Floor Statements

Mr. President, I acknowledge today, February 12, as the seventieth anniversary of the Export-Import Bank, the principal export credit agency of the United States. Since 1934, the bank has played a unique role in helping to facilitate U.S. exports, ultimately supporting thousands of jobs. As an independent U.S. Government agency, it assumes credit and country risks that the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept.

Eximbank has assisted in financing more than $400 billion in U.S. exports. On average, 85 percent of its transactions directly benefit small businesses which are clearly struggling in today's economy. Historically, the Bank has a loan-loss rate of under 2 percent, which is a respectable record for any financial institution.

As the United States has become economically interdependent with a growing number of foreign trade partners, the Bank's role in leveling the playing field for American companies seeking to market their goods and services overseas continues to grow. In turn, Eximbank plays a vital part in enabling U.S. companies, both large and small, to turn export opportunities into concrete sales.

Mr. President, I am pleased to make not of Eximbank's important contribution to the U.S. economy and hope the institution continues to honor its mission through the twenty first century.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, the text of this amendment is identical to the legislation that the Banking Committee ordered reported from the committee by a voice vote yesterday. In other words, it was a unanimous vote in the Banking Committee.

I rise today in support of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2004. This is the bill, as everyone knows, that was successfully reported out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs yesterday.

I am proud of this piece of legislation which was crafted on a bipartisan basis with cooperation from the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, the committee's ranking member.

This amendment, which I hope will be part of the bill, provides record growth for public transportation at $56.5 billion--a 57-percent increase over TEA-21. This funding level tracks with the growth in the highway program to $255 billion. This combined funding will go a long way toward improving and expanding upon our Nation's transportation infrastructure. I am pleased, as I said, to be working with the Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, Senator Inhofe, to accomplish this goal.

Our amendment, which will be part of the bill, we trust, accomplishes three important policy goals. It creates funding flexibility, increases accountability, and improves the performance and efficiency of the transit programs in the United States.

The bill creates several new formulas to better address growing transit needs. A rural low density formula is created to allow for transit services in sparsely populated areas where employment centers and health care are great distances apart. A growing States formula is created to allow communities with populations projected to grow significantly in the coming years to put in place needed transportation infrastructure. A small transit intensive cities formula is created to address the needs of communities where the level of transit service exceeds what their population-based formula provides.

Our bill also creates a super-high density formula to provide additional funding for States with transit needs that are particularly great because they have transit systems in extremely urban areas with high utilization rates.

The bill increases the accountability within the transit program. It rewards transit agencies to deliver products that are on time, on budget, and provide the benefits that they promised. Further, this bill allows communities to consider more cost-effective, flexible solutions to their transportation needs by opening up eligibility of a new starts fund to nonfixed guideway projects under $75 million in cost. With this change, other solutions can be fostered, such as bus rapid transit, which can produce the majority of the benefit of rail at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, the bill seeks to improve the performance and efficiency of transit systems nationwide. It provides incentives for the coordination of human service transportation activities to eliminate duplication and overlap. It increases the focus on safety and security needs with transit systems to insulate them against terrorist attacks. It also enhances the role of the private sector in providing public transportation in an effort to reduce costs and to improve service.

In short, the Federal Public Transportation Act is a good bill and one that will dramatically improve the public transportation program to help Americans with their mobility needs in urban and rural areas nationwide.

I commend this to the Senate and ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. President, I hope we can get together in the hours to come and try to put a package together, perhaps, and move this bill. This is an important bill in America for highways and transit. It affects everybody in America. It affects every Congressman's district, every Senator, and I think it is too important to ignore in any way.

I commend the senior Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman of the committee, for the work he has done. He has been pushing this highway bill--I know because he has been pushing me--for months and months. I do not know how many hours of work he and his staff have put in, along with Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and others. This is just too important. It affects so many Americans. It covers everything dealing with our infrastructure, and it will be good for the economy.

The Presiding Officer comes from one of the fastest growing States in the United States. Moving people in his State, as well as a lot of others, is very important. There has to be lead time to plan. I believe this is a good bill, considering everything. We have put it together in a bipartisan way in the Banking Committee where we, as well as the other committee, have authorization for transit. I stand ready to work with the principals to move this bill as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I think I have an amendment pending.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw the amendment.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Rich Steinmann and Kate Mattice, detailees from the Federal Transit Administration serving the Banking Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004. Section 105 of the act will create a new Office of Intelligence and Analysis within the Department of the Treasury. The Office is to be headed by a newly authorized Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It will enhance the Department's access to intelligence community information and permit a reorganization and upgrading of the scope and capacities of Treasury's intelligence functions in light of the Nation's counterterrorist and economic sanctions programs. This section was drafted with bipartisan participation and close coordination with the Department of the Treasury.

The particular terms governing the new office are important to me as chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs over legislative and oversight matters relating, inter alia, to the Nation's economic sanctions laws and the Bank Secrecy Act, and, more generally, because of the importance of carefully delineating the limitations on any part of the U.S. intelligence community that lie within the structure of an executive department of the Government. I have a letter signed by the ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, and myself addressed to Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow, as well as Secretary Snow's response. This letter reflects the agreement of Treasury about the organization, structure and role of the new Office and Assistant Secretary position created and important related organizational matters concerning the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

I request unanimous consent that the two letters be included in the Record. They provide, I believe, a good statement of congressional intent with regard to the establishment of the new Office and the new Assistant Secretary position. At this time I would yield the floor to the ranking member of the committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Senator Sarbanes.

I yield myself as much time as I require.

Madam President, I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the President's right to select qualified judges of his choosing and the Senate's duty to provide advice and consent on these judicial nominees by means of an up-or-down vote on their confirmation.

The quagmire in which we currently find ourselves I believe threatens the constitutionally-vested discretion of this and all future Presidents in appointing those judges they see fit. Second, it threatens the independence and effectiveness of the federal judiciary, and third, it threatens the future function and effectiveness of the United States Senate as the deliberative and distinguished institution it is today.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution vests the President alone with the power of appointing Federal judges ``with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' Nowhere does the Constitution grant the Senate any power over selecting judicial appointments.

A review of over 200 years of the Senate's history and practice makes it clear that the Senate's role in Presidential nominations is either to confirm or deny their appointment by means of an up-or-down vote on the floor--nothing more and nothing less.

The unprecedented obstruction we are now experiencing is simply unjustifiable, I believe.

Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it.

Those of my colleagues who are currently blocking confirmation of the President's circuit court nominees have admitted to doing so on ideological grounds. They feel that these nominees are outside of their definition of ``mainstream''--whatever that may mean. When Senators impose a subjective litmus test on judicial nominees, they are really just seeking out candidates that agree with them ideologically. This introduces a political element into the constitutional framework of judicial appointments that isn't there--and with good reason.

The Constitution grants Federal judges lifetime tenure and salary protection precisely in order to insulate them from political influences.

The Senate's standard for confirming a judge should simply be a nominee's honesty, competence, temperament, and appreciation for the proper constitutional role of an Article III judge.

Any test beyond this substitutes the judgment of individual Senators over that of the President and unduly politicizes a position that is intended to exist outside the realm of politics. What is more, as my colleagues in the minority continue to use their ideological litmus test to justify blocking the President's circuit court nominees--four so far, with more promised--these unfilled vacancies impose a heavy burden on our judiciary.

The ability of these appellate courts to manage their caseloads and to effectively interpret and apply the law is dependent on a full complement of judges available to consider and rule on pending cases.

We all know the saying ``justice delayed is justice denied,'' and we simply can not allow our own political agendas to undermine the fair application of the rule of law.

I would encourage all Senators to take a step back from the current debate and envision the future of this Senate if the obstruction of these judicial nominees continues. Do we really want to operate in an environment where judicial confirmations require 60 votes? That is the direction in which we are rapidly headed.

I can understand that some of my colleagues don't agree with our current President's politics. That is politics. I can understand that this President's judicial nominees may not be to some of their ideological liking. That is politics. However, this does not justify denying a judicial nominee a simple up-or-down vote.

I feel quite certain that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not be nearly as accepting of these obstructionist tactics if they proverbial shoe were on the other foot.

I am not asking any of my colleagues to vote in favor of confirming a nominee that they oppose. I leave that determination to their discretion. I am simply asking them to allow the Senate to complete its constitutionally-appointed duty in providing the President with advice and consent on all of his judicial nominees.

Now, I would like to take just a few moments to discuss two of the President's filibustered circuit court nominees in which I take a particular interest: Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

Bill Pryor is the President's nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. I have known Bill for many years and have the highest regard for his intellect and integrity. Whether as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, or the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, he understands and respects the constitutional role of the judiciary and specifically, the role of the federal courts in our legal system.

I am confident that Bill would serve honorably and apply the law with impartiality and fairness, if he were confirmed for the Eleventh Circuit. Unfortunately, Attorney General Pryor's nomination has been filibustered for most of this year.

Janice Rogers Brown is the President's nominee for the United States

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is widely regarded as the court second in importance only to the United States Supreme Court.

I am proud to say that Justice Brown is a native of my own State of Alabama, having been born in Greenville and raised in Luverne before moving to California.

The progression of her career to serve on California's highest court--the first African American woman ever to do so--is a remarkable story of success through hard work and dedication that serves an example for us all.

Justice Brown has enjoyed a distinguished career on the California Supreme Court, most recently receiving 76 percent of the vote the last time she came before California voters.

Justice Brown possesses the highest character and ideal temperament for this important judgeship. Unfortunately, her nomination is subject to filibuster and thus the D.C. Circuit is denied her services.

It is the role of the Senate to provide the President with advice and consent on his judicial nominations. We can only fulfill this duty by allowing each of these nominees an up-or-down vote by the full Senate.

The proper function and balance of the executive, judicial and legislative branches depends upon it.

It is my hope that we can end this impasse tonight and vote on each of these nominees. Let the majority vote. Let the majority count. If we get the majority vote, they will be confirmed, but they should not be obstructed. They should not be filibustered.

I yield the floor.



Mr. President, I rise today in honor of LTG John S. Caldwell, Jr., Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology at the Pentagon. After 36 years of exemplary commitment and dedicated service to the United States Army, General Caldwell is retiring.

General Caldwell's career has been vast in the command and staff positions he has held. Beginning as a Platoon Leader at Fort Meade, MD, in 1967 until his current assignment at the Pentagon, he has been a steady and dedicated member of the United States Armed Forces.

A graduate of the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, General Caldwell's career has been one of dedication, service, and sacrifice. Upon graduation, he was commissioned in the Armor/Cavalry. He has commanded armored cavalry units from platoon through battalion, had combat duty with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam, and served two tours in the Federal Republic of Germany.

He has held a variety of other assignments including: Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition, Headquarters, Army Materiel Command; Director, Army Digitization Office, Headquarters, Department of the Army; Assistant Deputy for System Management and International Cooperation, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Research, Development and Acquisition; Assistant Professor for the Department of Engineering at USMA; Research and Development Coordinator, Office of the Project Manager, Abrams Tank Systems; Operations and Training Officer, S-3, for 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment; Operations Staff Officer and Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, Plans and Training for the Army Staff; Research and Development Staff Officer, Army Studies Group for the Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; Chief, Strategy Application Branch of the Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate, J-5, for the Joint Staff, and, Project Manager, Abrams Tank Systems.

General Caldwell is often sought after for his knowledge and insight into the critical issues facing our country today. He is a decorated soldier, having received the following decorations and badges: Distinguished Service Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster, Silver Star, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster, Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster, Army Achievement Medal, Ranger Tab, Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge, and Army Staff Identification Badge.

On this Veterans Day, I celebrate and applaud the distinguished career of LTG John S. Caldwell. A courageous soldier, fearless leader, and patriot, General Caldwell is much deserving of a relaxing and enjoyable retirement. My best wishes go out to his wife, Judy, his family and friends in this time of celebration.

Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute or less. We are getting ready to vote on the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We were able yesterday to move it to where we are today. We believe we have put together a bipartisan bill. We expect a heavy vote on both sides of the aisle. It is a complicated piece of legislation.

I commend Senator Sarbanes, my colleague and the ranking Democrat, for his leadership in helping us to get where we are today.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

It is our intention to adopt the substitute and ask it be treated as original text but we will wait for the other side before we adopt the amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit System Improvement Act of 2003. This bill was unanimously approved by the Senate Banking Committee on September 23 of this year by a voice vote.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, is a very important, highly complex law that governs crucial aspects of the consumer credit system. This national system is huge--involving trillions of dollars and millions of people, and is at the heart of the economic well being of this country. The bipartisan bill before the Senate is the product of extensive hearings and deliberations by the Senate Banking Committee. Over the course of the past 5 months, the Banking Committee held six hearings related to the reauthorization of the seven expiring FCRA national standards as well as the effectiveness and efficacy of the FCRA as a whole.

The committee's process helped us identify key areas that required reform or improvement, while at the same time, reinforcing the importance of our national credit reporting system to the operation of our financial markets and economy as a whole. The committee bill incorporates many important reforms while creating permanent national standards. This bill reflects a

careful balance between ensuring the efficient operation of our markets and protecting the rights of consumers.

Over the 6 years since the FCRA was last amended, significant changes have occurred in our credit markets. There are now participants, new technologies, new underwriting practices, and new products. Indeed, there is more that has changed than has remained the same in the operation of the credit markets since the last time Congress considered the FCRA. These changes have been largely positive. They have expanded access to credit to more Americans and permitted loan approvals in hours rather than weeks.

However, these new developments have had some unintended consequences.

Identity theft. As our economy has grown more automated, more electronic transactions occur without the lender and borrower ever meeting face to face. As a result, the transfer of information has become much more pervasive, and a new crime has emerged that takes advantage of this flow of information. This crime is called identity theft, and the incidence of this crime has grown geometrically in recent years.

Identity theft involves a person using someone else's personal information without their knowledge to commit fraud or theft. Practically speaking, the crime involves misappropriation of such personal information as a victim's name, date of birth, and social security number. Identity thieves then use this information to open new credit card accounts, to divert current accounts from victims to themselves, and to open bank accounts in victims' names, among other things. The bad charges and the hot checks usually happen while the victims, banks, credit card companies and other firms are unaware that something is amiss.

In the wake of unauthorized activity and skipped payments, the creditor usually takes action and ultimately cuts the thief off. At this point, the creditor's losses are curtailed, but the nightmare is just beginning for the ultimate victim of identity theft--the individual whose identity the thief assumed. In most instances, the victims first become aware of the fact that they have been targeted when the creditor seeks payment. It is also when they begin to experience the negative consequences--dealing with law enforcement and the collection agencies.

Thereafter, when the results of the criminals' handiwork shows up on their credit reports, they face the considerable task of restoring their good name and credit rating.

This bill attempts to combat this growing crime while also helping consumers restore their credit standing and give victims assistance. The bill contains a number of provisions that deal with identity theft:

S. 1753 directs Federal banking regulators, the National Credit Union Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to develop guidelines and regulations to identify and prevent identity theft;

The bill mandates the inclusion of fraud alerts in credit files, to notify users of credit reports that a consumer could be a victim of identity theft;

The bill will restrict the amount of information available to identity thieves, by requiring the truncation of credit and debit card account numbers on electronically printed receipts; and

S. 1753 increases the punishment of identity theft crimes.

S. 1753 also provides victims of identity theft with meaningful assistance something they do not really have today:

The bill requires the FTC to prepare a summary of rights of identity theft victims;

S. 1753 establishes procedures to block the reporting of and the refurnishing of identity theft-related activities; and it requires the national credit reporting agencies to coordinate and share identity theft complaints.

Another aspect of this bill is accuracy. The committee also focused its attention on how best to ensure the accuracy of credit information. Accurate credit reports are absolutely crucial to the efficient operation of our credit market. Indeed, the changing nature of our credit markets has made accuracy more important than ever. Credit report information is increasingly used as the key determinant of the cost of credit and insurance in this country.

In addition, technology has permitted lenders to use credit information to more precisely assess risks posed by borrowers. Gone are the day when lenders merely stamped loans as ``approved'' or ``not approved.'' Today, the lenders employing credit history data, use mathematical models to analyze credit risk and create risk-based prices for credit cards, mortgages and other products. Use of risk-based pricing allows lenders to extend credit to a broader range of borrowers on credit terms, which match the credit risk they pose. Additionally, its use results in very few credit applicants being rejected. Again this is a very positive development, but not one without a cost.

Currently, credit applicants who are rejected received adverse action notices and access to a free credit reports. This allows such consumers to review the accuracy of their credit report information. Due to risk- based pricing, consumers are often not given the adverse action notice when information contained in their credit report significantly impacts the cost of the credit offer. Rather, they receive a counteroffer with credit offered at a higher price or with more restricted terms.

This development presents a huge concern. The adverse action notice is the primary tool in the FCRA to ensure mistakes in credit reports are discovered. To address this situation, the committee bill requires regulators to promulgate rules to provide consumers notice when, because of information contained in a consumer's credit report, the creditor makes a counter offer to the consumer on terms that are materially less favorable than the most favorable terms available to a substantial portion of consumers.

These notices will make consumers aware of the need to check their reports to ensure their accuracy. The need for ensuring the greatest possible accuracy in credit information does not end with these new notices. For example, in large credit transactions, such as mortgages, rate differences, as the Presiding Officer knows, can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of a loan. Even in smaller dollar credit transactions, such as credit cards, rate differences can mean large amounts of money.

With the practice of credit card companies reviewing credit reports and adjusting rates in real time becoming more prevalent, the application of risk-based pricing to consumer finances is practically an everyday event.

Credit reporting information is increasingly used as the key determinant of the cost of credit or insurance. With the rewards for good credit so meaningful in this country, and the penalties for bad credit so costly, it is more critical than ever before that credit reports accurately portray consumers' credit histories.

The committee bill addresses this in several ways. One, the bill provides consumers the right to obtain a free copy of their credit report annually through a centralized system and request of their credit scores or information about credit scores in certain circumstances. This is a big change.

S. 1753 directs the Federal banking regulators, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission to develop guidelines to ensure greater accuracy and completeness of information in credit reports.

Furthermore, it directs the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve to conduct ongoing studies on the accuracy of consumer reports and the resolution of consumer complaints.

Privacy protections are addressed in this bill. S. 1753, the bill before us, contains a number of important new privacy protections for consumers. The committee-designed protections are based on our extensive deliberations and focus on core areas of concern in the privacy arena; namely, direct marketing and medical information.

The bill contains important new medical information protections which significantly limit creditors' use of consumer medical information and restrict the dissemination of medical information in credit reports. These provisions require the coding of medical information that is included in credit reports and prohibits creditors from obtaining or using medical information in determining a consumer's eligibility for credit.

S. 1753 also requires affiliated companies to give consumers notice and an

opportunity to opt out of direct marketing. In addition, the bill requires the regulators to study information-sharing practices of affiliated companies and the level of consumer understanding.

Financial literacy was another topic of our committee deliberations. The committee understands that informed, knowledgeable consumers are best positioned to take advantage of new credit products and to reduce the likelihood of falling prey to negative developments, such as identity theft. Financial education is crucial to the effective operation of our credit markets since the Fair Credit Reporting Act places significant responsibility on the consumer to ensure the accuracy of their credit reports. For these reasons, the bill establishes the Financial Literacy and Education Commission to review and create Federal programs and coordinate the existing financial literacy efforts already established.

The committee has devoted a significant amount of time and energy in this bill to build a complete and thorough record on the highly complex issues involved with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The legislation we are considering today, which was passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee, reflects the time and consensus achieved during that process.

It contains language that was developed by a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I thank all of them for their efforts. I also particularly thank the ranking member and former chairman, Senator Sarbanes, for his insight and the significant contributions he and his staff have added as we have moved through this process over the course of the year.

I believe we have achieved the difficult objective of striking the proper balance between enhancing the rights of consumers and improving the efficient operation of our credit markets.

Mr. President, I now yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Maryland, the ranking Democrat.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for permitting me to do this. I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be adopted and considered original text for the purposes of further amendment and that no points of order be waived by this agreement.

I have listened carefully to the comments of Senator Feinstein earlier, and I will make a couple of important points in response to her amendment.

First, as a privacy advocate, I fully appreciate the interest and concern at hand. Indeed, both Senator Sarbanes and I have been very sensitive and worked together a lot on privacy concerns. As we took up the Fair Credit Reporting Act, this was one of the key considerations we sought to balance, even as the law itself requires. We did this in what was a very comprehensive, transparent, and lengthy review of the law and issues at hand as we considered reauthorizing our national credit standard.

Second, the amendment of the Senator from California makes two basic assumptions which ultimately guide her amendment's approach and goal, as I understand it. No. 1, that there is something inherently nefarious about the use of affiliate structures; No. 2, that consumers have no rights or means to protect themselves with respect to the handling of their transaction and experience information.

I believe that our consideration in the Banking Committee would therefore be instructive in understanding the better approach adopted in our bill and why I intend to oppose the amendment of the Senator from California. To the first point: Why do affiliates exist? Companies establish affiliates for a variety of legal, tax, and accounting reasons--because laws require them to do it.

What do these structures mean for consumers? Some companies choose to create separate legal entities known as

separately capitalized affiliates. Other companies elect to locate all of their business lines in a single entity. Regardless of the structure that a firm employs, consumer information is generally used in the same fashion. Affiliates or the separate business line share it to service their customers, fight fraud, or develop new business. The affiliate sharing provisions contained in the Fair Credit Reporting Act exist to make it clear that companies should not suffer because they have chosen a particular corporate structure.

From the consumer's perspective, I believe there is no real difference between a company making an internal transfer of information among departments and sharing between affiliates. In fact, in many cases where affiliate sharing is occurring, most consumers would not recognize that the two parties are involved in the transfer. Rather, they would be under the impression that information is merely being moved within the single entity with whom they have chosen to do business.

Second, there are real rules and provisions governing the manner in which transaction and experience information is handled. First, we need to consider what exactly transaction and experience information is. Transaction and experience information involves checking and saving account balances, credit card balances and repayment history, mortgage balances and repayment history, and mortgage and brokerage account balances and transaction activity. In many instances, the information is the very information provided to the consumer reporting agencies where, as consumer report information, consumers are afforded significant rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

More important, however, this is information that is routinely provided to consumers as required by separate laws and regulations. For example, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, provisions of the securities laws and the Uniform Commercial Code all provide consumers substantive rights with respect to transaction and experience information. These include disclosures and access rights and error resolution procedures.

I believe the bottom line is that consumers already have access to and rights concerning transaction experience information right now under the law. But at the end of the day, I believe the main concern I heard with affiliate sharing uses was the use for marketing purposes. At the end of the day, I believe that is all that is really left restricted, in some way, under California's approach after accounting for the exceptions and exemptions.

So after spending more than a year considering the law carefully in order to balance the needs of our national credit system, which we all believe is crucial to the operation and strength of our economy, with a need to protect consumers rights, the Banking Committee identified two key areas for increased Federal protection: The sharing of medical information and restricting affiliate sharing used for marketing purposes.

This bill does so in the context of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in a straightforward and narrowly tailored way and does not give preferential treatment to certain business models over others.

This brings us to a third and very important point. The Fair Credit Reporting Act deals with more than just financial institutions. The sponsors, as you know as a member of the Banking Committee, Mr. President, seek to impose a model that was tailored strictly for financial institutions to all furnishers of credit information, subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This model is largely based on SB-1, the California Financial Services Law.

The amendment's sponsors have tried to graft a banking bill on to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This effort, I believe, is misplaced, and this effort does not mesh with how the FCRA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, works and to whom it applies. Gramm-Leach-Bliley made it permissible for California and all other States to pass legislation that regulates third party sharing activity. This bill would not affect those provisions in the California law that come because of Gramm- Leach-Bliley. With respect to the part of SB-1 that conflicts with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California law was preempted, making it unenforceable when it was enacted. This bill does not change or alter that fact in any way.

The irony is that, even if we were to assume these provisions were violated, California's attempt to overturn Federal law is actually weaker than the Senate bill. The California law, as I have heard here, as it is targeted at financial institutions, covers a much more limited range than the broader Fair Credit Reporting Act, which deals with information, not entities, and therefore includes retailers, auto dealers, mortgage providers--anyone who furnishes credit.

Furthermore, California's rule is eaten by its exceptions and its exemptions. Its provisions provide consumers with no real choices or meaningful protection. The Senate bill covers the areas that consumers care about--marketing and the sharing of medical information--by providing real protection. Unlike the Senate bill, the California law still exempts most of the largest financial service firms they claim the law is intended to address.

The Senate bill was carefully tailored to address key concerns in a more clear and a concise way. The Senate bill before us targets unwanted solicitations without otherwise preventing sharing activities that provide benefits to consumers. Unlike the California bill, the Senate bill is designed to protect consumer interests. The unenforceable portions of the California law were designed to promote a specific business model by hobbling others.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I now move to table the Feinstein-Boxer amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the managers are prepared to accept this amendment. I commend Senator Cantwell and also Senator Enzi for the work they have done in this regard.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the managers are prepared to accept this amendment.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

The managers are prepared to accept this amendment.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

If the Senator will yield, we do have a copy of the letter from Sallie Mae.

I take a minute to commend Mr. Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, for his good work in this area. He has recognized this as a very important issue and has done something about it. Whether it is Sallie Mae or anybody else, what we are interested in is all the reporting we can get that would affect someone's credit. I again commend Senator Durbin for the work he has done. I am sure he will follow up and make sure this is part of the law.

If the Senator will yield, I understand the concerns. I think it is also true that debit card transactions and ATM transactions have some significant differences. Namely, the retailer owns the debit machine while the bank owns the ATM machine. This makes a ``point of sale'' disclosure--as we achieved in Gramm-Leach-Bliley--more difficult since banks cannot easily adjust the equipment and the software.

Absolutely. Senator Sarbanes and I agree with Senator Schumer and support further study of this issue. We have planned and drafted a letter to the Federal Reserve Board asking them to conduct a comprehensive review of this issue.

Madam President, the managers are prepared to accept the amendment offered by Senator Corzine. It is a good amendment and makes a lot of sense.

Madam President, I intend to oppose this amendment and all amendments that are not within the four corners of the Fair Credit Reporting Act legislation.

The committee spent a great deal of time, as the Presiding Officer knows, as a distinguished member of the Banking Committee, carefully considering the reauthorization and reform of the Fair Credit Reporting Act national standards.

The committee bill is carefully crafted, and it balances protecting consumer interests and ensuring the efficiency of our credit markets.

The committee bill was unanimously approved, as the Presiding Officer knows, by a voice vote in the committee, which is hard to get. It was unanimous.

Extraneous amendments, I believe, alter this balance and focus and threaten our ability to maintain the strong, bipartisan consensus necessary to pass this important legislation this year.

As a result, the managers of the bill--Senator Sarbanes and I--intend to oppose including this amendment and all non-Fair Credit Reporting Act-related amendments, regardless of their merit. This might have some merit, but I think it can be better served at another place on another day.

At the proper time, I will move to table the amendment. Right now, I yield to Senator Sarbanes.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Madam President, I move to table the amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be deferred temporarily.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If the Senator will yield, I believe that is a good amendment. I think it ought to be in other legislation. I am going to work with Senator Feingold. We all want to promote jobs in America. We believe the American worker can produce anything as well as, if not better than, any worker in the world. If we promote Buy America, I think we are saying something to our workers and our industry and our economy down the road, notwithstanding what others will argue.

So I commend the Senator from Wisconsin for bringing this up tonight. We are going to continue to work on this and try to put it in the proper legislation, where it is going to go somewhere.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, Senator Sarbanes and I have reviewed the amendment. We have no objection to the amendment.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

I believe the Senator from Wisconsin has an amendment pending.

Mr. President, I would like to respond to the Democratic leader.

First of all, we have gotten to where we are tonight on the Fair Credit Reporting Act coming out of the Banking Committee by working together in a bipartisan way. Senator Sarbanes and the Democrats on the committee have been involved in the formulation of this legislation as so many members of the Banking Committee have. That is why we are here today. That is why we believe we have put together a far-reaching, very complex piece of legislation. We are going to continue--assuming this bill passes and goes into conference--to work together because that is the only way we are going to pass this legislation. This legislation, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, would expire at the end of this year. We know we are working on a deadline. We are working on a good piece of legislation. We want to continue that.

I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, if it is proper at this time, I move to table the Feingold amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to thank some of the staff who did outstanding work on the Banking Committee--Kathy Casey, chief of staff of the Banking Committee; Doug Nappi, our general counsel; Mark Oesterle, one of our counsel.

I also thank some of the Democratic staff who worked with us on this: Steve Harris, who is Democratic chief of staff; Marty Gruenberg; Lynsey Graham Rea, and Dean Shahinian. They have all worked together in a bipartisan fashion. I believe that is why this legislation was brought out of the committee unanimously and we will be able to pass it, because we had a lot of input from Members and committee staff on both sides of the aisle. It makes a difference.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on passage of the bill on Wednesday--tomorrow--with no intervening action or debate, at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader. Further, I ask unanimous consent that following that vote, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with a ratio of 4 to 3. I also ask unanimous consent that S. 1753 then be returned to the calendar.

Mr. President, I pay tribute today to a dear friend and Alabama icon, Mr. Earl Goodwin. Earl passed away on Friday, October 24, 2003 at the age of 93. He and I and our families have been close friends for nearly 40 years, and his death is a great loss for the State of Alabama.

Earl was a soldier in the United States Armed Forces, fighting on the beaches of Normandy. He made multiple trips back to England to pick up more groups of troops bringing them over to France. He completed these missions in aircraft that were unsafe because of their frequent crash landings. Earl was a true war hero, who put love of country before everything else.

After the war, he returned to Alabama and eventually created Bush Hog which became one of the world's foremost manufacturer of farm implements. Bush Hog employs hundreds of Dallas County residents, and has made great contributions in economic development to the region. Earl was a visionary with a smart mind for business. He will certainly be remembered for the tremendous difference he made in Dallas County.

Throughout his time in business, Earl was active in the community and politically astute. A lifelong Democrat, he became a prominent member of the Alabama State Senate, worked for Governor George Wallace, worked to elect Governor Don Siegelman, and served as a National Democratic Committeeman.

Senator Goodwin is an example of the American success story. Born into poverty, Earl took adversity and challenged it in every way possible. He was a war hero, a successful businessman, a husband of 61 years, and a father and grandfather.

Earl Goodwin will be missed by all those who knew him, and I hope this tribute exemplifies, in a small way, the kind of man that he was.

Mr. President, I pay tribute to a dear friend, Garry Drummond, of Birmingham, AL. Garry Drummond was recently named to the Alabama Business Hall of Fame.

Garry is the chairman and chief executive officer of Drummond Company, Inc., one of Alabama's largest coal producers and a major national producer of foundry coke. The company was founded in 1935 by Mr. Heman Drummond, father of five brothers who are still associated with the company today. The company's executive and administrative offices are in Birmingham, with operational headquarters in Jasper, AL.

Garry was born in Sipsey, AL, on June 8, 1938. He earned his Associate degree from Walker College in 1959. He received his bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from the University of Alabama in 1961. He also holds an honorary doctorate of science from the University of Alabama, awarded in May 1983, and served on the University's board of trustees from 1983 to 2001.

Garry has been active in the coal industry and its State, national, and international organizations. He is the longest running board member of the National Mining Association and is a former member of the board of directors of the American Coal Foundation. He is a founder of the Mining and Reclamation Council of America , MARC, a national trade organization representing primarily surface miners that later merged with the National Coal Association in 1987. Garry served as MARC's first chairman. He is a member of the board of directors and past chairman of the Alabama Coal Association and a former member of the National Coal Council, an advisory group appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Center for Energy and Economic Development.

I offer Garry my congratulations and best wishes as he becomes a member of the Alabama Business Hall of Fame.

Indeed, my colleague from Mississippi is correct. The Senate bill does include funding for the Federal Aviation Administration to address problems of runway incursions, and it is my hope the FAA will perform testing as the Senator from Mississippi described.

I share my colleague's support of a procedure that will encourage the States to initiate passenger service through a competitive bid process. I believe it is important that Congress examine whether a competitive process can preserve and expand intercity rail passenger service at reasonable prices. I pledge to the Senator from Kansas that I will work with the House conferees to pursue a provision that would introduce a uniform procedure to allow the States the option of providing competitive rail passenger service.

I appreciate the Senator's support, and I thank her for her leadership.

I acknowledge the Senator's request, and I pledge to work with her on this matter.

Madam President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk at this time.

Madam President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the Transportation, Treasury, and general government appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2004.

The reorganization of the Appropriations Committee earlier this year substantially changed the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. While the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is not as wholly different as the new Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the bill before the Senate is quite different from the bill the Senate has considered in the past.

For the first time, programs outside the Department of Transportation have to directly compete against certain Transportation programs. This bill is within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. Despite being $300 million below the President's request, I believe we have included adequate resources to meet our responsibilities in a balanced and responsible manner.

The goal of the subcommittee is to allocate scarce resources to the administration and our Members' highest priorities, to glean out savings where possible, and to apply those savings to programs that save lives, improve America's competitiveness, and programs that create jobs. I am pleased to report that the bill before the Senate does just that.

I wish to provide a brief overview of the highlights of the bill. The budget request proposes an 8-percent raise. I am proud to report that the bill rejects the proposal and has included a historically high $33.8 billion for highway infrastructure investment.

It will come as no surprise to anybody that my highest priority for the Transportation portion of this bill is to provide adequate investment in our highway system. Highway investment creates jobs through infrastructure development, fuels economic growth by reducing the transportation costs associated with American goods and services, and improves the quality of life of our citizens and enhances their ability to move around this country easily.

The bill before us also includes $20 million for AMBER Alert grants to expand and improve the Nation's ability to quickly recover missing children. We know the alert system has worked in Texas. This investment will provide additional infrastructure across the country to notify the public to immediately begin looking for missing children and suspects.

While many of Treasury's law enforcement functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, Treasury continues its important responsibility for combating terrorist financing and other financial crimes both domestically and abroad. The bill includes funding to establish the Office of Terrorist and Financial Crimes.

We have also included additional resources to support Treasury's policy responsibilities pertaining to counterterrorist financing and financial crimes. I believe these are essential functions in our Nation's war against this fight on terrorism.

The bill includes an additional $20 million for the HIDA Program. Over the years, the HIDA Program has been effective in coordinating Federal, State, and local law enforcement to disrupt drug trafficking. We have also included language to, once again, make the National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign an effective investment for the Federal Government.

While a few of my colleagues may disagree with the direction the bill proposes to take in regard to the media campaign, there are many more who believe a more stringent approach is necessary. I believe this bill strikes the appropriate balance between responsible congressional oversight of the campaign and allowing it to move forward in an attempt to effect change among our Nation's youth. Further delay in the courthouse construction process would only hamper the effort to meet the growing caseload demands on the Federal judiciary.

The bill includes $500 million to fund the Help America Vote Act. This funding, in addition to the $830 million appropriated in fiscal year 2003, will allow more than $1.3 billion to be distributed to States in fiscal year 2004. I am pleased the administration has finally sent up its nominations for the commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission.

It is my understanding the Rules Committee plans to hold a hearing on these nominees next Tuesday. I believe it is important that the Senate expedite this process so the resources we appropriate can be distributed to the States in a reasonable manner.

The recommendation also includes funding to continue the student and parent mock elections. I know many of my colleagues are very interested in this important program and truly believe in the merits of this valuable hands-on civic lesson. That is precisely why we have included the money.

The bill retains the so-called pay parity provision for Federal employees and uniform personnel and sets the adjustment at 4.1 percent.

Finally, the bill includes $1.3 billion for Amtrak. I reiterate what I said during the committee consideration. I am deeply concerned about the offsets that have been included in this bill to pay for the additional $400 million above the budget request. We are barely keeping up with the demand for transit, highway, and airport infrastructure investment and maintenance. Amtrak, on the other hand, can hardly keep up passenger demand for its current routes. That is not just rhetoric. Amtrak provides roughly the same number of passenger trips as it did 20 years ago, while all other modes of transportation have more than tripled.

I hope we can move this legislation quickly through the Senate and into the conference with the House. I look forward to working with the Senator from Washington, the former chairman of the committee, and also the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and with interested Members, to consider and pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be adopted and considered original text for the purpose of further amendment, with no points of order being waived.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the managers have no objection to the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa. I urge the amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, we need to check something. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to say again the managers have no objection to this amendment, and I urge the amendment be adopted.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Reserving the right to object.

I do not know where Senator McConnell is, but I want to clear this with him before we set this amendment aside and move to that.

We will try to get in touch with him shortly.

I still reserve my right to object, and I would object until we clear this with Senator McConnell that he is ready to proceed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thomas be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment on the issue of competitive sourcing; I further ask consent that there be 40 minutes of total debate equally divided in the usual form relative to both the Thomas and Mikulski amendments; I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Thomas amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote and 2 minutes equally divided prior to the second vote.

Madam President, I rise in support of the Thomas amendment. I believe competitive sourcing is an important process for the Federal Government. I believe it will help to improve the overall performance and efficiency of certain activities carried out by the Federal Government.

Allowing these competitions to move forward is important to improve the value of service provided by the Federal Government to all Americans. Whether the contract is won by the incumbent Federal workers or private sector bidders, the Federal Government wins by encouraging greater efficiency and a more focused workforce. That improves service.

I believe we must be careful to clarify that competitive sourcing, as proposed, doesn't apply to those activities considered inherently governmental. Those jobs will be reserved solely for the Federal workforce, and no one is proposing otherwise.

Our goal is clear. What we are trying to do is make the Federal workforce more efficient and competitive. At some point, the Federal Government is going to have to demand that it get a greater return on its investment. I believe that allowing public-private competitive sourcing is a step in that direction. At the proper time, I will urge adoption of the Thomas amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have a number of amendments I will be sending to the desk individually. They have been cleared on both sides by the managers. First is an amendment proposed for Senator Durbin. I send it to the desk.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss. I send it to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of amendment.

Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I have another amendment that I send to the desk on behalf of Senator Bingaman and others.

It has been cleared on both sides by the managers.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh. It has been cleared on both sides by the managers.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I send to the desk another amendment on behalf of Mr. Reid of Nevada. It has been cleared on both sides by the managers.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I have another amendment I send to the desk on behalf of Senator Hollings of South Carolina. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I have another amendment I send to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I send to the desk another amendment on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island. It has been cleared by the managers.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. It has been cleared by both managers.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I have another amendment I send to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka. It has been cleared by the managers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set that amendment aside.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter. It has been cleared.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 1946 that was previously set aside on behalf of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka.

I do.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, I now offer a package of amendments that have been cleared on both sides, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. President, I have another amendment I send to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss. It has been cleared.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 1946

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees at a ratio of 9 to 8, which is the subcommittee plus Stevens and Inouye.