Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in supporting the pending legislation. This 5-month extension of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, preserves the basic structure of our Federal surface transportation programs, which have proven to be extremely beneficial for our citizens' mobility and our national economy over the last 6 years.

I want to focus for a moment on the Federal transit program, in which I have a particular interest as the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee. The Banking Committee and its Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, both last Congress and this Congress, have held a series of hearings on the contributions of the transit program to reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and improving our quality of life. The clear message of these hearings is that TEA-21 works. The guaranteed funding, the program structure, and the balanced approach to transportation planning encompassed within TEA-21 have contributed to a renaissance for transit in this country; in fact, transit has experienced the highest percentage of ridership growth among all modes of surface transportation, growing over 28 percent between 1993 and 2001. For this reason, I am pleased that this legislation preserves the structure and programs of TEA-21 for the next 5 months.

While we are talking today about a short-term extension, I think we must take a moment to look toward the future. The transportation needs of this Nation are significant, as more and more communities find themselves confronting the problems of traffic congestion and delay. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in the year 2000, Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the Nation of $67.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. As these figures show, congestion has a real economic cost to this Nation, in addition to the psychological and social costs of spending hours each day sitting in traffic.

It is clear to me that we will have to greatly increase Federal support for transportation to help local communities make the investments in infrastructure and system preservation that will keep America moving forward in the 21st century. The Department of Transportation's Conditions and Performance Report estimates 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.

Moreover, investment in our transportation infrastructure has economic benefits as well. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, each $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs. At a time when our economy is struggling, investing in transportation is one of the smartest actions that Government can take. Increased investment creates jobs today and leads to economic growth tomorrow.

For this reason, I am disappointed that the administration has not yet come forward with the resources we will need to develop a full, 6 year reauthorization bill. The administration's reauthorization proposal, known as SAFETEA, provides only a minimal increase for the Federal highway program, and in fact would cut that program in fiscal year 2004 from its fiscal year 2003 level. For transit, SAFETEA not only fails to grow the program at the pace of inflation, it cuts guaranteed funding over the 6 year period, so that the guaranteed level in fiscal year 2009 is actually less than the program level today. Without a serious commitment from the administration to make the kind of investment needed, and strong bipartisan bicameral leadership in the Congress, it will be very difficult for us to reauthorize the surface transportation programs even when this short-term extension expires.

Until that commitment is made, however, 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. I encourage the Department of Transportation to use the authority granted by this legislation to provide the needed assistance as expeditiously as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, every year since 1968, in the period between September 15 and October 15, our Nation observes Hispanic Heritage Month. This month-long celebration offers us a special opportunity to reflect on and pay tribute to the innumerable ways that Hispanic Americans, and Hispanic culture, enrich both our daily lives and the diverse heritage of the Nation.

According to the Census Bureau, some 38 million Hispanic Americans today live in the United States--and increasingly, in every corner of the United States. While many Hispanic Americans choose to live in parts of the country with proud and long-established Hispanic traditions; others are finding work, raising families and building vigorous Hispanic communities in places where, until recently, they did not exist or were little noticed. In politics, the arts, the media, sports, our colleges and universities, Hispanic Americans are a vital presence--architects of the American spirit. Even our taste in food reflects the degree to which Hispanic traditions are now woven into the fabric of our lives: tortillas are as much a staple of the national diet as pizza and bagels, and salsa has ended the reign of ketchup as the nation's most popular condiment.

Hispanic Americans bring to American life not one culture but many. Their roots reach to Central and South America and the Caribbean, and beyond, to Europe and Africa; every community enriches a great, underlying cultural foundation with its own distinctive variations. My own State of Maryland offers a brilliant example. There are some 228,000 Hispanic Americans in the State, a number that has increased by 82 percent since the 1990 census. Marylanders today are fortunate to have co-workers and neighbors from Europe, Africa, South and Central America and close cultural ties to the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal. From Puerto Ricans in New York to the Mexican communities of California, Hispanic Americans are changing the face of America and teaching us to celebrate the glory of the multi-faith, multi-cultural family that constitutes this great country. In my own State of Maryland, there are 228,000 Hispanic Americans, an increase of more than 82 percent since 1990, and they come from at least a dozen countries. In every county in Maryland, from the Eastern Shore to the western reaches of the State, Hispanic Americans have found a home.

Nonetheless, across the country Hispanic Americans face numerous challenges. Eager to work, too often they can find only low-paying jobs; the income level of Hispanic households is on average $15,000 less than that of white households, and almost one-third of Hispanic Americans live below the official poverty line. While Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population, a study by the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility found that Hispanics account for only 4.6 percent of U.S. firms' company officials and managers. Despite a 10 percent increase in population in just the last two years, Hispanic voting participation remains worryingly static.

In the great tradition of newcomers to the United States, Hispanic Americans come in search of better lives, decent jobs, and a chance to raise their families in peace and prosperity. Many of us in the Congress, whose families came here in an earlier time for just those reasons, know full well what that means. As public servants we have an opportunity, and indeed I would say an obligation, to ensure that every generation of Americans has access to the opportunities that were given to us. In doing so we keep our Nation on course to achieving the principles set out in the founding documents of our Nation.

We must not let language or economic or social status stand in the way of the full participation of all our people in our community life, and we must not permit these factors to become a barrier to our public institutions and services. In the history of this country no opportunity has been more important than the chance to go to school-- important to the individual, with incalculable benefits to the society as a whole. That is why I have cosponsored S. 1545, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which would make it easier for States to provide in-state tuition status to students without regard to immigration status, and allow some immigrant students who have been in this country for five years or more to apply for legal status. It is my hope that for thousands of our newest Americans the DREAM Act will prove to be an important step along the way to living a rewarding and productive life.

As Hispanic Americans move proudly into the mainstream of American life, Hispanic Heritage Month is our time to celebrate all their accomplishments and contributions and to commit us anew to ensuring that all Americans have access to the wondrous opportunities our Nation offers.

Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers meets its responsibilities to the restoration of the Baltimore metropolitan area ecosystem restoration project. The amendment authorizes and directs the Corps to implement the project in accordance with the Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources--Gwynns Falls Feasibility Report, prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers and the city of Baltimore.

For 10 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been studying water resource problems in the Baltimore metropolitan area. In 1994, the Baltimore District completed a reconnaissance report which concluded that there has been extensive degradation to the marine, aquatic, wetland, riparian and terrestrial habitats in the Baltimore metropolitan area. Over the years, rapid growth of the area, filling of wetlands, and previous construction of Federal works to meet flood control and navigation needs, among other things, have contributed to the degradation of the streams that drain the Baltimore basin. The report identified a Federal interest in restoring the ecosystem of six watersheds, with the Gwynns Falls watershed selected first for further study.

The city of Baltimore agreed to share with the Corps in the cost of the next phase of the study process--a $1.6 million feasibility study. During the course of that more detailed study, the Corps found that there was a significant loss of stream water and groundwater into sewers located in the stream channels and, in order to restore the Gwynns Falls ecosystem and more than 2 million gallons of water per day to the watershed, the cracks in these sewers must be repaired. In December 2001, Corps Headquarters agreed that the sewer line rehabilitation work was integral to--and should be included in--the ecosystem restoration project and was within the Corps' environmental restoration authority. In fact, the Corps found that it was far less expensive to line the sewers and seal the manholes than undertake other alternatives such as channel lining and artificial watering. The draft Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources Gwynns Falls Watershed Feasibility Report, completed in January 2002, recommended sewer system rehabilitation as a key part of the environmental restoration projects for Gwynns Falls. It was anticipated at that time, that the feasibility report would be completed by May 2002 and the project would be authorized for construction in the Water Resources Development Act of 2002.

In 2001, the city of Baltimore and EPA began the process of negotiating a consent decree to address the city's collection system overflow problem which was polluting area streams and waterways in violation of the Clean Water Act. Baltimore signed the consent decree with EPA in April 2002 making the city legally responsible for approximately $900 million in sewer infrastructure improvements throughout the city, including fixing the sewer system in the Gwynns Falls watershed by the year 2007. The city did so with the understanding that the Corps would share in the approximately $13 million cost of sewer rehabilitation in this area.

Months went by and no action was taken on the feasibility report until April 2003, when the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army effectively reneged on the agreement to participate in this project. Although the office, once again, concurred that the sewer work was integral to the ecosystem restoration project, it claimed that the sewer rehabilitation portion of the recommended project was now the legal responsibility of the city--because it signed the consent decree--and therefore it was inappropriate for the Federal Government to cost-share in this part of the project. Despite having acted in good faith to comply with Federal law and participating for years in studies with the Army Corps of Engineers with the intended purpose of improving the urban ecosystem in this area, the city of Baltimore is now being penalized for signing this consent decree. Throughout this process, the city was never appraised by the Corps that, if it signed the consent degree, the Corps would not be able to share in the cost of this project. Now Baltimore is left with the prospect of either attempting to remove the Gwynns Falls project from the consent decree--an uncertain prospect at best--or somehow overcoming a Corps planning guidance document. That is what we are seeking to do with this amendment.

It is important to point out that there is no other instance that we have been able to identify in Federal law or regulation, that prohibits a municipality from using Federal funds or programs to help achieve compliance with a consent decree. Indeed, a number of cities have used the Clean Water State Revolving Fund or EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants for this purpose. There is no logical reason that the Corps of Engineers' program should not follow suit.

Why offer the amendment to this measure? First of all, it does not appear that the Senate will consider a Water Resources Development Act this year. Second, time is running out for the city of Baltimore. In order to meet the 2007 consent decree deadline and to avoid future penalties for sewage discharges, the city must begin design and construction of the Gwynns Falls project shortly.

This amendment simply directs the Secretary to implement the project in accordance with the original plans in the Gwynns Falls Feasibility Study.

amendment no. 1709

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Warner in offering this amendment directing the Secretary of the Army to develop an environmental impact statement, EIS,

to evaluate the risks and benefits of introducing non-native oysters in Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay was once the largest producer of oysters in the world, providing some 20 million bushels annually at the turn of the century. The once abundant oyster populations not only sustained an important part of our economy, providing jobs for thousands of oystermen and others in the seafood and maritime industries, but served as filters, cleaning the entire volume of the Bay's waters every three to six days and provided habitat and sustenance for many of the Bay's living resources. Today, the Bay's oyster population is only one percent of what it was a century ago--the victim of the deadly diseases MSX and Dermo as well as over-harvesting and the loss of habitat. Maryland's watermen and the oyster industry are being threatened with economic extinction and scientists estimate that it now takes the current population of oysters nearly a year to filter the Bay's waters.

In 1999, scientific experts from Maryland and Virginia reached a consensus on how to restore oysters which contained two essential components--the construction of three-dimensional oyster reefs and the establishment of permanent reef sanctuaries--to create habitat and provide for the growth and increased fecundity of oyster populations. This approach was embraced in the Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreement which set an ambitious goal of increasing oyster abundance by tenfold by the year 2010. Over the past three years, our Chesapeake Bay area Congressional Delegation has worked closely together to secure the necessary authorizations and appropriations of approximately $5 million a year through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NOAA to help the States of Maryland and Virginia implement this strategy. Indeed, we are delighted that the Senate energy and water appropriations bill, which we are considering today, provides $4.5 million an increase of $1.5 million over the fiscal 2003 level and President's budget request to continue this effort. By restoring the physical oyster habitat, creating new oyster reefs and planting disease-free oysters on these reefs, it is our hope that this project will increase native oyster populations and ultimately help to ensure the economic and environmental revival of the Bay.

In order to expedite the process of repopulating oysters in Chesapeake Bay, officials in Maryland and Virginia have recently proposed introducing a non-native Asian oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis, which is quick growing and more disease resistant into the Bay. However, because of differing opinions about the risks and benefits involved, the Chesapeake Bay Commission a tristate legislative commission--requested that the National Academies of Science National Research Council, NRC, undertake a study of the pros and cons of introducing this non-native species. On August 14, 2003, the National Research Council released this report entitled ``Non-native Oysters in Chesapeake Bay'' which concluded that introducing a reproductive population of the Asian oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis, in Chesapeake Bay should be delayed until more is known about the potential environmental risks.

The NRC report found that ``[I]t is not possible to predict if a controlled introduction of reproductive C. ariakensis will improve, further degrade, or have no impact on either the oyster fishery or the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay.'' The report recommended contained aquaculture of sterile C. ariakensis as an `` interim action that provides an opportunity for researchers to obtain critical biological and ecological information on the non-native oyster required for risk assessment.'' It included detailed recommendations for biological, ecological, and socio-economic research that should be conducted to better inform public decisionmaking about the Asian oyster.

In a letter dated July 22, 2003, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the Secretaries of the Virginia and Maryland Departments of Natural Resources requested that the Corps coordinate development of an environmental impact statement to evaluate the States' proposal to introduce reproductively capable Asian oysters in the waters of Chesapeake Bay. The Corps responded that it cannot initiate an EIS unless specifically authorized and funded by Congress to do so. This is what our amendment seeks to accomplish. The amendment provides $200,000 in Federal funds to initiate the study, which must be matched by the States. It further directs the Secretary to establish a scientific advisory body consisting of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the University of Maryland, and other appropriate research institutions to review the sufficiency of the environmental impact statement. In addition, it directs the Secretary to consider the findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences in the preparation of the environmental impact statement.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, our Nation experienced a daunting tragedy. It touched every single one of us. Our people came together and we spoke with one voice as we mourned the terrible loss of family, friends, neighbors and fellow Americans, and as we paid tribute to the heroes who sacrificed their own lives to save others. We found a new and rich meaning in the phrase, ``I am an American.''

At the same time, we resolved to move forward, to bring the perpetrators of those terrible attacks to account and to put an end to the scourge of terrorism, so that our people remain free to live rewarding and productive lives. We made a major and fundamental commitment to our homeland security.

Now, however, our rapidly expanding commitment in Iraq threatens to overshadow our commitment here at home.

Earlier this year, I supported a series of amendments to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill to increase funding for homeland security needs. These included firefighter and first- responder assistance grants, port security, transit security, border security and chemical security protections. Regrettably, these amendments were all defeated, primarily on party-line votes.

If this administration is prepared to ask for nearly $90 billion in additional funding for our operations in Iraq, it should and must be prepared to provide

the funds we must have to strengthen the security of America's shores and protect the American public.

The terrible losses of 2 years ago will never be forgotten. But the most enduring memorial we can raise to those we lost is a future of freedom and opportunity, a future without fear. Our response to the events of September 11, 2001, is a demonstration of the great and abiding strength of America. We must be prepared to pledge our resources as well as our words.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Harkin amendment to preserve overtime pay protections for millions of hard-working Americans. The American work ethic, along with great skill and ingenuity, has made the United States an economic world power. Americans already log more hours on the job than workers in most other developed countries around the world and I believe that those who have long driven the American economy should be fairly compensated for their work. However, the Bush administration has proposed new regulations that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and undermine current law governing overtime pay.

The proposed Department of Labor regulations would raise the salary level under which workers are eligible for overtime pay from $8,060 per year to $22,100 per year. Raising this income threshold is an inadequate adjustment, but it is a step in the right direction. Due to the rising expenses facing working families, I recognize the need to make more low-income workers eligible for overtime pay. The pending amendment does not preclude the Department of Labor from issuing rules that make such changes. Instead, it simply prohibits the Department of Labor from taking away overtime protections for those who are currently eligible under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Under the Department of Labor's proposal virtually all employees who earn $65,000 or more per year would be denied overtime pay protection currently afforded under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Additionally, it would allow employers to reassign middle-income workers, earning between $22,100 and $65,000, to managerial roles, thereby depriving them of overtime pay rights. The Harkin amendment would block this reclassification.

Our economy is facing serious difficulties. What we need is responsible economic policy that puts our economy back on track. Instead, this administration has proposed massive tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest among us, presided over the largest job loss in our Nation's history, erased a large Federal surplus that it inherited, and created a large and growing Federal deficit. Now the administration proposes to amend a law that has protected American workers for over 60 years by taking away the overtime pay that many working families depend upon to make ends meet.

The Department of Labor claims its proposal is necessary to ``clarify'' and ``update'' overtime rules for the 21st century economy. However, consider some examples of the occupations currently eligible for overtime pay that may be in jeopardy should the Department of Labor go forward with this proposal: firefighters, law enforcement officers, social caseworkers, medical assistants, and nurses. These workers are performing vital functions in our society and should be compensated for the long hours they put in to do their jobs.

The American people have spoken on this issue. The Department of Labor has been flooded by public comments

that run overwhelmingly against the implementation of its proposal. The American people are right. The number of individuals eligible for overtime should be increased, not decreased. A responsible economic plan would put more disposable income into the hands of working Americans, not take it away.

I find the Department of Labor's proposal unwise and unfair, but very much in keeping with this administration's failed economic policies that seek to leave no millionaire behind while increasing the financial burden on average Americans. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin amendment.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Reed amendment to increase funding for libraries and museums in the fiscal year 2004 Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill. This amendment would bring funding for library and museum programs in line with the President's fiscal year 2004 budget requests, adding a total of $44.36 million in funding.

I do not believe the value of libraries and museums can be understated. State and local school districts are struggling with funding cuts at the same time that they work to improve achievement and accountability as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Libraries play a critical role in providing students and teachers the resources they need to develop academically and professionally, which will greatly help them meet the mandates of this legislation. Museums have the potential to expand all of our lives and these cultural experiences are even more important during economic down turns as they offer a free or relatively affordable option to young people and families seeking a diversion. An educational and culturally gratifying outing is an ideal way to combine entertainment and enrichment. It is a most appropriate time to provide adequate funding for our Nation's libraries and museums.

This important amendment would increase funding for the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, by $24.1 million to bring the new total to $171.48 million. This increase in funding for LSTA would reach the President's funding request of $169.6 million for library state grants and library services to Native Americans, and provide the additional $1.6 million needed to double the minimum state allotment as included in both the Senate and House versions of the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003. It would increase funding for the No Child Left Behind Act-authorized Improving Literacy Through School Libraries program by $15.081 million to reach the President's fiscal year 2004 requested level of $27.5 million. This year, at the current funding level of $12.4 million, the Department of Education has estimated it will only be able to fund about 70 of the over 800 applications it received from needy school districts across the nation. Finally, the amendment would increase funding for the Museum Services Act by $5.182 million to reach the President's fiscal year 2004 funding request of $30.28 million.

The success of our young people, especially those in low-income neighborhoods, is dependent upon Congress providing the resources required to educate them and enrich their lives. Throughout my career in public service, I have worked closely with members of the Maryland Library Association, colleges and universities, and others involved in the library community throughout my State to strengthen libraries and arts programs. I commend Senator Reed's consistent efforts to achieve this goal by providing additional funding for our Nation's libraries and museums. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so that we can enable libraries and museums to provide the unique and vital services available to all Americans.

Mr. President, I am proud today to join my colleague from Maryland and others in the Senate in submitting a Senate Resolution recognizing the accomplishments and importance of our Nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This resolution is a companion to a resolution my colleague from Maryland in the House of Representatives and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus--Elijah Cummings--introduced earlier this year.

There was a time in our history when African Americans had few choices to further their education other than Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Legal and historical segregation closed the doors of many colleges and universities, leaving them few options. Fortunately, Historically Black Colleges and Universities filled the void magnificently. They may be small in number compared to other universities, but their impact is impressive. In the 1950s, Historically Black Colleges and Universities produced more than ninety percent of Black professionals. It is difficult to imagine where this country would be without the service and dedication of the professors, administrators and supporters of our Nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

For example, Thurgood Marshall, denied admission at a segregated University of Maryland School of Law, went on to obtain his law degree at Howard University. He later was appointed to the United States Supreme Court and was on the bench when the Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark decision that once and for all held that separate learning facilities for school children are unconstitutional. The University of Maryland--now a very different, a more just and diverse place, much like the United States--acknowledged the historical error of its ways and welcomes all students. In fact, it has named its law library after Justice Marshall. We may have missed the benefits of Justice Marshall's brilliant contributions to the legal profession had Howard University not been there to accept, nurture and superbly educate African American legal scholars of his era. It is impossible to calculate how many doctors, Members of Congress, attorneys and engineers might not have completed their educations if these institutions had not been there to serve them.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities continue to demonstrate their value as thousands of students who have the opportunity to attend any school choose to enroll in these unique institutions. Maryland is fortunate to have four of these institutions: Bowie State University, Coppin State University, Morgan State University, and the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore. According to the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), 103 Historically Black Colleges and Universities enroll more than 370,000 students and graduate approximately one-third of all Black students each year. NAFEO notes that students who attend Historically Black Colleges and Universities graduate with greater frequency than African American students at predominantly white institutions and receive greater academic and social support.

As many universities face the challenges of State budget constraints, disappearing corporate donations, and reduced endowments, Historically Black Colleges and Universities are hit especially hard. Many of them make it their goal to educate low-income students, making their student bodies even more reliant on financial aid. As our Historically Black Colleges and Universities face struggles, the Federal Government, State governments, alumni and friends must make sure they continue to thrive. We must guarantee that future generations will continue to benefit from the academic and cultural richness Historically Black Colleges and Universities provide. Let this resolution symbolize Congress' commitment to continuing the mission of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and ensuring their future success.

Mr. President, I pay tribute today to a dedicated and respected steward of our National Park system, Douglas D. Faris, superintendent of the C & O Canal National Historical Park. Doug is retiring after a long and distinguished career in the National Park Service and I thank him for his outstanding achievements in managing and protecting the C & O Canal and other units of our National Park system over the past three decades.

Throughout his career in public service, Doug Faris has distinguished himself as a leader in natural and cultural resource planning, management and conservation. Beginning as a seasonal employee at Yellowstone National Park in 1970, Doug quickly advanced to top planning positions at the Park Service's Denver Service Center, the Lowell, MA, field office, and the Southwest Regional office, where he made substantial contributions to developing new park units, improving park facilities, and protecting park resources. In 1989, he was selected as Associate Regional Director of the Southwest Region and worked for 6 years building partnerships with Native American leaders and other organizations, developing highly professional work forces, supervising special resource studies, and working with the Congress.

I came to know Doug shortly after he was appointed Superintendent of the C & O Canal National Historical Park in 1994 and, over the past 9 years, have had the opportunity and privilege to work closely with him on a number of initiatives. I saw first hand the tremendous leadership he provided in repairing and reopening the Park after two floods completely destroyed portions of the Canal and many historic structures, picnic areas, and other park facilities during the winter of 1995-1996. Doug worked tirelessly to develop a strategic plan for restoring the park and to mobilize and coordinate the work of hundreds of volunteers and organizations that came to the aid of the Park. Thanks to his efforts, more than $25 million in public and private funds were raised to repair the damages and reopen the park. Likewise, Doug spearheaded efforts to re-water the Canal at its Cumberland, MD, terminus, stabilize the historic Monocacy Aqueduct, and construct new visitor facilities. Under his leadership, new partnerships were formed with organizations and communities along the Canal, an Historic Leasing Program was implemented to help repair and protect the historic lockhouses and other dwellings in the Park; and many improvements have been made to the C & O Canal.

The efforts of Doug Faris throughout his career in the National Park Service have had a lasting effect not only on the parks and National Park system he has worked to protect, but on the people with whom he has come in contact. He has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues in the Park Service as well as the visitors and citizens in the local communities surrounding the parks. It is my firm conviction that public service is one of the most honorable callings, one that demands the very best, most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens and country. Throughout his career, Doug has exemplified a steadfast commitment to meeting this demand. I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of hard work and dedication to the principal conservation mission of the National Park Service and join with his friends and coworkers in wishing him and his family well in the years ahead.

Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question? What time does he expect the vote in the morning?

Mr. President, I was among a number of former Rhodes Scholars present on July 3, 2003 at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford, England, when our distinguished former colleague in the House of Representatives, John Brademas, was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Civil Law by Oxford University. Dr. Brademas, who served in the House of Representatives from 1959 to 1981, 22 years, the last 4 as majority whip, represented the then Third District of Indiana.

Described in the degree citation as ``a man of varied talents and extraordinary energy, the most practical of academics, the most scholarly of men of action,'' Dr. Brademas was praised for sponsoring laws in Congress ``which gave important support to colleges, libraries and cultural activities'' and for promoting ``legislation to help the weak by Federal subventions for those in need.''

The citation, presented by Oxford University's new Chancellor, Chris Patten, also hailed Dr. Brademas, who served as President of New York University from 1981 until 1992, on having become ``president of one of the greatest universities'' and for ``collecting enormous sums of money'' for NYU.

Read in Latin by Oxford's Public Orator, the citation noted that Dr. Brademas had studied at Harvard, earned a Ph.D. at Oxford with a study of Spain and, ``mindful of his Greek ancestry, is a founder of the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe.'' Said Chancellor Patten, in presenting the degree to Dr. Brademas:

You have had an outstanding career; you have played a

distinguished role in political life, while for the academy

you have caused a golden stream of benefaction to gush forth.

In commenting on the award, John Sexton, current President of New York University, said:

John Brademas shaped the transformation of NYU into the

great university it is today. He came to us already a world

citizen and he made us a world university. And today, as our

President Emeritus, he continues to play a major role through

his counsel and his enormous efforts on our behalf.

Dr. Brademas was the only American so honored by Oxford during ceremonies marking the Centenary of The Rhodes Trust, which administers the Rhodes Scholarships. The other former Rhodes Scholars awarded degrees were Robert J. L. Hawke, former Prime Minister of Australia; Rex Nettleford, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of the West Indies; and David R. Woods, Vice-Chancellor of Rhodes University, South Africa.

A graduate, B.A., magna cum laude, of Harvard University, Dr. Brademas studied at Brasenose College, Oxford, from 1950 to 1953.

Having myself enjoyed the great experience of studying at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, I naturally take pride in the achievements of John Brademas. I am sure that members of both the Senate and House of Representatives, on both sides of the aisle, join me in congratulating our former colleague on this high honor.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, in introducing legislation to grant PNTR to Armenia.

Since becoming an independent sovereign state in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia has pursued comprehensive economic reforms within a democratic framework. Armenia's accession to the World Trade Organization this year reflects its continuing progress in adopting and implementing economic and trade reforms, and it now ranks 44th among the 161 nations surveyed in the ``2003 Index of Economic Freedom'' that the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation have jointly published.

As a one-time Soviet republic, Armenia continues to be subject to the freedom-of-emigration requirements set out in Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and therefore its trade status is subject to annual review by the President. Since becoming independent Armenia has annually received the waiver provided under Jackson-Vanik, and indeed for the past 6 years Armenia has been found to be fully in compliance with the amendment.

So long as Armenia remains subject to the Jackson-Vanik provision, the United States is precluded from extending PNTR status and normalizing U.S.-Armenian trade relations. At the same time, however, WTO rules require the United States to grant PNTR to all other WTO members without condition. Our legislation would resolve this contradiction by authorizing the President to terminate the Jackson- Vanik provision with respect to Armenia and extend PNTR. Without PNTR, neither Armenia nor the United States will be able to realize the full benefits of Armenia's accession to the WTO.

PNTR will bring the United States into compliance with WTO rules. And it will significantly expand opportunities for bilateral trade between the United States and Armenia.

In addition, it will enable Armenia to deal more effectively with the challenges of building a vigorous and prosperous economy, at a time when 50 percent of the population lives in poverty and the poverty rate has dropped from 55 percent only in the last 2 years. These challenges are made all the more daunting by the blockades that Azerbaijan and Turkey continue to impose; according to the World Bank, these blockades raise the cost of doing business in Armenia by 30 percent. Expanded U.S.-Armenian trade will act as a spur to greater economic activity in Armenia, which in turn will lead to more and better-paying jobs and ease the hardships that Armenians confront in their daily lives.

The ties between our country and Armenia are strong, and normalization of trade relations will make them stronger still. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, in introducing legislation to grant PNTR to Armenia.

Since becoming an independent sovereign state in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia has pursued comprehensive economic reforms within a democratic framework. Armenia's accession to the World Trade Organization this year reflects its continuing progress in adopting and implementing economic and trade reforms, and it now ranks 44th among the 161 nations surveyed in the ``2003 Index of Economic Freedom'' that the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation have jointly published.

As a one-time Soviet republic, Armenia continues to be subject to the freedom-of-emigration requirements set out in Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and therefore its trade status is subject to annual review by the President. Since becoming independent Armenia has annually received the waiver provided under Jackson-Vanik, and indeed for the past 6 years Armenia has been found to be fully in compliance with the amendment.

So long as Armenia remains subject to the Jackson-Vanik provision, the United States is precluded from extending PNTR status and normalizing U.S.-Armenian trade relations. At the same time, however, WTO rules require the United States to grant PNTR to all other WTO members without condition. Our legislation would resolve this contradiction by authorizing the President to terminate the Jackson- Vanik provision with respect to Armenia and extend PNTR. Without PNTR, neither Armenia nor the United States will be able to realize the full benefits of Armenia's accession to the WTO.

PNTR will bring the United States into compliance with WTO rules. And it will significantly expand opportunities for bilateral trade between the United States and Armenia.

In addition, it will enable Armenia to deal more effectively with the challenges of building a vigorous and prosperous economy, at a time when 50 percent of the population lives in poverty and the poverty rate has dropped from 55 percent only in the last 2 years. These challenges are made all the more daunting by the blockades that Azerbaijan and Turkey continue to impose; according to the World Bank, these blockades raise the cost of doing business in Armenia by 30 percent. Expanded U.S.-Armenian trade will act as a spur to greater economic activity in Armenia, which in turn will lead to more and better-paying jobs and ease the hardships that Armenians confront in their daily lives.

The ties between our country and Armenia are strong, and normalization of trade relations will make them stronger still. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I have been listening to this discussion. Am I correct in saying that the Senator would not be seeking to speak now if the other side had not indicated that they were intending to try to bring the nomination of Mr. Pryor to the Senate on tomorrow? Is that right?

The Senator is not inserting himself into the debate on the Energy bill seeking to slow the Energy bill down; he is prompted to do this by the fact that the other side is scheduling this nominee for a vote, I understand, with no debate whatsoever. Is that correct?

Will the Senator yield for a further question?

It is my understanding that twice this week, if I am not mistaken, we have had to go off of the Energy bill, which we are being told we must move forward, in order to

address other judgeship nominees who had previously been voted on a number of times. So we have been diverted off the track of the Energy bill by these judicial nominees, not of our doing but because of the scheduling which the other side has undertaken.

I know our assistant leader has been concerned about that as well, if I am not mistaken, in that regard. Is that not correct?

I thank the Senator.

Reserving the right to object.

I am prompted to do this by the statement of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

It is outrageous you should suggest you would schedule the judge for tomorrow on a cloture vote and not provide time for debate, which is the issue that is at stake here. We need the debate on the judge, and then you say, well, you are interfering with the progress of the Energy bill.

Who was it who scheduled the judge for tomorrow? That is where the intrusion came in terms of the process of dealing with the Energy bill.

And at the same time assert that you have to pass the Energy bill.

Mr. President, I want to pay tribute today to Colonel Charles Fiala, Commander and District Engineer of the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. COL Fiala is retiring after a distinguished 25-year career in the U.S. Army, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him and commend him for his many years of service to our Nation.

Chuck Fiala graduated from West Point in 1978 and has served in numerous staff and command positions here in the United States and abroad. Beginning as combat engineer platoon leader with the 194th Armored Brigade in Fort Knox, KY he quickly rose through the ranks. Among other assignments he commanded C Company, 11th Engineer Battalion at Fort Belvoir; served as Executive Officer in U.S. Army Headquarters Europe in Heidelberg, Germany; and worked in the Pentagon for the Office of the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff. During the course of his career, Chuck earned a master's degree in civil engineering from Purdue University and was also awarded a master's degree in National Security and Strategic Studies from the National War College.

I came to know COL Fiala 3 years ago when he was first selected as Commander and District Engineer of the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and have had the privilege of working closely with him on a number of water resource, environmental restoration, and military construction initiatives in Maryland and the mid-Atlantic region. Chuck has continued the tradition of outstanding leadership that has been the hallmark of the Baltimore District. Under his leadership, numerous military construction and civil works projects were initiated or completed including the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages Project, the straightening of the Tolchester Channel ``S'' Turn, the improvements to the Brewerton Channel and the construction of military housing at Fort Meade, to name only a few. Similarly, he directed and oversaw several critical environmental restoration projects including the cleanup of Fort Detrick's chemical and biological waste landfill, the restoration of the north end of Assateague Island National Seashore, the Chesapeake Bay oyster recovery effort, and 10 habitat restoration sites in the Anacostia River.

During his 25-year career in the Army, COL Fiala repeatedly demonstrated exceptional abilities and dedication that have earned him recognition and acclaim by his peers. He has been the recipient of many awards and decorations including the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation medal, and the Parachute Badge. His work ethic and principles of responsibility, reliability, and dedication will continue to serve as a standard for others who follow him as District Engineer.

It is my firm conviction that public service is one of the most honorable callings, one that demands the very best, most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens and country. Throughout his career Chuck Fiala has exemplified a steadfast commitment to meeting this demand.

I want to extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his hard work and dedication and wish him and his family the best of luck in the future.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Financial Literacy and Education Coordinating Act of 2003. This legislation creates an intergovernmental coordinating Committee whose goal is to improve the financial decision making of all Americans by strengthening education to raise financial literacy levels.

The phrase ``financial literacy'' is one we often hear but often do not really understand. It is analogous in financial matters to basic literacy--the ability to read and understand what is read--in our everyday lives. We are keenly aware from our efforts to improve our schools and raise our students' ability to read that there are higher and lower levels of literacy. Numerous statistical studies indicate that in the field of personal finances, substantial numbers of people are financially illiterate. Among those who have some degree of literacy, the vast majority are performing below what their `grade level' ought to be.

This bill addresses that problem. It reflects my long-standing concern that inadequate knowledge of financial issues leaves our consumers seriously vulnerable to exploitation, with devastating consequences for them and their families. As Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, during the last Congress, I chaired a series of hearings to examine the state of financial literacy and education throughout the Nation. The Committee received testimony from a wide range of witnesses on the state of financial literacy and education among Americans of all ages and from all walks of life--from school age children to retirees, small investors to those without bank accounts, and first time workers to those saving for retirement. The witnesses were unanimous in the view that we needed to increase financial education in this country.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated before the Committee

that: ``In considering means to improve the financial status of families, education can play a critical role by equipping consumers with the knowledge required to make wise decisions. . . . This is especially the case for populations that have traditionally been underserved by our financial system.'' Chairman Greenspan made the point that increased financial education has the potential to improve significantly the economic situation of the vast majority of Americans.

The goal of this legislation is to promote better financial decision- making among consumers. While at present substantial work is in progress both within the government and outside of it, it suffers from the lack of a single comprehensive strategy--there is too little coordination, and too much duplication. As Tess Canja, President of AARP testified before the Committee: ``We see a need for a coherent and coordinated national strategy for making available a well-researched and well-evaluated progression of financial literacy programs and services.'' By creating an underlying strategy to address these problems, the legislation will help enable Americans to make the financial decisions that best serve their needs and aspirations. This legislation seeks to address these problems and create a strategy to improve the financial choices and outcomes for all Americans.

The bill creates a Coordinating Committee chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, based in the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Education. The Committee will be responsible for coordinating and centralizing the various existing financial education activities in our government agencies as well as any future initiatives. Currently there are at least sixteen active financial-education programs. They operate in each of the Federal banking agencies--the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and OTS; the NCUA; the SEC; in six executive departments-- Education, Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, and Veterans Affairs; and in such agencies as the Social Security Administration, Federal Trade Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Office of Personnel Management.

The Committee will coordinate these and other efforts. Additional members can be added at the discretion of the Chairperson of the Committee. All will benefit from the better coordination and the elimination of unnecessary duplication that the Committee will provide.

In addition, many State and local governments, non-profit entities, and private enterprises have developed and implemented excellent financial education programs. A successful national strategy to increase financial literacy and education must involve a partnership that engages all levels of government, including at the State and local level, along with leaders of the non-profit and private sectors. As Don Blandin, President of the American Savings Education Council noted in his testimony before the Committee: ``Organizations in both the private and public sectors must collaborate on all levels to help educate Americans about the importance of taking control of their financial future. By combining and leveraging our comprehensive networks and resources, we have a better chance of reaching people that none of us would be able to reach alone.'' The Coordinating Committee established by this legislation will undertake just such a collaboration. It will develop a national strategy in conjunction with State and local governments and with the private and non-profit sectors, and will report its findings back to the Congress.

It is disturbing to hear the statistics about the current situation and how financially under-educated the American people are. The Consumer Federation of America found that the typical American failed a 14-question test of basic knowledge of personal finances. Fewer than one in ten, 8, answered three-quarters of the questions correctly. Eighty-two percent of high school seniors failed a 13-question personal financial quiz on such basic questions as interest rates, savings, loans, credit cards, and calculating net worth.

The lack of financial education affects Americans of every age and background. There may be differing opinions on issues of financial security for retirees, but I suspect there is little disagreement on the importance to every family of budgeting and savings for retirement. We have data showing that households with a savings plan save twice as much as those without a plan, and yet surveys indicate that half of all Americans have not taken the basic step of calculating how much they will need to save for retirement. Teaching families how to budget and develop a savings plan as well as the importance of doing so would enhance many Americans' financial security.

There are far too many people today who lack a bank account, which is the passport for access to mainstream financial services. The Wall Street Journal, in an article appearing June 28, 2001, estimated that 10 million adult Americans have no relationship with a mainstream financial services provider. Of the millions of households that have no relationship with a bank, one-third are African American and 29 percent are Hispanic. The large costs of failing to bring people into the mainstream financial system makes it imperative to pursue all avenues to bring them in. A lack of basic consumer financial education on how a checking and a savings account work and why it's important to have such an account is one explanation for these disturbing figures. Once people enter into the financial mainstream a lot of the protections and safeguards which have been developed for the board mass of the public are enjoyed by these newly banked people.

The Banking Committee heard from witnesses that many college students have access to significant credit through credit cards, but have little experience and often little to no education on how to use them responsibly. Kentucky State Treasurer Jonathan Miller, who has held a series of hearings on financial literacy throughout his state, testified before the Banking Committee that: ``for a significant and growing minority of college students, credit card use and misuse can be devastating.'' The Department of Education estimates that the average credit card debt among college students was over $3,000 in the year 2000. College students are not the only ones susceptible to credit card debt: the average credit card debt per American family is over $8,000. Furthermore, too many people are unaware of their own credit score, how to access that score, and the impact that their credit score has on both their access to credit and the terms on which that credit is offered.

Students are entering college with insufficient knowledge of the financial system and as a result, they are getting into serious financial problems. One of the Committee's witnesses, Ms. Ellen Frishberg, Director of Student Financial Services at John Hopkins University, testified that, ``Because of the case of getting credit, the lack of financial savy on the part of these otherwise very bright students, and the unchecked solicitation and giveaways that were going on during orientation, in 1994 the Dean of Students decided it was best to prohibit credit card vendors from the Homewood campus.'' We can all agree that college students who are better educated in the basics of the financial system will be less susceptible to falling into serious credit card debt.

Special attention should also be paid to immigrants, often of modest means who send, or remit, a significant portion of their income to family in their country of origin. According to a recent study by the Inter-American Development Bank, in the aggregate $32 billion was remitted out of America last year, with over $10 billion going to Mexico alone. It is estimated that nearly 70 percent of all Hispanic immigrants send money home. The financial transaction of sending money internationally is complex: there are transaction fees, currency conversion fees and exchange rate spreads. The full costs can range up to $50 even when the amount being sent home is $300. A survey by Bendixen and Associates estimated that \2/3\ of Hispanic immigrants who send money home are unaware of the full costs. Before the Banking Committee, Mr. Bendixen testified that, ``When these immigrants were informed that besides a fee paid in the U.S., international money transfer companies often provide unfavorable exchange rates or discount additional commissions or charges in Latin America, a large majority of them felt that the fees paid for the service are excessive and unfair. Customers should have

access to information about the full costs of their transactions, and they need a level of financial literacy that enables them to interpret the information. Only then will they be able to shop effectively, compare costs, and make wise financial choices.

Increased financial education is a first step in the consumer education process but as Federal Reserve vice-Chairman Roger Ferguson testified before the Committee, ``legislation, careful regulation and education are all components of the response to these emerging consumer concerns.'' The legislation I introduce today will make a significant contribution to improving the quality of financial education in this country. It is modeled closely on the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee established by the Export Enhancement Act of 1992.

A number of Senators have taken a strong interest in this issue. Senator Corzine is a co-sponsor of this legislation and has been actively involved on the issue. I particularly want to acknowledge the outstanding leadership of Senators Stabenow and Enzi as well as Senator Akaka. I know that Senators Stabenow and Enzi are working on a bill and I look forward to working closely with them.

I also want to express my appreciation to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Shelby for the time and attention is devoting to this subject. Tomorrow Chairman Shelby is holding a hearing in the Committee on ``Consumer Awareness and Understanding of the Credit Granting Process.'' These issues are directly related.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Financial Literacy and Education Coordinating Act and the bill be printed in the Record together with letters in support of the bill. I urge my colleagues to work toward speedy enactment of meaningful legislation to improve the financial literacy and education of all Americans.