THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

Some of the stories I hear are truly incredible and illustrate the serious need for IDEA reform. For example, there is a school district in North Idaho--in a county which has had very high unemployment and below average per-capita income since the early 1990's--which has well above the national average of children in special education. This district is doing a great job educating those children, but the high costs associated with doing so, and the time it takes to complete the reams of paperwork that must be filled out for every child, are severe drains on that district. I've also heard from a school superintendent in Idaho who is going through a particularly sticky due process hearing and who laments that the paperwork required by this hearing is costly, unnecessary, and takes away teachers' time from the

[Page: S7950]  GPO's PDF

   The centerpiece of the bill is a proposal to allow states to set up a special education system based on parental choice. States that want to reform would draw up a list of disability categories and how much it costs to educate and accommodate a child who has that disability. The states would also draw up a menu outlining the educational services each pubic school in the state offers to children with those disabilities, and how much those services costs. These services must equal the quality of the services they offer today, and the states' programs would be approved by the Department of Education. If the Department of Education approves a state's plan, parents of special education children in that state would get a voucher for each child to choose from schools' menus to meet the needs of their children. Or, if parents did not find satisfactory services from the public schools, they could take their vouchers to any private school that could meet their children's needs.

   As you can see, parents would have the ultimate control over how their child is educated. Since parents would have the option of taking their voucher and leaving a school if their child was not being educated properly, the due process requirements under IDEA would not be necessary and the school personnel would have their paperwork burden dramatically reduced. Parents and school personnel could work together to find a proper diagnosis for a student who had a disability and to find the right ways to educate this child, instead of being forced into an adversarial relationship as they are today.

   It is important to point out, though, that this bill has no mandate on states that they must design the system outlined above. My bill would strengthen states' rights by allowing states one more option in dealing with special education. If states want to design such a special education system, they should have the freedom to do so. As welfare reform has shown us, states are often more innovative than the federal government in solving problems. This bill would give them one more tool to deal with the problems that are associated with IDEA.

   Another important provision of this bill is that it would set up a grant program (up to $1 million) within the Department of Education to help school districts which have 15 percent or more of their students in special education hire para-professionals to help deal with the paperwork.

   The Choice IDEA Act is not intended to be the final say on IDEA reform. I agree with many of the Presidential Commission's suggestions for IDEA reauthorization and hope to see them enacted into law; however, this reauthorization should include a provision giving states the option of pursuing their own reforms within the structure outlined above. When the Senate begins debating IDEA reauthorization , it is my hope that my bill will be considered and the Senate will reform IDEA so that the concept of ``no child is left behind'' truly includes every child.

   By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ENZI, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. BINGAMAN, and Mr. ALLARD):

   S. 2884. A bill to improve transit service to rural areas, including for elderly and disabled; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I introduce a bill to help rural America. Now I am always trying to help Montana, but this bill will help every state. Today I introduce the MEGA RED TRANS Act. Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Investment in Rural, Elderly and Disabled Transit.

   Quite simply, there are transit needs not being met nationwide. This bill addresses those needs.

   This is the second bill in a series that I am introducing to highlight my proposals on reauthorization of TEA 21--the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

   Last month I introduced the MEGA TRUST Act--Maximum Growth for America Through the Highway Trust Fund. Today its MEGA RED TRANS.

   The Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Investment in Rural, Elderly and Disabled Transit Act or MEGA RED TRANS Act would ensure, that as Federal transit programs are reauthorized, increased funding is provided to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled and of rural and small urban areas.

   There is no question that our nation's large metropolitan areas have substantial transit needs that will receive attention as transit reauthorization legislation is developed. But the transit needs of rural and smaller areas, and of our elderly and disabled citizens, also require additional attention and funding.

   The bill would provide that additional funding in a way that does not impact other portions of the transit program. For example, while the bill would at least double every State's funding for the elderly and disabled transit program by FY 2004, nothing in the bill would reduce funding for any portion of the transit program or for any State.

   To the contrary, the bill would help strengthen the transit program as a whole by providing that the mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund is credited with the interest on its balance. This is a key provision in the MEGA TRUST Act and is also included here in the MEGA RED TRANS Act.

   Specifically, the bill would set modest minimum annual apportionments, by State, for the elderly and disabled transit program, the rural transit program, and for urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000.

   It would ensure that each state gets a minimum of $11 million for these three programs.

   For my state of Montana that is double what we get for those programs currently. For some other states it is more than four times what they receive.

   The bill would also establish a $30 million program for essential bus service, to help connect citizens in rural communities to the rest of the world by facilitating transportation between rural areas and airports and passenger rail stations.

   I am very aware of the role that public transit plays in the lives of rural citizens and the elderly and disabled. When most people hear the word ``transit'' they think of a light rail system. But in rural areas transit translates to buses and vanpools. Take Elaine Miller for example.

   Elaine is 73 years old and lives in Missoula, MT. She depends upon the city's Mountain Line public transit system for virtually all of her transportation needs. ``It's my car!'' she says.

   Twelve years ago, Elaine suffered a stroke and decided that it was simply too dangerous to drive anymore. Today she takes transit to the doctor and to shop. She gets her prescriptions and meets family and friends, all using public transit.

   As a regular rider, however, Elaine also understands the current limitations of transit in Missoula. ``Our bus service here needs to offer more service, particularly on the weekends and the evenings. I'd like to be able to take the bus to church,'' she says.

   The frequency of bus service in Missoula, too, can often be an issue for Elaine. Last week, for example, she was left waiting more than two hours at a local store for the next bus to take her home.

   ``We seniors know how important the bus is to our quality of life. We really need more bus service. Without the bus, I know that myself and others would just have to stay home,'' says Elaine.

   For Elaine, increased Federal investment in public transit in Montana would mean increased bus service in Missoula. Weekend service and increased frequency on current routes, she believes, are a great need.

   I'd like to discuss another example of how rural transit and transit for the elderly and disabled is crucial to Montana. And I am sure we could easily find similar examples in every state.

[Page: S7951]  GPO's PDF

   Let's talk about Kathy Collins of Helena, MT.

   Kathy moved to Helena in 1982 from Butte, MT, an area with no accessible transportation . In Helena, she discovered the Dial-A-Ride system, where lift-equipped vehicles could easily transport her in her wheelchair.

   ``It was terrific. I could get to work on time. And I could even get home on time!'' lauds Collins.

   While she owns a minivan that she can drive to the middle school where she teaches, she is thankful to have a transportation option in inclement weather.

   ``Transit gets me to and from work in the winter time. I couldn't do it without them,'' she says, ``And for people who don't work, it's a godsend. They can't afford a taxi.''

   While the Dial-A-Ride system provides Collins with dependable employment transportation on weekdays, she would like to see operations expanded to evenings and weekends.

   ``The service is essential. You need to give people access. You need to give people control over their lives. You need to give people the mobility that the rest of the country enjoys. Just because we live in the boondocks doesn't mean we don't need to go anywhere.'' she says.

   I couldn't agree with her more. The MEGA RED TRANS Act will help these people and millions of others around the country. Considering the enormous impact the MEGA RED TRANS Act will have on the country, it is actually a very modest proposal.

   The bill would not set funding levels for the transit program as a whole, or for large transit systems.

   Moreover, the call for increases in the elderly and disabled, rural, and small urban area programs are not made in a static setting, but in the context of reauthorization .

   In reauthorization the overall transit program undoubtedly will grow by more than the modest increases required by the provisions of this bill. So, nothing in the bill would preclude growth in other aspects of the transit program.

   In sum, the bill stands for the proposition that, as the transit program is likely to continue to grow, no less than the funding increases proposed in this bill should be provided in order to better meet the needs of rural and small urban area transit systems and the transit needs of the elderly and disabled.

   I would like to thank Senators CRAPO, THOMAS, JOHNSON, ENZI, CONRAD, BINGAMAN and CRAIG for joining me on this important piece of legislation.

   I'd also like to thank both the members and staff of the American Bus Association, The Community Transportation Association and the Amalgamated Transit Union, for their assistance with this legislation.

   I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and to work to include it in the highway and transit reauthorization , next year.

   By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. AKAKA):

   S. 2885. A bill to amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to require additional disclosures relating to exchange rates in transfers involving international transactions; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, along with my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Senator AKAKA, I am introducing The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act, legislation that will protect consumers who send cash remittances through international money wire transfer companies by providing greater disclosure of the fees, including hidden costs, charged for those services.

   Every year, thirty million Americans send their friends and relatives $40 billion in cash remittances through wire transfers. The majority of these transfers are remittances sent to their native countries by immigrants to the United States. For these individuals, many of whom are in low-to-minimum wage jobs, sending this money only increases their own personal financial burdens--but they do so to aid their families and their loved ones.

   Unfortunately, these immigrants increasingly find themselves being preyed upon by the practices of some money wire transfer providers who not only charge consumers an upfront charge for the transfer service, but also hit them on the back end with hidden costs. Many of these charges are extracted when the dollars sent by the consumer are converted to the foreign currency value that is supposed to be paid out to the friend of the family member.

   This exploitation is especially pervasive in Latin American and Caribbean countries. In fact, as many as 10 million Hispanic immigrants in the U.S. send remittances to their family and friends back home. Cumulatively, these individuals send $23 billion annually to some of our hemisphere's poorest economies. This money is used to pay for such basic needs such as food, medicine, and schooling.

   In most Latin American and Caribbean countries, remittances far exceed U.S. development assistance. In the case of Nicaragua, Haiti, Jamaica, Ecuador and El Salvador, cash remittances account for more than 10 percent of national GDP.

   These large cash flows have proven to be a powerful incentive for greed in the case of some wire transfer companies. Customers wiring money to Latin America and elsewhere in the world lose billions of dollars annually to undisclosed ``currency conversion fees.'' In fact, many large companies aggressively target immigrant communities, often advertising ``low fee'' or ``no fee'' rates for international transfers. But these misleading ads do not always clearly disclose the fees charged when the currency is exchanged.

   While large wire service companies typically obtain foreign currencies at bulk rates, they charge a significant currency conversion fee to their U.S. customers. For example, customers wiring money to Mexico are charged an exchange rate that routinely varies from the benchmark by as much as 15 percent. These hidden fees create staggering profits, allowing companies to reap billions of dollars on top of the stated fees they charge for the wire transfer services.

   While this practice may not be illegal, it is wrong, and it must be stopped. The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act requires financial institutions or money-transmitting businesses that initiate international money transfers to disclose all fees charged in an international wire transfer.

   The legislation also requires these companies to provide consumers with important disclosures regarding the exchange rate used in connection with the transaction; the exchange rate prevailing at a major financial center in the foreign country whose currency is involved in the transaction; or the official exchange rate, if any, of the government or central bank of that foreign country.

   The bill would additionally require disclosure to the consumer who initiates the transaction of any fees or commissions charged by transfer service providers in connection with any transaction and the exact amount of foreign currency to be received by the recipient in the foreign country, which shall be disclosed to the consumer before the transaction is consummated and printed on the receipt given to customer.

   This legislation does more than merely provide better information to consumers--it should also help them financially. Consumers will see increased competition among wire transfer companies because they are better-informed and more knowledgeable. That competition will result in lower fees for the wire transfer services that will free up a greater portion of these cash remittances to go to the friends and families that they were originally intended for.

   In short, this is sound public policy that empowers those who do their part to help America's economy move forward.

   I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation.

   Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I cosponsor the Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act of 2002, introduced by my colleague, Senator CORZINE. I thank Senator CORZINE and Representative LUIS GUTIERREZ for their leadership on this issue. I also want to express my appreciation to the Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator SARBANES, for conducting a hearing on the issue of remittances.

   Immigrants nationwide often send a portion of their hard-earned wages to

[Page: S7952]  GPO's PDF

   Unfortunately, people who send remittances are often unaware of the fees and exchange rates used in the transaction that reduce the amount of money received by their family members. In many cases, fees for sending remittances can be ten to twenty percent of the value of the transaction. In addition to the fees, the exchange rate used in the transaction can be significantly lower than the market rate. The exchange rate used in the transaction is typically not disclosed to customers.

   Consumers cannot afford to be uneducated regarding financial service options and fees placed on their transactions. This legislation is needed to provide the necessary information to consumers so that they may make informed decisions about sending money. The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act would ensure that each customer is fully informed of all of the fees and the exchange rates used in the transaction.

   If consumers are provided additional information about the transaction costs involved with sending money, they may be more likely to utilize banks and credit unions which often can provide lower cost remittances. If unbanked immigrants use the remittance services offered by banks and credit unions, they may be more likely to open up an account. Many immigrants are unbanked and lack a relationship with a mainstream financial services provider. The unbanked are more likely to use check-cashing services which charge an average fee of over nine percent. They are also more likely to utilize the services provided by pay-day and predatory lenders. The unbanked miss the opportunities for saving and borrowing at mainstream financial institutions.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display