Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2062

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I understand the data mining amendment encompasses the legislation which the Senator introduced and which is pending in the Judiciary Committee, if I am not mistaken. At least I am informed of that. So it is not within the scope of the work of our committee, I say with all due respect to the Senator. I share some concerns about the issues he is raising, and I think they are worth paying attention to. But we have tried very hard to deal only with amendments that are relevant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle, upon hearing that, have refrained or withheld from offering amendments that are outside that parameter, and we are very grateful to them for doing that. Obviously, it has enabled us to move this legislation along. I think we have had a very open process in dealing with amendments that affect the provisions of the FCRA. We tried to keep it open and I think, in a sense, we have bent over backward to do that. But we have tried to dissuade the offering of amendments that are outside that scope. I think this amendment falls into that category, and therefore I will be supportive of the chairman in the statement he made. This is not to speak to the substance of the Senator's amendment in any developed way; I assure him of that. But it seems to me this is not within the scope of what we do in the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

Mr. SARBANES. I will be quick because I know the chairman intends to move ahead with respect to this amendment. I will make some very basic points. Some of this discussion has been along the lines that under existing law this information is shielded and we are taking something away from people. The fact is, under existing law there are no limitations on the sharing of information with affiliates. That is the existing law. What the committee has sought to do is place the limitation on the sharing of information with affiliates for solicitation for marketing purposes, which is the biggest complaint we have heard flowing out of the sharing of information. That is what people have complained to us about. We are trying to provide that protection for the consumer. The California law and the amendment take a different approach. They, in effect, say you cannot share information with an affiliate or the consumer has to be given the opportunity to opt out. But the California law has some exceptions or exemptions from that requirement. The amendment that is pending has 17 such exemptions. To evaluate this--it is very complex; I agree with my colleague from California when she says this is a complex area; it is very complex-- but to evaluate these exemptions, you have to work through all of the exceptions and see where that leads as opposed to what is in the committee bill. Let me give an example. One exception is if a company is in the same line of business, a common brand, then the provisions of the amendment do not apply with respect to restricting and sharing of information. What the committee has reported out would, in fact, apply a limitation, an opt-out limitation in that instance for soliciting for marketing purposes. As I said earlier, that is generally what we have heard as being the source of people's concern and discontent. In that sense, what is in the bill is for that purpose broader than what is in the amendment. These extensive exceptions will involve a great deal of litigation. We do have a preexisting customer relationship exception, our provision, which we expect the regulators to define, to give it more content and more meaning. Second, the amendment has an exemption for a common database and the information that goes into a common database. In fact, it says a person does not disclose information or share information with an affiliate solely because information is maintained in a common information system or database and employees of the person and its affiliate have access to that common information system or database. That is another provision in the amendment, a major provision, which in fact restrains or restricts the consumer's ability to opt out. I could go on with this form of analysis, but I have probably given enough to underscore my thoughts. I appreciate the commitment of the two Senators from California, Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Boxer, on this issue. They have been champions and leaders on this issue. Many Members have been with them on these matters and presumably will remain with them. But we are trying to craft a bill to deal with the FCRA. It is not comprehensive. We are dealing with that subject alone. What is in the bill from the committee is a significant improvement over existing law. I don't think there is any question about that. I think there is an arguable case that, in fact, it may provide more protection for the consumer than the amendment that is pending. Therefore, I am supportive of the chairman and his efforts with regard to this issue.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2059

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

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

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield to me for just 30 seconds?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, we are having two major statements on unrelated issues. We have an amendment pending. We are trying to work through these amendments. We think there is an opportunity to dispatch them in good order. So I certainly encourage people who want to speak on the pending Feinstein amendment to come to the floor so they can be heard and we can complete that debate and then move to a vote on or in relationship to that amendment and then follow on with the other amendments and move this bill toward completion. I know there is no one in the Chamber wishing to speak now, and we certainly think the Senator from Illinois ought to be able to offer his statement, so this is not directed at him. I want to certainly assure him of that. But as we proceed, thereafter, if we could follow along, I think it would be very helpful.

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

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

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2061

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

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

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SARBANES. Before the Senator begins, I want to renew the call we made a few minutes ago. I know the chairman agrees with me in doing this. To those who want to speak on the pending amendment, we hope you will come to the floor and do so. We hope others who have amendments they want to offer will be prepared, once we dispose of the current amendment, to present their amendments so we can move along. There is a possibility I think we can finish this bill in good order. I know that is what everyone would like to accomplish. I know Chairman Shelby is anxious to, on the one hand, move things along and, on the other hand, ensure people have an opportunity to address these matters. In order for them to do that, we need them to come to the floor, so we are putting out that call.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I echo the chairman in expressing my deep appreciation to the staff people he enumerated: Kathy Casey, Doug Nappi, and Mark Oesterle on the Republican side, and Steve Harris, Lynsey Graham, Dean Shahinian, and Marty Gruenberg on the Democratic side. We are fortunate in the Banking Committee that we have a very committed, able, dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle. Furthermore, they have been able to work with one another in a very productive and cooperative fashion. The chairman and I are keenly aware of the fact of how much we rely upon them, and we want them to know how much we appreciate their terrific effort, which was reflected in this legislation and in many other matters with which the committee deals.

Mr. SARBANES. The amendment of the Senator from New Jersey makes a positive contribution to this legislation. I am certainly happy to accept it. I also thank the Senator for all the work he did in the committee on so many provisions in this legislation. He had a major hand in shaping the bill. I deeply appreciate that.

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

Mr. SARBANES. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join this morning in bringing to the floor of the Senate, along with my able colleague from Alabama, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation is important to millions of Americans as we work to ensure fair, accurate, and effective credit reporting practices, and this legislation is designed to accomplish that objective. First, I acknowledge and actually commend the distinguished chairman for the comprehensive series of six hearings on this legislation that were held in the Banking Committee. Chairman Shelby structured extremely productive hearings. There was a systematic approach to examining all aspects of this issue, and we heard from a broad range of interests in the witnesses who came before the committee. I think it is fair to say we covered all the bases. Not all the bases got what they wanted. It never quite works that way when you do legislation. But I think we had a very open, transparent process, with people having an opportunity to present their positions. They were very carefully and thoughtfully considered. In the end, the legislation was reported out of the committee, on a voice vote, unanimously on September 23. I think that vote reflects the response to the chairman's willingness to work with all members of the committee. Now, it goes without saying, each of us, if we could write the bill by ourselves, would have somewhat different aspects to the bill. There are areas where I would have sought to do more with respect to some consumer issues. But I think we sought to craft a balanced package here. We understand the need for a national credit reporting system for Americans all across the country. It means an opportunity to carry out their economic transactions swiftly, efficiently, and effectively. At the same time, of course, you have to be very alert to ensuring there are protections so people cannot be abused or taken advantage of in the process. One of the things this legislation does--and I am going to refer to it in some detail very shortly--is it really seeks to address this issue of identity theft which has provoked so much misery and grief for people who are hit by it. It is really the central focus of people's attention now when they consider problems they are having with consumer financial matters. This legislation has some very significant provisions in that regard, and we were able to move those forward with the strong support of the members of the committee. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, which this legislation, of course, affects provides for the ways in which credit information is gathered, disseminated, and used. During the hearings, we received a number of recommendations for improving the operation of the act. Among other things, the suggestions addressed: combating fraud and identity theft, protecting consumers' financial privacy, clarifying the credit scoring process and the use of credit scores, enhancing regulatory and enforcement authority, improving the accuracy of credit reports, improving consumers' understanding of the credit reporting process, combating abusive marketing practices, and finding ways to improve the financial literacy and education of all consumers. I believe we have taken important steps to address all of these issues. The Senate bill includes a number of provisions that will result in enhanced consumer protections by helping to ensure accuracy of credit report information and fair practices in the collection and use of credit information and in the granting of credit. Among other things this legislation will: provide consumers with free credit reports annually from the national credit bureaus and provide consumers with an easy method to obtain their free credit reports. This has heretofore not been available. It will require a summary of consumers' rights to opt out of prescreened offers; provide for accuracy guidelines; lengthen the statute of limitations for all FCRA violations; enhance identity theft penalties; extend the situations in which adverse action notices are provided to consumers; prohibit the sale, transfer, or collection of identity theft debt, so that such bad debt will not be perpetuated in the credit system; provide consumers with the right to opt out of marketing that results from affiliate information sharing, with certain exceptions to that right. Finally, of course, it will help enhance the financial literacy of all Americans. Let me discuss some of these items in a little more detail. First, accuracy. I don't think it needs much elaboration for people to understand that accuracy of credit reporting information is integral to our reporting process. Erroneous information on credit reports can often take a significant investment of time and money to remove. They can be extremely costly to consumers by significantly raising borrowing costs. Insurers, mortgage banks, and other financial institutions rely significantly on credit scores to make credit decisions. Therefore, inaccuracies in the underlying credit reports can make it more difficult and more expensive for Americans seeking to make major purchases. Yet we heard testimony in those extensive hearings, to which I referred earlier, that credit report inaccuracies is one of the major problems that plague consumers. This legislation addresses that with substantial measures in that regard. In order to enhance the accuracy of credit reports, the bill directs the Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Association, and the Federal Trade Commission to issue guidelines and promulgate regulations with respect to the accuracy and completeness of credit report information. Second, free credit reports. The bill allows consumers to receive a free credit report annually from each of the three national credit reporting agencies. The bill also requires the FTC to take steps to make it easier for consumers to obtain their free report, including: setting out rules requiring that a centralized, streamlined method be established so consumers can easily obtain free reports, and actively publicizing and conspicuously posting on its Web site--the FTC Web site--the rights available to consumers under the FCRA, including the consumer's right to a free report. The provision of free credit reports is a significant step in helping consumers to ensure the accuracy of their credit report information, and helping them identify possible instances of identity theft. As to prescreening, under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies may generate for creditors prescreened lists of individuals with certain credit characteristics to be targeted to receive a direct mailing. This prescreening process results in much of the unsolicited mail credit offers that consumers receive and about which they often complain. The success of the FTC's Do Not Call Registry has highlighted the frustration of Americans with unsolicited telephone offers. Under the Senate bill, creditors making such unsolicited offers of credit to consumers by mail will be required to include a summary of the consumers' rights to opt out of prescreening in their offers to consumers. In addition, this Senate bill increases the effective period of the telephone opt-out of prescreening from 2 to 7 years. With regard to adverse action notices, under the current law, the FCRA, a consumer receives an adverse action notice after denial or cancellation of insurance, a denial of credit, or a denial of employment, based on information in the consumer's credit report. This adverse action notice then triggers a consumer's right to a free credit report and other of CRA disclosures. Those are the provisions that have heretofore been in the law. What has happened, of course, is that, as the industry has grown more sophisticated in the technology, we are having a move to risk-based pricing. So there are many circumstances in which a consumer may apply for credit, but rather than receiving an outright denial, which is what happened in earlier days, which then was an adverse action and gave the consumer certain rights, the consumer may receive credit at an elevated rate or cost because of information on the consumer's credit report. In these situations, because a consumer has received credit, albeit at more rigorous terms, the consumer is not considered to have experienced an adverse action. Therefore, no FCRA rights are triggered. This legislation now before us incorporates a recommendation made to us by the Federal Trade Commission to update the provision of adverse action notices so consumers are aware that information in their credit report is negatively affecting the rates they are paying for credit. Therefore, because they become aware of it, it gives them an opportunity to examine that information and to correct it if, in fact, it should be inaccurate. Finally, in addition, the Senate bill takes important steps to improve the financial literacy of consumers by establishing a financial literacy and education commission within the Federal Government, which will coordinate the promotion of Federal financial literacy efforts, and will develop a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education. I commend Senators Enzi and Stabenow, along with Senators Corzine and Akaka, and many others, for their leadership in this important area of financial literacy. Senator Enzi and Senator Stabenow and Senator Corzine and Senator Akaka, for a long time--really, since I have known them--have been interested in this issue. We are pleased there is a title in the bill that carries forward important efforts in this regard. Let me turn to identity theft. I indicated at the outset that this was an issue of increasing concern across the country. Before I do that, I will simply mention a step that we took in this legislation with respect to affiliate sharing. This legislation contains provisions relating to the ability of financial companies to market to their customers based on private financial information of the customer that has been shared among affiliates. The bill would require affiliates who share customer information for solicitation or marketing purposes--and most of the concern we have heard in this area has been with the use of this information for solicitation or marketing purposes--to disclose such sharing to consumers and to provide them with an opportunity to opt out of the marketing resulting from such sharing of information. There are exceptions in the legislation with respect to this provision for preexisting customers, for service providers, and for the institutions responding to a consumer request. So on the solicitation for marketing, we are trying to address much of the concern that has been expressed to us, but we have been trying to do it in a very careful way so that the basic purposes of the legislation can be carried forward. I want to spend just a few moments on identity theft because it is such an important issue now. We heard some absolute horror stories before the committee from witnesses who had experienced identity theft and what it has done to their lives--virtually destroyed their lives. Obviously, we have to deal in every way that is reasonably possible with this issue. It has become an increasing problem in recent years. The Federal Trade Commission reported that the number of identity theft complaints it received last year far exceeded complaints about any other type of consumer fraud. Americans have serious concerns about this issue. Businesses incur significant costs dealing with identity theft. Honest citizens who are victims of identity theft incur very high costs in money, in time, in anxiety, and in an effort to correct and restore their spoiled credit histories and good names. Someone steals their identity and then uses it, and their whole credit record is being destroyed. Then it is almost impossible for them to function in a normal economic way in our society. This bill contains a number of important provisions that will address identity theft, and I commend not only the chairman but the members of the committee--all of the members of the committee--who were prepared to focus on this issue and give it a very high priority as we sought to move this legislation forward. The bill will allow consumers to place fraud alerts on their consumer reports. It will allow military personnel to place alerts on their reports indicating their active duty status. So there is a special concern for our men and women in the military. The bill provides for free credit reports after a fraud alert. Consumers will be able to get two free credit reports in the year after a fraud alert is placed in their file, as they seek to clean up the situation and to remedy it. As to account blocking, the bill will allow identity theft victims to direct consumer reporting agencies to stop furnishing information regarding the accounts associated with identity theft. ``One call'' policy: The bill will require that the national credit reporting agencies that receive consumer calls about identity theft direct the complaint to the other national agencies so that identity theft victims need not contact each agency separately. They can make one contact, and then the information is disseminated on identity theft. With regard to notification of fraudulent information, the bill will require debt collectors who learn that information in a consumer report is fraudulent, maybe the result of identity theft, to notify the creditor of the fraudulent information. On truncation of account numbers, the bill will require that businesses truncate credit or debit card numbers on electronic receipts. And on prohibition of the sale of identity theft, the bill protects consumers by prohibiting the sale, transfer, or collection of a debt where a consumer is an identity theft victim with respect to that debt. This will help to prevent identity theft debt from being perpetuated within the credit system. I want particularly to note the leadership of Senator Cantwell with respect to identity theft. Her identity theft legislation actually passed on the floor of the Senate last year, and this bill incorporates many of the provisions that were in her legislation, including an extension of the statute of limitations and the blocking provisions. I know she has worked closely with Senator Enzi in that regard in trying to address this identity theft issue. I also want to acknowledge the work that Senator Feinstein has also done on the identity theft question. We are most appreciative of her efforts in this regard as well. This is just a summary of a number of the provisions of this legislation which I think extends important protections to consumers. The bill provides a number of important improvements in the credit reporting system. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation was voted out of the committee on a voice vote. There are certain provisions of the existing legislation that will expire on January 1, 2004. Therefore, it is important this legislation be enacted before the end of this session. I close by again thanking the chairman for the very fair and balanced way in which the hearings were conducted and in which the markup took place. We sometimes put down or minimize the importance of process. It is not a very catchy word, ``process,'' but a good deal of what we try to do here and when you try to make this democratic process work involves process. It involves how you go about considering issues and how open and fair you are in doing it; how the majority treats the minority and how the minority responds to the treatment it receives from the majority. I believe a good process contributes to good legislation, that it is an important part of formulating legislation and arriving at the building of a consensus to address important problems. I simply want to say to my colleagues that I think the process that was followed in this instance was as it should have been, and I think the fact we bring this legislation to the floor out of the committee with a unanimous vote is, in part, a consequence of that process. I again thank and commend the chairman in that regard. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, H.J. Res. 52 recognizes the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry in Baltimore as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States. It passed the House unanimously and is a companion measure to legislation I introduced in the Senate, together with Senator Mikulski, S.J. Res. 12. The principal purpose of this legislation is to help educate the public about the critical importance of oral health to the overall health of all Americans. Three years ago, U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher issued a comprehensive report entitled ``Oral Health in America,'' which identified the problem of dental and oral disease as a ``silent epidemic'' facing the country. The report called for the development of a National Oral Health Plan, and recommended that actions be taken to ``change perceptions regarding oral health and disease so that oral health becomes an accepted component of general health.'' By designating an official national museum and learning center dedicated to dentistry, this legislation takes an important step toward the achievement of this goal. The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry is the largest and most comprehensive museum of dentistry in this country, and, indeed, the world. An affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum sits on the grounds of the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, founded in 1840 as the world's first dental college. With over 7,000 square feet of exhibit space, the Museum showcases the people, objects, and events that created and defined the dental profession, including one of George Washington's famed ivory dentures. The Museum's vast archives also act as an important resource for research and serious academic study of dentistry's past, with a unique collection of historical dental journals and other one-of-a-kind documents. By designating the Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry as the official national museum of dentistry, we will not only recognize the critical role that dentists and oral health professionals have played in the history of our Nation's health care system, but enhance awareness and understanding of the importance of dentistry to public health. I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I simply make the observation that the offering of this amendment by the Senators from Wyoming and Ohio clearly admits and sends the signal that the OMB circular issued on May 29 was grossly deficient. Now, they are addressing it in certain limited respects. And to the extent that is the case, so be it. But it does not really solve the basic problem which we confront, and that is that OMB handed down this circular which grossly tilts the playing field and which structures an unfair competition. It seems to me the best way to resolve this situation is to adopt the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, which in effect would hold the May 29 OMB circular. We could then revisit this question and address the range of the deficiencies that are in that circular. My own view is, if people of good will undertake that enterprise, we will be able, I hope, to reach a consensus and have a better product as a consequence. I think this is, in a sense, elemental fairness for the Federal employee and for the Federal taxpayer. This issue is always portrayed as though contracting out to the private sector is beneficial to the Federal taxpayer. That is clearly not the case. In fact, there has been instance after instance in which Federal employees win competitions, therefore validating the argument that they are better for the taxpayer than putting it out into the private sector. Now, OMB, because it is not meeting its targets--these ideological targets that have been placed upon them, which they in turn are imposing upon the agencies because they cannot get the outcome they seek--has come in with a new circular, of May 29, which tilts the playing field in an unfair way. That really cries out for the passage of the very well considered amendment of my colleague from Maryland. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that a number of members of that panel disagree with the OMB circular of May 29, and if that is the case, I don't see how the Senator can be using this panel as supportive of the OMB circular. The Senator mentioned this panel that was studying it and he went through the membership of the panel. He emphasized how diverse it was in terms of where it drew people from. But it is my understanding that the OMB circular does not reflect the position of a number of members of the panel. Is the Senator asserting to the contrary?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2003, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Allen. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for Federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the nation. All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2001 Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $69.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation options in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years. Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2002 to $100 per month. Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average. In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work. According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, by 2001 more than 110,000 employees--approximately one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region. The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover the more than 100,000 Federal employees in the legislative and judicial branches, and the dozens of independent Federal agencies located in the Washington, D.C. region. While many of these organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit. Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow Federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations. The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By 2005, FDA estimates 1,700 employees will work at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees. This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop. The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to an additional 100,000 employees in the Washington, DC region. Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation. Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown 236 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging Federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life. I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give Federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to Federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by Federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with their letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.