Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, on Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics came out with the latest unemployment figures. I commend the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They are professionals. They bring us the figures. They do not try to put a spin on them. They just lay out the facts. That is a kind of unusual thing in our public discourse nowadays, I have to say. We do not seem to pay much attention to the facts anymore. It is all spin--spin, spin, spin, spin, deception, misstatement, so forth and so on. But there are still professionals in various parts of our Government, and I simply at the outset commend them for sticking to the facts. Members of the Joint Economic Committee tried to draw the Commissioner and her associates into the spin efforts, and she resisted, as she should. I wish to talk this afternoon briefly about some of the figures and the facts, and I will try to lay them out as best I can. We produced last month 96,000 jobs--I say a mere 96,000 jobs because we need to produce about 140,000 jobs per month simply to stay abreast of the growth in population. So if we are producing fewer jobs than that, we are obviously slipping backward. This performance of this administration should be a matter of very deep concern for people in the country. Back at the beginning of the year, the administration did have a couple of months of good, solid production, and I want to put that right up front because, as I said, I want to stay with the facts. But what has happened is over the course of the year, their job production has fallen very sharply, as this chart shows. We are now down to just below 100,000 jobs produced in the last month of this Bush administration. The cumulative record of this administration over the course of the time it has been here has been a loss of 1.6 million private sector jobs. Private sector jobs are down 1.6 million. In total jobs, because we have had some uptick in Government jobs, the administration is down 825,000 jobs over the course of its tenure. It is down 825,000 total jobs, 1.6 million private sector jobs, and 2.7 million jobs lost in manufacturing employment. Manufacturing employment is down 2,700,000 jobs. This job performance--or more accurately put, lack of performance--is the worst in 75 years. We have to go all the way back to the administration of President Hoover to find another administration which lost jobs in the course of its tenure; in other words, failed to produce a net gain of jobs. Some administrations in the interim have done very well, others fairly well, others not so well. All have had a net gain in jobs except for this administration. The unemployment rate which was reported on Friday as 5.4 percent does not tell the full story of the depth and breadth of unemployment which exists in the country. If we count in amongst the unemployed--and the Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps this index--if you count in people who have dropped out of looking for a job because they are so discouraged by how poor the labor market is and a very substantial number of people who are working part time for economic reasons--in other words, they want to work full time, but they cannot find a full- time job, so obviously in order to try to support their family, they take a part-time job, but they are seeking a full-time job--if you factor in that underemployment, and if you factor in the people who dropped out of the workforce in terms of seeking employment, we end up with an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent--9.4 percent. That is what we are confronting. And that rate, of course, is a consequence of failing to have a net gain in jobs over the course of this administration. I was fascinated to watch the spin artists go out and try to spin this 96,000 figure into some big success. Quite to the contrary. It shows a serious shortfall in economic performance. And the thing that makes it an even deeper concern is the fact that the administration's performance over the course of this year in producing jobs has seriously weakened. In other words, if we go back to the beginning of this year, job creation has dropped markedly. Some of the spin is to sort of say 9/11 did it all. They attribute it all to 9/11, but obviously this chart indicates to the contrary because we had some fair job production here, and then it has fallen. The cumulative impact of having that happen is, in fact, now to have an administration which does not have a positive job creation performance over the course of its tenure. Now, we all know that everyone gets up on the Senate floor and they make long speeches about the best social program is a job. I agree with that. I doubt that there is anyone in this body who would disagree that the best social program is a job, but the jobs are not being produced. As I said, we can go back through our history to every previous administration, Democratic and Republican alike, until we get back to Herbert Hoover, who had a net positive creation of jobs in the course of his tenure. This administration has failed to do that. There are now 825,000 jobs less than when this administration came into office. There are 1.6 million jobs less in the private sector. There are 2.7 million jobs less in manufacturing, which, of course, has been the hardest hit of all, and which I think this administration has badly neglected in terms of a whole range of policies. But 2.7 million jobs less in manufacturing, 1.6 million jobs less in the private sector, 825,000 jobs less total, because there has been some increase in jobs in the public sector. This is the performance of this administration. As I said, if one factors in all of the components of unemployment, including those that have part-time work but want full-time work, those who dropped out of the labor force because they are so discouraged by the job market, we have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent. There is one other point I want to make, which I think is highly relevant, and it also, of course, affects efforts in this Congress to deal with the unemployment insurance benefits question. We define long- term unemployed as people out of work for more than 26 weeks--in other words, more than 6 months. The unemployment insurance benefit program is geared to pay 26 weeks of benefits. The assumption is to help people through a difficult period to support their families. I hasten to point out that one cannot draw unemployment benefits unless they have a work record. In other words, one must have worked and had a work record in order to qualify to draw these benefits. In previous recessions, when the economy has not strengthened and jobs have not picked up, we have extended the period of time to pay unemployment benefits because how can someone be told, after 6 months, well, they should have found a job and gone back to work, when the job market has not picked up and there is no job to be found and they find themselves in the difficult situation, how are they going to provide for their family if the benefits are cut off and the benefits, of course, pay only a fraction of what they earn, and there is no job to be found? So now, we have extended the benefits as a consequence. We have done that in this recession, but much less than previously. The administration has not been supportive of further extension, even though the number of long-term unemployed, amongst all the unemployed-- in other words, people out of work for more than 6 months, has almost tripled. It has gone from 680,000 long-term unemployed when George Bush took office as President in January of 2001--in other words, we have really brought that figure way down because of the high job production that had occurred in the Clinton administration. It is now up to 1,750,000 long-term unemployed. As a consequence, the percentage of the unemployed who are long-term employed, in other words, a consequence of this incredible growth in the long-term unemployed from 680,000 to 1,750,000, is almost triple. The percentage of workers unemployed who are long-term unemployed has jumped from about 10 percent to over 20 percent. It is now almost at 22 percent. In this period, these high figures above 20 percent of the long-term unemployed, this percentage of unemployed workers, this rapid runup and then this continuing high figure, is a record. It has been above 20 percent for 24 continuous months, which is dramatic evidence of the failure of the economic policies of this administration. These figures reflect real human hurt. These are men and women who had jobs, who worked, who lost their jobs, and cannot find another job. As a consequence, when their benefits run out and the administration and the Congress fail to extend their benefits, they find themselves in an incredibly difficult situation. How are they then to support their family? We have made repeated efforts on the floor to extend the unemployment insurance. They have been blocked by the other side. The administration has not been supportive of this effort. So we have one and three- quarter million people long-term unemployed no longer eligible for benefits, not able to find work in a job market last month, where they produced 96,000 jobs. That is not even close to keeping abreast of the growth in population, let alone putting people back to work. In my judgment, there is no way that these economic figures can be spun to represent some economic success which is, of course, what the President has gone across the country to try to do. In fact, he keeps going into States and saying we have turned the corner. I think when one looks around the corner that we have supposedly turned, one finds we are moving in the wrong direction. This is not the right direction to be moving with respect to the long-term unemployed. Who would want to turn a corner and find that the long-term unemployed is rising from about 10 percent of those unemployed to over 20 percent of those unemployed? This steady diet of over 20 percent for 24 months is unparalleled. Who would want to turn the corner and find that the monthly job creation was on this downward trajectory? The President says we have turned the corner, and I say to myself, well, let us look at what we see when we turn the corner. What we see when we turn the corner is this decline in job creation. We see, when we take a look in context--in other words, when we look over the period--that this administration has not created a net gain in jobs. It is no wonder that working people all across America are concerned and anxious, not only those who have lost their jobs, but those who fear they are going to lose their jobs, or those who maybe found another job but found themselves in this situation, that the jobs gained on average pay $20,000 less than the jobs lost. In other words, you have long-term unemployed who cannot find a job, you have people very apprehensive about their job situation because the number of jobs produced month by month is on a declining line, and then you have those who manage to find a job only to find it is at pay levels far less than they were previously receiving. The consequence of this is to put an enormous squeezing pressure on working and middle-income people in this country. The costs of everything are up, wages are almost level, and all across the country working families are sitting down at their kitchen tables, trying to figure out how they are going to pay their bills. I said earlier, when we were having this discussion, that in this economic cycle a far greater percentage of the benefits are going to corporate profits than are going to wages. When you look at the figures, it is absolutely startling the contrast with what we experienced at this point in previous economic cycles. So there is a tremendous skewing of whatever benefits there are from growth to profits and away from working people. This, I submit, ought to be a matter of deep concern all across the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. The bill that was passed by the Senate contained within it the provision that provided authority to the FDA to protect children; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. And that provision was then taken out in the conference with the House Members, stripped out of the bill; is that right?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. It is unparalleled in coming out of a recession that so much of the growth is going to profits and so little of the growth is going to wages. It is a stark contrast with what occurred as we tried to move out of previous recessions in the entire post-World War II period. The point the Senator makes is extremely important. Productivity is up. The workers are producing, but they are not getting a return in their wages. The benefits are going heavily into corporate profits. The Senator is absolutely correct. And it is a marked departure with previous performance, where there was a much more equitable sharing of the economic benefits of the growth that was taking place, and the wage earner was doing better than under the circumstances we face today.

Mr. SARBANES

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

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

Mr. SARBANES. No.

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

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely right. We are confronting a very serious economic situation for our workers. There is real anxiety--indeed even fear--in working America about what is going to happen to people in terms of their employment and how they support their families. But we are not producing jobs fast enough to put people back to work. Yet the administration won't support extending payments for unemployment insurance. How are these people supposed to support their families? These are working people. By definition, you cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits unless you have a work record. You must have been working and have built up a working record in order to qualify. We are talking about working Americans. How do they support their families? The President talks about 95,000 jobs as though it is some success. It is not a success. This is the only President in 75 years in that entire period of time who has not had a net gain of jobs during his administration.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that last point?

Mr. SARBANES. The fact of the matter is, the tax cuts for the very wealthy, which is the centerpiece of the Bush economic plan, are being financed by borrowing overseas, primarily from China and Japan. That is what it comes down to. We do these excessive tax cuts, we run a deficit, and we have to finance the deficit. Where do they find the money to finance the deficit? They sell U.S. Government paper overseas, primarily to Japan and China. So we are borrowing money from overseas in order to finance these tax cuts. It is bad enough to borrow internally, from our own people, in order to do this. But to go overseas and do it, as the Senator points out, and then give them this claim on American production on out into the future as far as one can see is absolutely irresponsible. The Senator from Massachusetts made a very important point. The President and his associates are busy out in the countryside trying to put the spin on the jobs figures. The fact is, the economy picked up 96,000 jobs last month. That is not enough to keep pace with the growth in population. This is the first administration since Herbert Hoover not to produce a net gain of jobs in the course of the administration. The Bush administration is down 800,000 jobs, a total of 1.6 million private sector jobs, and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. The last time you have an administration which failed to have a net gain in jobs in the course of its 4 years was 75 years ago in the administration of Herbert Hoover. This is a dismal job performance record. Yet the President is going around the country telling people we have turned the corner. The trouble is every time you go around the corner we are going in the wrong direction. That is the problem with the President's policies. He may have turned the corner, but the corner is taking us in the wrong direction. Second, as the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out, if you factor into the unemployment rate the people who have dropped out of seeking a job because they are so discouraged by the economic conditions they encounter, and people are working part time for economic reasons-- namely, they want to work full time but they can't find a full time job, so they are working part time--if you include that in the unemployment figure as well, which is the most comprehensive measure of unemployment, the unemployment figure is 9.4 percent, coming up to 10 percent unemployed. The final point I want to make is that unemployment benefits usually--and it is a very important point because I see many colleagues on the floor who have joined with the Senator from Massachusetts and myself to try to extend unemployment insurance benefits, and the Senator from Washington was very much involved in that effort and we welcome so strongly her leadership in it--usually are for 26 weeks. When we hit an economic downturn, we extend it because the job market doesn't pick up quickly enough to get people back to work. We usually extend it out to 39 weeks. The administration has resisted efforts to extend the payment period for unemployment insurance. We now have a record number of long-term unemployed. This is the record even before the Bush administration of the long- term unemployed. It ran along here, and now it has shot up to almost 22 percent of those unemployed who have been long-term unemployed.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. SARBANES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my pleasure that yesterday the Senate incorporated an important amendment I authored with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Harkin, into the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Our amendment strengthens Congress's role in protecting our civil liberties as we move forward with the reform of our intelligence structure. The randomness of the terrorist acts of September 11, and the relative ease with which they were perpetrated, exposed serious gaps and deficiencies in our intelligence and security systems. In the aftermath of those attacks, we established the 9/11 Commission, which through its seminal report and recommendations has helped to clearly identify critical problem areas and recommend solutions to remedy them. And now, through this National Intelligence Reform Act, we are working to implement these recommendations in a way that strengthens the intelligence infrastructure and increases synergy and coordination within our intelligence community. But in the aftermath of September 11--in our vigilance to protect against future attacks and to comprehensively overhaul our intelligence system--we run the risk of enacting procedures that could diminish or overrun our civil liberties. The Commission recognized this risk and in one of its most important recommendations has wisely suggested the establishment of a civil liberties oversight board within the executive branch. In the spirit of that recommendation the authors of the underlying bill have provided for such a board whose purpose it is to continuously review the impact on civil liberties of intelligence gathering initiatives and operations devised under the new National Intelligence Program, NIP. To that end, the board will be charged with reviewing new proposals under the NIP, advising on the civil rights implications of those proposals, and determining whether proposals will expand powers at the expense of our civil liberties. The question arises, however, as to what the board can do with a finding that a violation has occurred. Under the bill as currently drafted the Board is not authorized to intervene or put any stopgaps in place through the legislative or regulatory process. I recognize that the intelligence community must have the ability to implement its proposals and operations with a level of flexibility and expedience. But, I also recognize that the board must have the ability to check initiatives that infringe on our most sacred constitutional rights. Our amendment strikes a balance between these two goals by making Congress aware of specific instances in which the board has significant concerns about a given proposal's adverse effect on civil liberties. Specifically, this amendment requires that the board include, within its biannual reports, a detailed accounting of each time the board finds that: No. 1, a proposal to create a new means of gathering intelligence will unnecessarily infringe on civil liberties; and No. 2, that finding is not adequately addressed by those implementing or creating the means. By receiving this information, Congress will be able to keep pace with the implementation of national intelligence reform as well as provide guidance on ways to refine and calibrate new intelligence gathering initiatives so that we balance security interests with constitutional rights. In short, the amendment provides Congress the information it needs to accomplish a critical part of its oversight function, ensuring that while we work to keep our country safe we also safeguard the constitutional freedoms upon which it was founded. Again, I thank the managers for including this important amendment in the underlying legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the very able Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, for offering this amendment. I am pleased to join with him as a cosponsor. Senator Reed has played a leading role in the Congress on the issue of transit security. In fact, in the last Congress he held a series of hearings on transit issues, and a good deal of the focus of those hearings was on the transit security challenges we face. This is a vitally important amendment needed to better protect the American people. I observe to my colleagues that throughout the world, public transportation systems have been a target of terrorist attacks. A terrorist attack against a passenger train in Madrid, attacks against transit systems in both Moscow and South Korea demonstrate that transit and rail systems are a target of terrorists worldwide. Despite the significant threat which obviously exists to transit and rail systems, security funding has been grossly inadequate. As a result, our Nation's transit and rail systems have been unable to implement necessary security improvements, in many instances even those that have been identified as necessary by the Department of Homeland Security. To take one example, Washington Metro's greatest security need at the moment is a backup operations control center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration in its initial security assessment, and then identified again by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security assessment. Regrettably, this critical need remains unaddressed because of a lack of funding. Last March, I, along with Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Allen, wrote to Secretary Ridge urging funding for this and other critical needs such as chemical detection and decontamination systems, but the money is not there and the needs remain. In May of this year, the Banking Committee undertook to address these issues on a national basis. My colleague from Rhode Island played an instrumental role in considering this issue in the committee. The committee, on a bipartisan basis, with a unanimous vote, passed the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act. Regrettably, we have not yet been able to move that legislation forward on the Senate floor. This amendment tracks many of the provisions of that legislation. It addresses the need for increased transit security by providing for grants along the lines of the bill that was reported out of the committee. I note in that regard that Banking Committee Chairman Shelby took a keen interest in this issue and we appreciate his recognition of the need to increase transit security and his support for the legislation that was brought from the committee. I might note that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recently took action with respect to transit security that is similar to what is proposed in this amendment. In the last Congress, Senator Reed and I requested the GAO to conduct a study of the security needs of transit systems. In its report the GAO found that, in analyzing the needs of eight transit systems, that they required $711 million for security purposes just for those eight systems. There are 6,000 public transit agencies throughout our Nation. The need is very great. The challenge is very real. We know that transit and rail systems are serious potential targets for terrorist attacks. We obviously know the vital role that these systems play in our Nation's economic and security infrastructure. We must address the vulnerabilities that have already been identified in security assessments which have already been conducted. The funding to do this is just not there. We need to harden tunnels, to provide detection teams, to train frontline employees, to update infrastructure so that a transit system can continue to function even if attacked. The list of security needs goes on and on and on. I strongly commend to my colleagues the amendment that my able colleague from Rhode Island has put forward. I am pleased to join with him as a cosponsor. I urge support of the amendment. This is a very real need, with very important implications for our national security and for the functioning of our economy. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which authorized the Federal highway, transit, and safety programs, expired 1 year ago today. Although both the Senate and the House have passed comprehensive, multiyear legislation to reauthorize those programs, a conference agreement still has not been worked out. As a result, today the Senate is passing an 8-month extension, the sixth short-term extension since TEA-21 expired. The inherent uncertainty of short-term extensions has made it difficult for State and local governments and transit agencies to make decisions regarding construction, maintenance, and operations. I want to speak for a moment about the transit program, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee. In the Banking Committee's reauthorization hearings, we heard extensive testimony on the critical role of transit in reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and improving our quality of life. Transit ridership is at record levels, a testament to Americans' growing need for safe, reliable transportation choices. The same can be said for the other modes as well: demand is increasing along our entire transportation network. Increased investment is essential if we are to keep up with this demand. The U.S. Department of Transportation has estimated that an average of $127 billion per year is needed over the next two decades to maintain and improve the condition of our highways, bridges, and transit systems. Other estimates show an even greater need. I believe that failure to make the needed investment will result in the continued deterioration of our existing infrastructure, threatening our future mobility and economic strength. Such investment would also have a positive impact in the near term: according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, each $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs. In an effort to begin addressing these needs, the Banking Committee passed a reauthorization of the Federal transit program in February of this year. That bill authorized $56.5 billion over 6 years for transit, a substantial increase over TEA-21. As a result of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby's leadership in developing that piece of legislation, the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2004 was reported out of the Banking Committee unanimously. The Banking Committee bill was incorporated into S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a 6-year multimodal reauthorization bill, which passed through the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Notwithstanding the passage in both the Senate and the House of reauthorization bills calling for substantially increased investment, the administration has not been willing to support the kind of investment needed to meet our pressing transit and highway needs. Without a serious commitment from the administration to make such investments, it has been impossible to move forward in the conference process. Until that process is completed, it is essential that our States and local communities be able to continue to operate and maintain our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems. The legislation considered by the Senate today would allow Federal assistance to continue through May 31, 2005, and provides that once a multiyear reauthorization bill is completed, the budgetary firewalls protecting highway and transit spending will be extended around the total amounts authorized for fiscal year 2005 in that multiyear bill. I hope that in the next 8 months the Administration will work cooperatively with the Congress to produce a comprehensive reauthorization bill that will provide the needed resources to address the Nation's urgent transportation needs.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004. This legislation extends basic consumer protection rights to those who send remittances, and it creates new avenues and incentives for federally insured financial institutions to provide remittance and basic banking services to those who currently do not use such institutions to send remittances. The practice of sending remittances is not new. Immigrants to the United States traditionally have used remittances to provide financial assistance to family members who remained in their country of origin, but the practice has been largely overlooked; it has not been systematically studied and its implications have not been fully understood. The 2000 census shows that 30 million people in this country are foreign-born--the largest number in our Nation's history and the vast majority of them--22 million--are citizens or legal residents. More than 40 percent of our Nation's foreign-born population immigrated to the United States in the 1990s, and some 15.4 million, or more than half the immigrant community, have come from Latin American countries. Immigrants make a vital contribution to the economic and social life of our Nation. In a recent study, Sending Money Home: Remittances to Latin America from the US, 2004, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) found that nationwide over 60 percent of Latin American immigrants send remittances. On average, each immigrant sends $240 at a time, 12 times per year. Although these individual transactions are not large, they have constituted an aggregate amount of over $30 billion from America to our Latin American neighbors in this year alone. In my State of Maryland, we have 175,000 immigrants from Latin America and the vast majority send remittances back home. According to the IADB's study 80 percent of Maryland's immigrants from Latin America send remittances. The typical sender remits an average of $245, 14 times per year--in other words, remittances are a monthly matter, with special gifts for Christmas and Mother's Day. The subject of remittances has been a major interest of mine for some time. As chairman of the Banking Committee, in February, 2002, during the 107th Congress, I chaired what I understand was the first congressional hearing devoted exclusively to the subject. Dr. Manuel Orozco, a leading researcher on remittances at the Inter-American Dialogue, told the committee that remittances from the U.S. to Latin America had grown substantially--at that point to an estimated $20 billion in 2001--and that between 15 to 20 percent--$3-$4 billion--was being lost in fees and other transaction costs. Since Dr. Orozco testified, remittances to Latin America have grown by $10 billion, 50 percent, in just 3 years, and continued growth is expected. That an estimated 15 percent to 20 percent of the money sent in remittances is diverted to fees and other transaction costs, often hidden from the remittance sender, is evidence of the abusive practices that exist in the remittance market. There are two primary factors that account for this abuse. First, studies have shown that people who send remittances tend to be relatively low-wage earners, with modest formal education and relatively little experience in dealing with this country's complex system of financial institutions. As a result they are susceptible to unscrupulous actors who can take advantage of them by charging all sorts of exorbitant fees, which are often hidden or misrepresented. The exchange rate conversion is often the mechanism for this abusive practice. Second, remittances are currently not subject to the requirements set by Federal consumer protection law, including the disclosure of fees. There is no requirement that a remittance transfer provider disclose to the consumer the exchange rate fee that will be applied in the transaction. Without knowing the exchange rate fee that the company is charging, a consumer has little ability to gauge accurately the full cost of sending a remittance. As Sergio Bendixen, a leading researcher of public opinion and behavior, with a specialty among Hispanic consumers, testified before the Banking Committee: ``an overwhelming majority of Hispanic immigrants are unaware that their families in Latin America receive less money than what they send from the United States.'' Further, a remittance sender cannot effectively shop between remittance transfer providers. The lack of basic information limits the amount of competition in this market. The legislation I am introducing today extends basic consumer rights to those who send remittances. Further, by requiring clear and understandable disclosures to the remittance sender of the cost of the remittance, thus presenting to the consumer the full cost of sending money, the legislation will enhance competition, which in turn should lead to an overall decrease in the cost of sending remittances. As Sergio Bendixen testified to the Banking Committee, ``Full disclosure should unleash market forces that, hopefully, will result in a significant reduction in the cost of sending cash remittances.'' This legislation amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), which is the primary vehicle for providing basic protections to most persons who engage in electronic transactions, to cover remittances, and to provide the basic rights associated with EFTA to remittance transactions. The two most important components of EFTA are the requirement of full disclosure of fees and the establishment of a process for the resolution of transactional errors. These rights have been an integral part of the regulations that govern our banking infrastructure since EFTA's enactment in 1978. The new legislation will build upon the success of EFTA by extending these basic rights to remittance senders. The cornerstone of this legislation is the requirement that remittance transfer providers make three key disclosures to their consumers: (1) The total cost of the remittance, represented in a single dollar amount; (2) the total amount of currency that will be sent to the designated recipient, and (3) the promised date of delivery for the remittance. These disclosures follow the core recommendations of the InterAmerican Development Bank, which in its publication, Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean: Goals and Recommendations, states: ``Remittance institutions should disclose in a fully transparent manner, complete information on total costs and transfer conditions, including all commissions and fees, foreign exchange rates applied and execution time.'' The total cost disclosure will include the cost of the exchange rate conversion as well as all up-front fees. This single item will both give consumers a more accurate representation of the cost of the remittance transaction and allow consumers to more effectively compare costs between remittance transfer providers. In order to calculate the cost of the exchange rate conversion, which is part of the total cost, the legislation requires that the Treasury Department post on its website, on a daily basis, the exchange rate for all currencies. At present the Treasury receives this information on a daily basis, but posts it only on a quarterly basis on the Treasury website. By posting the information daily, the Treasury could create a uniform and credible source for exchange rate information. To calculate the cost to the consumer of the exchange rate differential, remittance transfer providers will use the difference between the previous business day's exchange rate, as posted on the Treasury website, and the exchange rate that the remittance transfer provider offers. Using the exchange rate posted by the Treasury will ensure that the exchange rate cost is calculated on a uniform basis. When the exchange rate cost is disclosed to the consumer as part of the total cost of the remittance transfer, the consumer will be better able to understand the full cost of the transaction and to shop between different remittance transfer providers. In addition to fee disclosure requirements, this legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism so that consumers whose remittance transactions experience an error have a fair, open, and expedient process through which they may resolve those errors with the institution that conducted the flawed transaction. This basic right is already afforded to consumers who are protected by EFTA, and now this right will be extended to cover consumers who send remittances as well. Further, the legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism for remittance transfer errors that is responsive to the different types of errors that can occur in a remittance transaction and is reflective of the unique characteristics of the remittance market and its participants. Under this legislation, a consumer has 1 year from the date that the remittance transfer company promised to deliver the money to notify the company that an error has occurred. The company is then required to resolve the error within 90 days. To resolve the error, the company must either (1) refund the full amount of the remittance that was not properly transferred, (2) resend that amount at no additional cost to the consumer or the designated recipient, or (3) demonstrate to the consumer that there was no error. The Federal Reserve Board is also granted the authority to establish additional remedies for specific situations that cannot be addressed by the three specific remedies that are described in the legislation. It is urgent that we continue to encourage efforts to bring those who send remittances into the financial mainstream. In his testimony to the Banking Committee, Dr. Orozco pointed out that, ``About two-thirds of immigrants cash their salary checks in check cashing stores that charge exorbitant fees. Many of these same immigrants then use what remains of their income to send remittances back home. In this common scenario, immigrants are penalized in both receiving and sending their earnings.'' In order to further bank those who are currently unbanked, the legislation that I am introducing today requires that the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration provide guidelines to financial institutions regarding the offering of low-cost remittance transfers and no-cost or low-cost basic consumer amounts. This legislation also amends the Federal Credit Union Act to allow credit unions to offer remittances and to cash checks for persons who are in their field of membership but are not credit union members. The guidelines set out in the legislation will help educate the financial services industry about the importance and potential profitability of providing these services. The sending of remittances in a fair and scrupulous manner is likely to be profitable for the institution that provides the remittance service, and indeed we have begun to see aggressive moves into the remittance market by many of the largest banking institutions. Individuals who send remittances but are currently unbanked represent an expanded and profitable customer base for financial institutions. By its very nature, remittances is an issue that involves both the United States and other nations. As Professor Susan Martin of Georgetown University, who also testified at our hearing, told the Banking Committee: ``Until relatively recently, researchers and policy makers tended to dismiss the importance of remittances or emphasize only their negative aspects . . . but recent work on remittances show a far more complex and promising picture. . . Experts now recognize that remittances have far greater positive impact on communities in developing countries than previously acknowledged.'' In fact, the size of the remittance market is such that for six Central American and Caribbean nations--Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guyana and Jamaica--remittances constitute more than 10 percent of GDP; Haiti and Jamaica receive more in remittances than in revenues from trade. The World Bank estimates that Mexico receives more in remittances than it does in foreign direct investment. Reducing the costs of remittances is in the interest of both the United States and the countries that receive them. Given the growing importance of annual remittance flows, we must work to increase their efficiency. One mechanism for accomplishing this objective, and for increasing the ability of financial institutions to offer remittances is linking our banking infrastructure with the banking infrastructures of other nations. The Federal Reserve operates an international automated clearing house system (ACHi) that is currently linked to seven countries, of which the vast majority are highly developed trading partners that receive relatively low levels of remittances. The ACHi was recently connected to Mexico, however, which will allow financial institutions throughout the United States, especially those institutions of smaller size, to provide remittance services more easily and cheaply to Mexico. This legislation directs the Fed to take into account the importance of remittance flows to other countries as it continues to expand the ACHi system. Linking the ACHi to countries that receive significant remittances has the potential to result in great benefits to consumers who send remittances from America as well as to those who receive the remittances around the world. Finally, I am acutely aware of the need for better and more broadly available financial literacy and education for all Americans. I am pleased to report that in the last Congress, as part of the reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we established a Presidential Financial Literacy and Education Commission, which is charged with developing a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education. The Act addresses the issue of remittances by including in the commission's work a focus on increasing the ``awareness of the particular financial needs and financial transactions, such as the sending of remittances of consumers who are targeted in multilingual financial literacy and education programs and improve the development and distribution of multilingual financial literacy and education materials.'' The legislation that I am introducing today builds on that framework by instructing the bank and credit union regulators to work with the commission to specifically increase the financial education efforts that target those persons who send remittances. Millions of Americans send remittances to family members around the world, for a total far exceeding the $30 billion that goes to Latin America alone. Yet almost all of these transactions take place without the basic consumer rights and protections that apply to other electronic transfers. Consumers who send remittances are often immigrants and workers who earn modest wages, who are not aware of the full costs of each remittance, as a practical matter have no way of finding out and, as a consequence, in the aggregate pay billions of dollars in costs and hidden fees. They do not have available to them an established procedure for resolving transactional errors. This legislation rectifies this situation by extending to remittances the basic consumer rights established in EFTA. The bill also contains provisions that, when implemented, will allow more insured financial institutions to provide remittance services--and potentially at lower costs to consumers. The bill contains important provisions to help bring the unbanked--men and women without an account at a bank or credit union--into the financial mainstream. Taken together, these measures will increase transparency, competition and efficiency in the remittance market, while helping to bring more Americans into the financial mainstream. A broad range of community, civil rights, and consumer groups have endorsed this legislation including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, United Farm Workers of America, the Farmworker Justice Fund, the NAACP, Casa de Maryland, the National Federation of Filipino American Associations, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Center for Responsible Lending, U.S. PIRG, ACORN, Woodstock Institute, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Intemational Remittance Consumer Protection Act be printed in the Record, together with letters in support of the bill from the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Casa de Maryland, and a letter from Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. PIRG.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004. This legislation extends basic consumer protection rights to those who send remittances, and it creates new avenues and incentives for federally insured financial institutions to provide remittance and basic banking services to those who currently do not use such institutions to send remittances. The practice of sending remittances is not new. Immigrants to the United States traditionally have used remittances to provide financial assistance to family members who remained in their country of origin, but the practice has been largely overlooked; it has not been systematically studied and its implications have not been fully understood. The 2000 census shows that 30 million people in this country are foreign-born--the largest number in our Nation's history and the vast majority of them--22 million--are citizens or legal residents. More than 40 percent of our Nation's foreign-born population immigrated to the United States in the 1990s, and some 15.4 million, or more than half the immigrant community, have come from Latin American countries. Immigrants make a vital contribution to the economic and social life of our Nation. In a recent study, Sending Money Home: Remittances to Latin America from the US, 2004, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) found that nationwide over 60 percent of Latin American immigrants send remittances. On average, each immigrant sends $240 at a time, 12 times per year. Although these individual transactions are not large, they have constituted an aggregate amount of over $30 billion from America to our Latin American neighbors in this year alone. In my State of Maryland, we have 175,000 immigrants from Latin America and the vast majority send remittances back home. According to the IADB's study 80 percent of Maryland's immigrants from Latin America send remittances. The typical sender remits an average of $245, 14 times per year--in other words, remittances are a monthly matter, with special gifts for Christmas and Mother's Day. The subject of remittances has been a major interest of mine for some time. As chairman of the Banking Committee, in February, 2002, during the 107th Congress, I chaired what I understand was the first congressional hearing devoted exclusively to the subject. Dr. Manuel Orozco, a leading researcher on remittances at the Inter-American Dialogue, told the committee that remittances from the U.S. to Latin America had grown substantially--at that point to an estimated $20 billion in 2001--and that between 15 to 20 percent--$3-$4 billion--was being lost in fees and other transaction costs. Since Dr. Orozco testified, remittances to Latin America have grown by $10 billion, 50 percent, in just 3 years, and continued growth is expected. That an estimated 15 percent to 20 percent of the money sent in remittances is diverted to fees and other transaction costs, often hidden from the remittance sender, is evidence of the abusive practices that exist in the remittance market. There are two primary factors that account for this abuse. First, studies have shown that people who send remittances tend to be relatively low-wage earners, with modest formal education and relatively little experience in dealing with this country's complex system of financial institutions. As a result they are susceptible to unscrupulous actors who can take advantage of them by charging all sorts of exorbitant fees, which are often hidden or misrepresented. The exchange rate conversion is often the mechanism for this abusive practice. Second, remittances are currently not subject to the requirements set by Federal consumer protection law, including the disclosure of fees. There is no requirement that a remittance transfer provider disclose to the consumer the exchange rate fee that will be applied in the transaction. Without knowing the exchange rate fee that the company is charging, a consumer has little ability to gauge accurately the full cost of sending a remittance. As Sergio Bendixen, a leading researcher of public opinion and behavior, with a specialty among Hispanic consumers, testified before the Banking Committee: ``an overwhelming majority of Hispanic immigrants are unaware that their families in Latin America receive less money than what they send from the United States.'' Further, a remittance sender cannot effectively shop between remittance transfer providers. The lack of basic information limits the amount of competition in this market. The legislation I am introducing today extends basic consumer rights to those who send remittances. Further, by requiring clear and understandable disclosures to the remittance sender of the cost of the remittance, thus presenting to the consumer the full cost of sending money, the legislation will enhance competition, which in turn should lead to an overall decrease in the cost of sending remittances. As Sergio Bendixen testified to the Banking Committee, ``Full disclosure should unleash market forces that, hopefully, will result in a significant reduction in the cost of sending cash remittances.'' This legislation amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), which is the primary vehicle for providing basic protections to most persons who engage in electronic transactions, to cover remittances, and to provide the basic rights associated with EFTA to remittance transactions. The two most important components of EFTA are the requirement of full disclosure of fees and the establishment of a process for the resolution of transactional errors. These rights have been an integral part of the regulations that govern our banking infrastructure since EFTA's enactment in 1978. The new legislation will build upon the success of EFTA by extending these basic rights to remittance senders. The cornerstone of this legislation is the requirement that remittance transfer providers make three key disclosures to their consumers: (1) The total cost of the remittance, represented in a single dollar amount; (2) the total amount of currency that will be sent to the designated recipient, and (3) the promised date of delivery for the remittance. These disclosures follow the core recommendations of the InterAmerican Development Bank, which in its publication, Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean: Goals and Recommendations, states: ``Remittance institutions should disclose in a fully transparent manner, complete information on total costs and transfer conditions, including all commissions and fees, foreign exchange rates applied and execution time.'' The total cost disclosure will include the cost of the exchange rate conversion as well as all up-front fees. This single item will both give consumers a more accurate representation of the cost of the remittance transaction and allow consumers to more effectively compare costs between remittance transfer providers. In order to calculate the cost of the exchange rate conversion, which is part of the total cost, the legislation requires that the Treasury Department post on its website, on a daily basis, the exchange rate for all currencies. At present the Treasury receives this information on a daily basis, but posts it only on a quarterly basis on the Treasury website. By posting the information daily, the Treasury could create a uniform and credible source for exchange rate information. To calculate the cost to the consumer of the exchange rate differential, remittance transfer providers will use the difference between the previous business day's exchange rate, as posted on the Treasury website, and the exchange rate that the remittance transfer provider offers. Using the exchange rate posted by the Treasury will ensure that the exchange rate cost is calculated on a uniform basis. When the exchange rate cost is disclosed to the consumer as part of the total cost of the remittance transfer, the consumer will be better able to understand the full cost of the transaction and to shop between different remittance transfer providers. In addition to fee disclosure requirements, this legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism so that consumers whose remittance transactions experience an error have a fair, open, and expedient process through which they may resolve those errors with the institution that conducted the flawed transaction. This basic right is already afforded to consumers who are protected by EFTA, and now this right will be extended to cover consumers who send remittances as well. Further, the legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism for remittance transfer errors that is responsive to the different types of errors that can occur in a remittance transaction and is reflective of the unique characteristics of the remittance market and its participants. Under this legislation, a consumer has 1 year from the date that the remittance transfer company promised to deliver the money to notify the company that an error has occurred. The company is then required to resolve the error within 90 days. To resolve the error, the company must either (1) refund the full amount of the remittance that was not properly transferred, (2) resend that amount at no additional cost to the consumer or the designated recipient, or (3) demonstrate to the consumer that there was no error. The Federal Reserve Board is also granted the authority to establish additional remedies for specific situations that cannot be addressed by the three specific remedies that are described in the legislation. It is urgent that we continue to encourage efforts to bring those who send remittances into the financial mainstream. In his testimony to the Banking Committee, Dr. Orozco pointed out that, ``About two-thirds of immigrants cash their salary checks in check cashing stores that charge exorbitant fees. Many of these same immigrants then use what remains of their income to send remittances back home. In this common scenario, immigrants are penalized in both receiving and sending their earnings.'' In order to further bank those who are currently unbanked, the legislation that I am introducing today requires that the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration provide guidelines to financial institutions regarding the offering of low-cost remittance transfers and no-cost or low-cost basic consumer amounts. This legislation also amends the Federal Credit Union Act to allow credit unions to offer remittances and to cash checks for persons who are in their field of membership but are not credit union members. The guidelines set out in the legislation will help educate the financial services industry about the importance and potential profitability of providing these services. The sending of remittances in a fair and scrupulous manner is likely to be profitable for the institution that provides the remittance service, and indeed we have begun to see aggressive moves into the remittance market by many of the largest banking institutions. Individuals who send remittances but are currently unbanked represent an expanded and profitable customer base for financial institutions. By its very nature, remittances is an issue that involves both the United States and other nations. As Professor Susan Martin of Georgetown University, who also testified at our hearing, told the Banking Committee: ``Until relatively recently, researchers and policy makers tended to dismiss the importance of remittances or emphasize only their negative aspects . . . but recent work on remittances show a far more complex and promising picture. . . Experts now recognize that remittances have far greater positive impact on communities in developing countries than previously acknowledged.'' In fact, the size of the remittance market is such that for six Central American and Caribbean nations--Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guyana and Jamaica--remittances constitute more than 10 percent of GDP; Haiti and Jamaica receive more in remittances than in revenues from trade. The World Bank estimates that Mexico receives more in remittances than it does in foreign direct investment. Reducing the costs of remittances is in the interest of both the United States and the countries that receive them. Given the growing importance of annual remittance flows, we must work to increase their efficiency. One mechanism for accomplishing this objective, and for increasing the ability of financial institutions to offer remittances is linking our banking infrastructure with the banking infrastructures of other nations. The Federal Reserve operates an international automated clearing house system (ACHi) that is currently linked to seven countries, of which the vast majority are highly developed trading partners that receive relatively low levels of remittances. The ACHi was recently connected to Mexico, however, which will allow financial institutions throughout the United States, especially those institutions of smaller size, to provide remittance services more easily and cheaply to Mexico. This legislation directs the Fed to take into account the importance of remittance flows to other countries as it continues to expand the ACHi system. Linking the ACHi to countries that receive significant remittances has the potential to result in great benefits to consumers who send remittances from America as well as to those who receive the remittances around the world. Finally, I am acutely aware of the need for better and more broadly available financial literacy and education for all Americans. I am pleased to report that in the last Congress, as part of the reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we established a Presidential Financial Literacy and Education Commission, which is charged with developing a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education. The Act addresses the issue of remittances by including in the commission's work a focus on increasing the ``awareness of the particular financial needs and financial transactions, such as the sending of remittances of consumers who are targeted in multilingual financial literacy and education programs and improve the development and distribution of multilingual financial literacy and education materials.'' The legislation that I am introducing today builds on that framework by instructing the bank and credit union regulators to work with the commission to specifically increase the financial education efforts that target those persons who send remittances. Millions of Americans send remittances to family members around the world, for a total far exceeding the $30 billion that goes to Latin America alone. Yet almost all of these transactions take place without the basic consumer rights and protections that apply to other electronic transfers. Consumers who send remittances are often immigrants and workers who earn modest wages, who are not aware of the full costs of each remittance, as a practical matter have no way of finding out and, as a consequence, in the aggregate pay billions of dollars in costs and hidden fees. They do not have available to them an established procedure for resolving transactional errors. This legislation rectifies this situation by extending to remittances the basic consumer rights established in EFTA. The bill also contains provisions that, when implemented, will allow more insured financial institutions to provide remittance services--and potentially at lower costs to consumers. The bill contains important provisions to help bring the unbanked--men and women without an account at a bank or credit union--into the financial mainstream. Taken together, these measures will increase transparency, competition and efficiency in the remittance market, while helping to bring more Americans into the financial mainstream. A broad range of community, civil rights, and consumer groups have endorsed this legislation including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, United Farm Workers of America, the Farmworker Justice Fund, the NAACP, Casa de Maryland, the National Federation of Filipino American Associations, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Center for Responsible Lending, U.S. PIRG, ACORN, Woodstock Institute, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Intemational Remittance Consumer Protection Act be printed in the Record, together with letters in support of the bill from the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Casa de Maryland, and a letter from Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. PIRG.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the 2004 Summer Olympic Games in Athens, which took place between August 13-29, have added a vivid and memorable chapter to the Olympic tradition, which first took shape in Greece nearly three millennia ago, and which in its modern form dates back to 1896. The Athens 2004 Organizing Committee, the U.S. Olympic Committee, the International Olympic Committee and dozens of other organizations, the U.S. Olympic Team and thousands of athletes from all over the world, the unwavering determination to meet unprecedented challenges and the good will and hard work of the people of Greece all contributed to assuring the success of the Games. In tribute to their magnificent achievement, today I am joined by a number of my colleagues in introducing a resolution to express our gratitude and congratulations. Greece took on a daunting challenge when, in 1997, the nation was designated by the International Olympic Committee to serve as host to the 2004 Summer Games. With the exception of Finland, where the 1952 Games took place, in terms of population Greece is the smallest Olympic host ever. To prepare for the return of the Games to Athens, where the first modern Olympics were held in 1896, the whole nation came together in a great common effort. The President and Managing Director of the Athens 2004 Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games and their associates worked closely with the Mayor of Athens, the Ministries of Public Works and Culture and other government agencies to assure a setting and facilities uniquely appropriate to the great events. The people of Greece, in Athens and also in communities around the Nation, gave their full support to the preparatory efforts and opened their hearts to the athletes. The events of September 11, 2001 raised the challenge of preparing for the Olympic Games to unprecedented heights, for they fundamentally changed the security and logistical context for all major international events--and indeed, as we know from our recent political conventions, for all large gatherings. As the Athens Games were the first summer Games to occur after 9/11, Greece had neither precedents nor guidelines upon which to rely in planning for the security of some 10,500 Olympic athletes, 5,500 team officials and literally millions of visitors. The challenges were all the more formidable because many of the events, including soccer and shot put, were held in places as distant from Athens as Thessaloniki and ancient Olympia. Greece undertook to do everything ``humanly possible'' to ensure the safety and success of the Games. The Athens 2004 Organizing Committee carried out a careful study and analysis of the security arrangements for the somewhat smaller Winter Games that had taken place in 2002, in Salt Lake City. A specially trained security force of 45,000 men and women was deployed, which included military and air force personnel, coast guards, fire fighters, law enforcement officials and private security contractors. The government of Greece worked in close collaboration with the United States, Britain, Israel, France, Germany, Australia, and Spain, along with NATO, guided by two principles: every single nation had an interest in having its athletes compete safely, and all nations working toward a common objective--the ultimate success of the Games--would provide the most effective deterrent to a terrorist act. As a result, while security measures were comprehensive and complex they were expertly and unobtrusively carried out, in no way detracting from the spirit of the Games. Athletes and visitors alike moved about unimpeded, and competition went forward in the finest Olympic tradition. Major investments in infrastructure also contributed significantly to the smooth functioning of the Games. Athens today is a city transformed. Since 1997, when the International Olympic Committee designated Greece as the host country for the 2004 Games, transportation and telecommunications systems have been expanded and modernized. The investments Greece has made in connection with the Olympics have created unprecedented opportunities for the future. The Olympic stadium complex, which includes the aquatic and tennis center, as well as the indoor arena and main stadium, will serve as major training facilities for many years to come. The soccer facilities will be highly sought after for international soccer events. Overall, infrastructure improvements have laid a sound foundation for economic growth and prosperity nationwide. Having met a daunting challenge, Greece is now poised to take on new responsibilities in an expanded European Union, and in the broad international community. Where the cherished tradition of the Summer Olympics is concerned, Greece has shown what can be accomplished. The experience in Athens will surely prove invaluable to China, which fours years from now will play host to the Games in Beijing. As a Marylander, I am especially proud of the signal accomplishments of Maryland athletes, and I am sure my colleagues take similar pride in the athletes from their respective states. The performance of the U.S. Olympic Team members in one stirring event after another will long be remembered, as anyone fortunate enough to have witnessed the competition firsthand will attest. Above and beyond the excitement and the triumphs of the different events, however, the Athens Olympics gave us something more. The 2004 Games showed that even in uncertain and turbulent times, it is possible with determination and planning and foresight to bring together men and women of good will from every corner of the globe in a great common endeavor. This is for all of us a both a reminder and an inspiration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the American athletes for their participation in the 2004 Olympic Games. These athletes made us proud not only of their victories, but also of their sportsmanship. The heart, focus and perseverance exhibited by these men and women offered us an opportunity to reflect on the values and characteristics that embody the very best of the American Spirit. All of our athletes should be commended, but because they played a very prominent role in these games, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Maryland's Olympic athletes. This year, we were very fortunate to have fourteen Marylanders compete. This group of athletes, which included both the youngest and the oldest members of the U.S. team, represented Maryland and the United States with honor and dignity and excelled in their various competitions. Marylanders participated in a variety of sports ranging from swimming and track and field, to whitewater slalom canoeing and table tennis. Our State boasted household names like Michael Phelps and Carmelo Anthony as well as rising stars like Bernard Williams and Courtney Kupets. The delegation included individuals from all over the State, from the City of Annapolis to Howard County, from Bethesda to Gaithersburg to Baltimore City, and from Upper Marlboro to Towson and Abingdon. And although they come from a diversity of backgrounds, each demonstrated the common spirit of what it means to be a true Olympian. We saw that spirit in Carmelo Anthony's refusal to quit after the men's basketball team suffered a series of difficult and surprising losses. We saw it in the decisions of Liz Filter and Nancy Haberland to compete in the face of challenging life circumstances. It was reflected in the wisdom and experience of Libby Callahan as well as the youthful exuberance of 15 year-old swimmer Katie Hoff. It shined through Jun Gao when on day four of the table tennis competition, as the only member of the U.S. team still in competition, she shouldered the hopes of her teammates. The Olympic spirit was further reflected in paddlers Joe Jacobi and Scott Parsons, who focused on the experience and joy of the performance. Courtney Kupets and Rhadi Ferguson showed enormous bravery by overcoming serious injuries to make the U.S. team and compete for their country. Ms. Kupets brought home two medals, a silver in the team competition and a bronze in the individual uneven bars. And Michael Phelps, who won six gold and two bronze medals, showed that the team is more important than individual accomplishment when he yielded his spot on the 4 x 100 medley relay squad and an opportunity for further glory to teammate Ian Crocker. Finally, Maryland's track and field athletes should be commended for their heart and concentration. Tiombe Hurd, who is legally blind, overcame her vision obstacles to finish 22nd in a crowded triple jump field. Bernard Williams and James Carter, who hail from Baltimore public schools, Carver Vocational-Technical High School and Mergenthaler Vocational-Technical High School, showed the world the kind of talent and poise Baltimore City's public schools can produce, taking home a silver in the 200 meter sprint and a fourth place finish in the 400 meter hurdles. Maryland, and America, should be proud of their Olympic athletes. Through their actions both on and off the field of competition, they exhibited the grace, sportsmanship, and determination that signify a true Olympian. Congratulations are due to all of our athletes both for their individual successes and for the way they, as a team, showed the world the best our nation has to offer.