clams, oysters and charter fishing. Watermen are dependent upon good weather and when storms prevent harvesting, there is no paycheck. Watermen also depend upon pollution-free water and disease-free finfish and shellfish. The number of licensed, active watermen has decreased by over 2,000 in 30 years. These stark realities make Maryland's watermen strong and persistent advocates for the restoration of Chesapeake Bay.

Representing the independent and hardworking watermen is no easy task particularly in these times when their way of life is buffeted by so many forces. However, since it was first established in 1973, the Maryland Watermen's Association has done a great job of representing the interests of commercial watermen to the Maryland General Assembly and our congressional delegation. Under the leadership of Larry Simns, its president since 1973, and Betty Duty, its administrator, the association has been a forceful and effective advocate for Maryland's commercial finfish and shellfish industries.

I extend an invitation for all to attend Chesapeake Appreciation Days, to be held at Sandy Point State Park, Saturday and Sunday, November 1 and 2. This celebration of the Chesapeake Bay and the watermen who depend upon it is sponsored by the Maryland Watermen's Association. Chesapeake Appreciation Days is an excellent opportunity for everyone to see exhibits and events which will teach about the Bay's importance to all of us. It is a terrific way to gain an appreciation of the hard working members of the Maryland Watermen's Association over the last 30 years.

Mr. President, I support the conference report to the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act or Check 21 Act. This is an important piece of legislation and a high priority for the Federal Reserve Board. I commend Chairman Shelby for his leadership on this issue. Senators Johnson, Carper, Miller and Bennett also played important roles in developing this legislation. The Check 21 Act enjoys broad bipartisan support. the conference report passed the House of Representatives unanimously on October 9th. Earlier this year both Houses of Congress passed similar bills by unanimous vote.

This legislation is designed to allow banks to use electronic images of checks to expedite check collection and processing. Current law requires a bank that receives a deposited check to physically return the check to the

issuing bank unless there is an agreement to provide for alternative presentment. It is important to note that there is no current legal requirement that an issuing bank return the original check to its customer.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent closure of air traffic by the Federal Aviation Administration exposed a serious weakness in our financial system. The inability of banks to send physical checks for presentment and payment for several days prevented the clearing of close to $50 billion in transactions. This crisis required the Federal Reserve to use extraordinary efforts to prevent a serious disruption in our financial markets.

Under the Check 21 Act, banks will no longer be required to physically transport checks across the nation. Instead, they will be allowed to electronically scan the front and back of each check, create an encrypted, electronic image of each check, and then transmit the images rapidly from one area of the country to another. Consumers who wish to receive copies of their checks for record keeping purposes or who are investigating bank errors or possible fraud may receive printed copies of these electronic images. According to the Federal bank regulatory agencies, they have received few, if any, complaints from bank consumers who currently do not have their original checks returned with their monthly statements and use imaged copies of checks to dispute payments. Moreover, the Check 21 Act will not alter present law requiring banks to maintain copies of checks for seven years.

The widespread adoption of check truncation and electronic imaging will reduce the dependence of the check processing system on transportation and will increase the resiliency of the financial system to terrorist attacks or other unforeseen events. In addition, the banking industry has indicated that the legislation has the potential to make deposited funds available to the consumer more quickly. With increased efficiency through electronic check transmission, banks have also indicated that they will be able to reduce processing time and may be able to more quickly identify check fraud and bank errors. Moreover, in certain cases where a consumer's account is improperly charged, the legislation provides for expedited recrediting of the account.

Important consumer protections were maintained during the development of this check truncation legislation in the Senate. I appreciate Chairman Shelby's responsiveness to many of my concerns regarding consumer protections and ensuring that consumers enjoy some of the benefits of the legislation. I am also pleased that the House Conferees agreed to incorporate the Senate's consumer protection provisions in the Conference Report.

First, the conference report contains statutory language clarifying that the comparative negligence language in the bill is not intended to reduce the rights of consumers under the Uniform Commercial Code or other applicable state or federal law. The report language in the Senate bill further clarifies that in the absence of fraud or bad faith, the comparative negligence provisions would generally not be applicable to consumer check users.

Second, the Check 21 Act establishes, for the first time, the right of expedited recredit for improper check charges to a consumer's bank account. Pursuant to Section 7 of the legislation, certain consumers are given a right to expedited recredit within 10 days for the amount of a substitute check--under $2,500--that is improperly charged to the consumer's account. Current check law does not mandate a time frame for resolving consumer complaints. A consumer will have 40 days to make a claim after the financial institution mails the periodic statement or makes the substitute check available. Under extenuating circumstances, the financial institution must extend the period for filing a claim by a reasonable amount of time.

Section 7 states that the time for action begins when the financial institutions mails or delivers, by any means agreed to by the consumer, the periodic statement, or the date on which the substitute check is made available to the consumer and Section 12 permits notices to be sent to a consumer by any means agreed to by the consumer. However, this Act does not address how the agreement referred to in sections 7 or 12 may occur. That topic is covered by the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.

Third, the conference report contains a Federal Reserve study on the appropriateness of the time frame and monetary threshold for expedited funds availability. This provision requires the Fed to re-evaluate current practices and may lead to the reduction in the amount of time a bank may hold a deposited check before making the funds available to the consumer.

Lastly, the conference report contains a General Accounting Office study to evaluate an assessment of consumer acceptance of the check truncation process, including whether consumers who were receiving returned checks prior to the enactment of this legislation incurred any new costs; and estimate of the gains in efficiencies made possible by this Act; and a determination of consumers' share of total benefits derived from this Act.

I also want to take a moment to recognize those members of the Banking Committee staff who devoted so many hours to crafting this important and comprehensive legislation. On my staff: Patience Singleton and Aaron Klein and on the staff of Chairman Shelby: Peggy Kuhn and Doug Nappi.

I look forward to monitoring the implementation of the Check 21 act by the Federal Reserve and the banking industry to ensure that consumers benefit from this legislation.

Mr. President, I want to pick up on a point that the Senator from South Dakota just made, and that is the question of sacrifice. The people in this country who are making sacrifices in this war in Iraq are the working people and the men and women in our armed services.

The men and women who are losing their lives and suffering casualties come overwhelmingly from working families in America. Overwhelmingly they are the ones who are unable to meet their families' needs, and their own needs, because our national priorities have disastrously changed and the impact has fallen on particularly crucial programs: education, health care, job training--you can go right down the list.

The deficits we are running, the huge national debt that is being run up will come down on the shoulders of working families in this country.

If you want to talk about sacrifice, pass the Biden amendment.

It is time for the privileged in this country to make sacrifices, too. It is not their men and women who are in Iraq. It is not their programs that are being hit. They are not shouldering the debt.

They, too, should be making a sacrifice on behalf of this national effort.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2003.

The Defense Production Act provides the President with important authorities to ensure the availability of industrial resources to meet national security needs and to deal with domestic civil emergencies. This is obviously a period in which the authorities of the DPA are being actively utilized. The DPA expires today, September 30. The Administration has made clear that the reauthorization of the DPA is a high priority.

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs marked up and reported out this bill last week by unanimous consent. The House Financial Services Committee, our counterpart Committee, has also reported out a reauthorization of the DPA that is pending on the House floor. Both bills are essentially simple extensions of the DPA with minor changes requested by the Administration. The imminent expiration of the authorities of the DPA led the staff of the two committees to meet last week to reconcile the few differences between the two bills. That has been accomplished, and Senator Shelby and I will shortly offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting that agreement.

Both bills contained provisions requested by the Administration to correct the industrial resource shortfall for radiation-hardened electronics, and to clarify the President's authority under the DPA to obtain information in order to perform industry studies assessing the capabilities of the United States industrial base to support the national defense.

The Senate bill also contained a provision sponsored by Senator Bennett, which makes explicit that the authorities of the DPA can be used to protect and restore critical infrastructure. This authority takes on a heightened sense of importance in the aftermath of 9/11, and is retained in the substitute amendment with the strong support of the Administration. The Senate bill provides for a 5 year authorization, as requested by the Administration, and the House bill provides for a 4 year authorization. Senator Dodd has raised a concern about the need to address the issue of offsets, which falls under the authority of the DPA. As a result, the

substitute will provide for a 1 year authorization. This is essentially the package.

I would like to commend Chairman Shelby and his staff for working cooperatively to bring this bill and the substitute amendment before the Senate today. I hope the Senate can act promptly to pass this legislation and send it over to the House. I believe the House will then be in a position to take up the Senate bill, pass it, and send it to the White House for the President's signature. That would ensure the continued availability of the important authorities of the Defense Production Act.