Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will clarify certain National Park Service authorities for the Golden Gate

National Recreation Area and San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park.

I also want to thank Congresswoman Pelosi for introducing a similar bill in the house. As a San Francisco native and a former mayor, I know these parks are extremely popular tourist sites and I believe this bill will allow the National Park Service to restore and renovate these parks in order to maintain their status as top tourist destinations.

The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is one of the largest urban national parks in the world--home to such renowned sites as the Presidio of San Francisco and Alcatraz Island. Additionally, the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park, located at the west end of San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf, includes a fleet of landmark vessels and a maritime museum.

Presently, the revenue collected by these parks must be spent in the same fiscal year in which it is collected. Otherwise, any revenue that is not spent is deposited in the National Treasury. This current policy makes it difficult for these two parks to pursue long term, major restoration projects. This bill makes the necessary changes to allow these parks to undertake needed substantive restoration as opposed to smaller, less significant projects allowed under the current revenue system.

The bill also calls for a modest boundary adjustment between the two adjacent parks in order to be consistent with the current administration of San Francisco's Municipal Pier.

I am introducing this bill with the hope that it will allow these two parks to retain the revenue necessary for maintenance in order to continue to attract visitors from around the world to these historic sites of California.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that clarifies the meaning and scope of the Alien Tort Statute.

This 200-year-old law has spawned dozens of legal cases involving U.S. multinational companies, human rights groups, foreign plaintiffs, the State Department, and millions of dollars in litigation costs. Numerous companies in California are in the midst of these lawsuits as defendants and it is my view that legislation can help refine and improve the law.

Judges have grappled in interpreting and applying the statute for years now without a consensus view emerging. I think it would be fair to say that confusion reigns supreme when it comes to alien tort suits.

Given this opaque legal picture, last summer the Supreme Court ruled on a case, Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, in an attempt to reconcile conflicting decisions from judges across the country.

The Court's June 2004 ruling was notable, for embracing certain principles that will help guide the Judiciary branch on alien tort claim issues but for leaving many questions unanswered as well.

It held that a substantive, legal basis exists for foreigners to sue U.S. individuals and corporations over alleged human rights violations occurring in overseas locations. The Court essentially affirmed that a limited, implicit sanction for courts exists to decide certain alien tort claims.

At the same time, the opinion provided a wide berth for what the claims might actually be. The Court hedged on key issues, without clearly demarcating what suits ought to go forward under the statute and which ones should be summarily dismissed.

In particular the ruling did not address: which international law claims by foreigners should be heard in a U.S. district court, and the standard of liability for U.S. companies facing these human rights charges.

To clarify these areas, the Justices wrote that they would welcome ``any congressional guidance'' on the breadth of the statute. During oral arguments a number of the Justices appeared to concur that a legislative approach would make sense. One Justice even commented that ``I just wonder if it isn't wise to . . . let Congress have a look at this thing.''

Those views were echoed by a Washington Post editorial that followed soon after. The paper stated that the alien tort law has ``formed the basis for litigation against U.S. companies involved with nefarious regimes abroad. And while horrid conduct by an American company ought to be, where proven, grounds for action in American courts, the parameters of such litigation are surely a legislative question, not one for the freewheeling discretion of judges. . . . But the court left open the possibility that at least some of these suits can proceed in the absence of further congressional action.''

The Court's perspective, along with the Post commentary, indicates, at least to me, a sense of caution about imposing by judicial fiat action that is better left to consideration and refinement by the Congress.

The Court's hesitation to legislate from the bench shifts the responsibility to this body, I believe, to pass legislation that settles on a reasonable legal means that plaintiffs and defendants alike can rely on to litigate their differences.

I believe the measure we are introducing today accomplishes this basic and important goal.

Right now, courts are essentially adrift in terms of being able to pinpoint the underlying meaning, scope and intent of this 200-year-old statute. In its entirety, it reads: ``The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.''

The economy of words makes the law abstruse and subject to varying interpretation. And complex, lengthy and unnecessary litigation has burdened the courts as a result.

This new bill will establish a fair, legal basis for filing suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). And it will have the added benefit of explicating the law's dual jurisdictional and substantive nature.

The measure: specifies a legal standard convicting defendants of wrongdoing if they directly participate with specific intent to commit the alleged tort; codifies international claims under the Alien Tort law to include genocide, torture, slavery and slave trade, extrajudicial killing, and piracy; expands on existing statutory law, the Torture Victim Protection Act; states that Federal courts shall not proceed with tort claims when the President adequately certifies that such exercise of jurisdiction will have a negative impact on the foreign policy interests of the U.S.; maintains that every effort should be made to try these cases in the country of origin before granting jurisdiction in U.S. courts; invokes a 10-year statute of limitations on ATS charges filed against U.S. multinational companies; and disallows contingency fee arrangements for legal representatives of plaintiffs or defendants.

The Supreme Court's delineation that the Alien Tort law is jurisdictional in one sense, but recognizes a restricted category of substantive claims encompassed by the law of nations, leaves many unresolved questions.

The historical origins of the ATS, passed by the First Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, suggest that certain offenses relevant to that period in American history--piracy, infringing the rights of ambassadors, and prevention of safe travel abroad--were meant to be prosecutable. But Justice Souter's Alvarez-Machain opinion notes that a slim legislative history of the statute makes it difficult to surmise the law's true intent.

At the same time, Justice Souter opined: ``Still, the history does tend to support two propositions. First, there is every reason to suppose that the First Congress did not pass the ATS as a jurisdictional convenience to be placed on the shelf for use by a future Congress or state legislature that might, some day, authorize the creation of causes of action or itself decide to make some element of the law of nations actionable for the benefit of foreigners. The anxieties of the preconstitutional period cannot be ignored easily enough to think that the statute was not meant to have a practical effect. . . . The second inference to be drawn from the history is that Congress intended the ATS to furnish jurisdiction for a relatively modest set of actions alleging violations of the law of nations.''

The opinion ranges further, that, such a ``modest set of actions'' indeed applies to current times, not merely offenses grounded in law two hundred

years ago. The critical portion reads: ``Accordingly, we think courts should require any claim based on the present-day law of nations to rest on a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with specificity comparable to the features of the 18th century paradigms we have recognized.''

I am uncomfortable with such a nebulous, open-ended legal approach permitting courts to entertain suits based on a ``norm of international character'' and ``specificity'' consistent with crimes of early American history. Adjudicating cases based on these broad historical and legal precepts is admirable. In practical terms it remains very difficult.

The Congress ought to weigh in and play a constructive role. Without legislation, judges will continue to reach markedly different conclusions under the law, based on arbitrary interpretations of case- specific facts and other considerations.

Let's take the legal mystery out of the statute and what qualifies as an alien tort and replace it with something that is concrete and appropriate for the times.

At the heart of this legislation is codifying a class of violations of international law that will discourage defendant companies from consorting with human rights violators in any respect. They will be held liable if they do so by a specific standard that judges whether they intentionally and directly caused certain violations of human rights.

A plaintiff victim will be able to vindicate their rights by filing an express statutory cause of action based on a half dozen egregious wrongs. Regardless of the foreign policy and trade implications, defendant U.S. companies will be held fully accountable under the bill for bad corporate behavior in their overseas business operations.

That is as it should be. Certain alien torts in violation of the law of nations ought to be cognizable and this legislation ensures that result. Moreover, the fact that specific crimes are made actionable and enforceable will aid human rights organizations in their fight to strengthen the deterrent effect of the law for potential violators.

Regarding the defendant perspective, in one friend of the court brief submitted in the Alvarez Machain case, the argument was made that ``. . . companies face enormous uncertainty regarding the scope of potential claims under the statute. . . . Because ATS cases are based upon an implied cause of action without any clear standards of liability, there may be little companies can do to protect themselves against potential claims, short of simply ceasing to do business in the many nations whose human rights practices come up short against evolving Western ideals.''

The business community ought to embrace this legislation precisely because it wipes away this uncertainty. The best way to encourage U.S. multinationals to invest abroad is: 1. by specifying a universe of the most egregious human rights violations that they may be held liable for and 2. offering a clear, understandable legal standard that judges their actions accordingly. This legislative measure tackles both issues head on.

There are estimates that dozens of existing alien tort suits claim damages--collectively--in excess of $200 billion dollars. That's an extraordinary sum that rightly concerns the U.S. business community, particularly given numerous inconsistent federal courts verdicts handed down in the past two decades.

This legislation deters private plaintiffs from filing sweeping and specious claims simply because a corporation has a U.S. legal nexus and deep pockets. Yet, it expands the basis for foreign plaintiffs pursuing certain international law causes of action in federal court by codifying their rights in a judicious way.

While some in the U.S. business community would prefer that the Alien Tort statute be deleted from the U.S. Code altogether, I would respectfully disagree. A fair compromise that balances the interests of U.S. companies and human rights organizations is what this legislation seeks to accomplish.

The Congress has waded into this debate before, passing the Torture Victim Protection Act in 1991, and this new legislation contains many similar elements: a statute of limitations, a statutory exhaustion provision, and specifying torture and extrajudicial killing as within the adjudicatory discretion of a district court.

There is precedent, then, for the Legislative branch acting to provide civil redress for victims of torture. Asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction under the ATS, for torture and other jus cogen violations, has a firm footing in American jurisprudence.

The legislative history of the TVPA is important because it spells out the constitutional grounds justifying that statutory law and this new legislation as well.

The Senate Judiciary Committee report on the TVPA states as follows: ``Under article III of the Constitution, the Federal judiciary has the power to adjudicate cases `arising under' the `law of the United States.' The Supreme Court has held that the law of the United States includes international law. . . . Congress's ability to enact this legislation also derives from article I, section 8 of the Constitution which authorizes Congress `to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.' ''

Existing case law confirms the point that Congress has given the federal courts the power to interpret and apply international human rights law. The notable Paquete Habana decision states, in part, that ``international law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. . . Congress, however, has not only expressed no disagreement with our view of the proper exercise of the judicial power, but has responded to its most notable instance by enacting legislation [the Torture Victim Protection Act] supplementing the judicial determination in some detail.''

The view expressed in the Alvarez Machain case last year was much the same, that no development in the last two centuries has ``categorically precluded federal courts from recognizing a claim under the law of nations as an element of common law.''

Different precedent, Tel Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, also posits that civil liability should ensue from certain violations of international law, suggesting that the ``limits of section 1350's [the ATS] reach'' be defined by ``a handful of heinous actions--each of which violates definable, universal and obligatory norms.''

This legislation fills that legal vessel with the most egregious crimes: genocide, torture, slavery and slave trading, extrajudicial killing, and piracy. These jus cogen offenses are singled out through 1. stare decisis, 2. the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, 3. academic writings, 4. official annual human rights assessments from the State Department and 5. among the writings and publications of many human rights and international law advocacy groups.

Congress is in the best position to make the determination of what falls within the ambit of the statute, not judges across America who lack expertise, time, and resources to assess what constitutes definable, specific, universal, and obligatory norms of international law. The bill, I would submit, represents a good faith effort in permitting these tortious acts, all firmly established and well defined in international law norms, to be prosecuted in U.S. district courts.

I was interested to read the views last year of the head of the National Foreign Trade Council, William Reinsch, that ``these cases are going to end up in the Supreme Court . . . and the Court will over time end up defining what in its judgment constitutes the law of nations and what does not. But that seems to us a fairly circuitous way of doing things.'' I would concur, particularly since the Supreme Court's decision last year in the Alvarez Machain case did not clear up the inherent vagaries in the law.

A significant provision in this legislation creates a standard of liability that requires plaintiffs to show that a defendant directly participated with specific intent in carrying out the alleged tort. In my view, we need to deter legal fishing expeditions, whereby plaintiffs come to the bar with flinty facts backing weak charges.

Their real intent, it seems, is to rely on an extensive legal discovery process to uncover matters that embarrass companies and delay their business plans.

In the groundbreaking 1980 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala case, for example, the threshold requirement laid out was that the offense needed to be ``clear and unambiguous'' to be viable under the statute. Succeeding cases have affirmed a standard essentially requiring proof of a defendant aiding and abetting the worst human rights violations. This bill replaces the current aiding and liability standard for good reason: these foreign-based claims demand a particularity of facts that is both strong and specific.

I would submit that the existing ambiguous grant of jurisdiction needs more refinement to provide judges legal bright lines for deciding these cases. My bill offers precise, and fair, treatment for which cases get standing in a U.S. court.

A common theme in dozens of cases alien tort cases is whether the facts and law combine to present a nonjusticiable political question. Each cause of action is obviously different, and whether the matter ought to be under the province of a different branch of government requires careful analysis.

I would certainly agree that certain prudential doctrines, act of state, political question, foreign sovereign immunity, forum non conveniens, and considerations of comity among nations, at times can be appropriately invoked to limit jurisdiction.

Part of that consideration can usefully come from statements of interest and certifications submitted by the Executive branch; for that reason, the legislation I'm offering preserves a suitable role for the Executive branch to weigh in. If a judge determines that a certification offered by the State Department adequately justifies that harm will come to U.S. foreign policy interests if an alien tort suit proceeds, then dismissal is warranted.

In regards to restricting the statute of limitations to ten years, equitable tolling considerations should be explicitly considered in interpreting provisions in the legislation. There are numerous factors that give rise to equitable tolling and long-established judge-made doctrine in this area is not inconsistent with the goals of my bill.

Complementary legislation which I raised earlier, the Torture Victim Protection Act, upholds the principle of equitable tolling. The Judiciary Committee report on that measure notes some common examples:

``The statute of limitation should be tolled during the time the defendant was absent from the United States or from any jurisdiction in which the same or a similar action arising from the same facts may be maintained by the plaintiff, provided that the remedy in that jurisdiction is adequate and available. Excluded also from calculation of the statute of limitations would be the period when a defendant has immunity from suit. The statute of limitations should also be tolled for the period of time in which the plaintiff is imprisoned or otherwise incapacitated.''

I would submit that all of these listed circumstances, and others, are sufficient to suspend the running of the time under my legislation.

Let me conclude by referring back to one of the Supreme Court's foundational points in the Alvarez-Machain case that ``despite considerable scholarly attention, it is fair to say that a consensus understanding of what Congress intended has proven elusive.''

The 33 words contained in the law remain a ``legal Lohengrin'' since ``no one seems to know whence it came'' added a judge hearing a different case some years ago. As a result, costly, complex litigation proceeds forward across the country.

Courts deserve guidance from Congress about how to treat and interpret the statute, particularly in light of the growing importance of international trade and commerce. In a major address Supreme Court Justice O'Connor recently observed that ``international law has emerged in ways that affect all courts, both here and abroad. The reason is globalization. Its importance should not be underestimated. Thirty percent or more of our gross domestic product is internationally derived.'' Yet these particular suits, brought by foreigners for massive monetary damages, threaten the international economic activities that are important to sustaining the American economy.

The suits should be able to go forward, but judges need better legal tools to make heads or tails of the cases that come before them hence the motivation for introducing the Alien Tort Statute Reform Act.

With full understanding of the Supreme Court's admonition to act with judicial caution in framing the alien tort statute, I believe it is time for Congress to bring clarity to the law and this proposed legislation does so.

I look forward to working with colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, through the hearing process and other means, to give this matter serious consideration by the Legislative branch.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I opposed the bankruptcy reform bill because it was an outdated bill that failed to include adequate consumer protections. We saw a record number of consumer bankruptcy filing prior to the October 17 implementation deadline for the harsh new bankruptcy. Not enough was included in the legislation to protect consumers from predatory lenders or to make credit counseling a viable alternative to bankruptcy or to better inform over extended consumers about the true costs of their debts. I was disappointed that the Senate failed to effectively address these issues in a meaningful way, and instead, passed an outdated bill that forces working families into more costly and difficult bankruptcy proceedings. I am committed to making improvements in this flawed law.

Today, I am introducing two bills that address flaws in the bankruptcy reform law. The first bill is the Predatory Payday Loan Prohibition Act. This bill would prevent federally-insured financial institutions from originating predatory payday loans. Payday loans are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 with full payment due in 2 weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break.

Industry analysts conservatively estimate that more than 15,000 payday advance locations across America extend about $25 billion in short-term credit to millions of households experiencing cash-flow shortfalls. Too many of its customers are low-income, working families. More and more customers are the financially stretched middle class, including people who have maxed out their credit cards, people perhaps who have lost a job, or people with no savings to fall back on during a situation that causes a cash-flow shortfall, such as a medical emergency.

Payday lending is also rampant in the military. One in five servicemembers have used payday lenders in the last year, according to the report, ``Payday Lenders Target the Military,'' by the Center for Responsible Lending. Payday lenders exploit people in financial need and profit enormously from these loans. We must act to protect vulnerable consumers from these predatory lenders.

In addition, I previously introduced S. 1347, the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act. This bill would authorize award demonstration project grants for eligible entities to provide consumers with low-cost, small loan alternatives to more costly and predatory payday loans. Loan alternatives that meet the needs of consumers and are at a fair price must be developed.

Today, I am also introducing the Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act. The new bankruptcy reform law does not allow consumers to declare personal bankruptcy in either chapter 7 or chapter 13, unless they receive a briefing from an approved nonprofit credit counseling agency within 6 months of filing. The credit counseling instructional course requirement is intended to provide financial education to consumers who declare bankruptcy so they can attempt to avoid future financial problems.

About one in three consumers in credit counseling enter a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors may agree to concessions so that consumers pay off as much of their outstanding debt as possible. Examples of concessions can include a reduced interest rate on the amount they owe and the elimination of fees. Unfortunately, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling.

The Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act would prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in bankruptcy, if the creditor does not have a policy of waiving interest and fees for debtors who enter a consolidated payment plan at a credit counseling agency. Since the new bankruptcy law requires that consumers enter credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy, we must ensure that consumers are given a fair chance at reducing their debt burden.

I also offered the text of the amendment of my bill, S. 393, the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act, as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill. My amendment, intended to provide consumers with adequate, timely, and meaningful disclosures, was unfortunately defeated. As the bankruptcy reform law makes it more difficult for consumers to discharge their debts in bankruptcy, we have a responsibility to provide meaningful additional information so that consumers can make better informed debt management decisions. The bankruptcy reform law includes a requirement that credit card issuers provide a generic warning about the consequences of only making the minimum payment. This requirement fails to provide consumers the detailed information that my amendment would have provided, which means detailed, personalized information necessary for them to make better informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. My amendment would have required companies to inform consumers of how many years and months it would take to repay their entire balance, and the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer makes only the minimum payment. My legislation would also have required consumers to be provided with the amount they would need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance in 36 months. Finally, my legislation would have required that creditors establish a toll-free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. In response to criticisms that my amendment was not feasible, I, along with

Senator Sarbanes, requested that the Government Accountability Office study the issue. I am hopeful the report will provide helpful information as we must continue to improve meaningful and understandable disclosures that will help Americans better manage their credit card debts.

I want to take a moment to thank Senator Sarbanes, and his Banking Committee staff, for working with me on this and many other financial literacy related issues. In addition, I also want to thank Senator Leahy and the staff of the Judiciary Committee for all of their efforts to try and improve the flawed bankruptcy legislation.

I fear that the bankruptcy reform law will significantly harm families who have suffered financially due to illnesses, the loss of a job, or the death of a loved one. I remain committed to working with all of my colleagues to better protect and inform consumers and to hold the credit card industry accountable for its aggressive marketing of credit to our debt burdened society.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Predatory Payday Loan Prohibition Act of 2005. Currently, federal law authorizes insured depository institutions to export interest rates, as provided under the laws of the state where the bank or credit union is located, to out-of- state borrowers. My bill would effectively eliminate the ability of financial institutions to do this by prohibiting federally-insured financial institutions from originating predatory payday loans.

What constitutes a payday loan? These are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 with payment in full due in two weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break. Today, industry analysts conservatively estimate that more than 15,000 payday advance locations across America extend about $25 billion in short-term credit to millions of households experiencing cash-flow shortfalls.

I am appalled that the payday lending industry is portrayed as a legitimate business. Too many of its customers are low-income, working families. More and more customers are the financially stretched middle class including people who have maxed out their credit cards, people perhaps who have lost a job, or people with no savings to fall back on during a situation that causes a cash-flow shortfall, such as a medical emergency. Payday lending is also rampant in the military. One in five servicemembers have used payday lenders in the last year, according to the report, ``Payday Lenders Target the Military,'' by the Center for Responsible Lending. Payday lenders are concentrated around military bases, such as the Navy bases in Norfolk, Virginia, the Army's Fort Lewis in Washington State, and the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton in California. The Department of Defense confirms the Center's report by listing payday lending as one of the top 10 priority issues facing military families, according to Dr. David Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. To the predatory lenders, our military personnel's government paychecks represent a reliable source of fees. Also, payday lenders can be relatively confident that borrowers will continue to pay, because military personnel face harsh consequences, such as court martial or dishonorable discharge, for not repaying their debts. I am pleased that in my home state a local credit union, Windward Community Federal Credit Union, Kailua, Hawaii, has developed an affordable, alternative product to offer the many Marines who live in its service area. Earlier this year I introduced another bill to encourage replication of such practices. S. 1347, the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act, would authorize demonstration project grants to eligible entities to provide low-cost, small loans to consumers that would provide alternatives to more costly, predatory payday loans so that more people could have access to payday loan alternatives.

Payday loan providers claim that they are offering a simple financial product that addresses an emergency or temporary credit need that usually cannot be met by traditional financial institutions. An analysis of payday lending statistics by the Center for Responsible Lending indicates that the majority of payday loan borrowers have multiple loans each year with two thirds having five or more payday loans annually and half of these borrowers having 12 or more payday loans annually. Some borrowers seek loans from two or more payday lenders, multiplying the potential for getting trapped in debt. Research by the Community Financial Services Association of America, the payday loan industry's national trade association, found that 40 percent of payday loan customers renew their payday loans a staggering five times or more.

The payday loan industry exploits people that are in financial need. Congress has failed to act to prevent the exploitation of working families that are short on cash due to unexpected medical expenses or other needs. We must act to protect consumers from these unscrupulous lenders. I remain committed to restricting all forms of predatory lending, including payday loans, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act. The new bankruptcy reform law does not allow consumers to declare personal bankruptcy in either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, unless they receive a briefing from an approved nonprofit credit counseling agency within 6 months of filing. The credit counseling instructional course requirement is intended to provide financial education to consumers who declare bankruptcy so they can attempt to avoid future financial problems.

About one in three consumers in credit counseling enter a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors may agree to concessions so that consumers pay off as much of their outstanding debt as possible. Concessions can include a reduced interest rate on the amount they owe and the elimination of fees. Unfortunately, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling. A study by the National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America revealed that 5 of 13 credit card issuers increased the interest rates they offered to consumers in credit counseling between 1999 and 2003. American Express and Wells Fargo completely waive all interest for consumers in credit counseling. However, the majority of credit card issuers charge interest rates above 9 percent for account holders that enter into credit counseling, with several charging more than 15 percent.

My bill would prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in bankruptcy, if the creditor does not have a policy of waiving interest and fees for debtors who enter a consolidated payment plan at a credit counseling agency.

Since the new bankruptcy law requires that consumers enter credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy, we must ensure that credit counseling is truly effective and a viable alternative to bankruptcy. Credit card issuers undermine the good intentions of those consumers. They have sharply curtailed the concessions they offer to consumers in credit counseling, contributing to increased bankruptcy filings. According to a survey by VISA USA, 33 percent of consumers who failed to complete a debt management plan in credit counseling said they would have stayed on the plan if creditors had lowered interest rates or waived fees. Credit card companies have an obligation to ensure that effective alternatives are readily available to the consumers they aggressively pursue.

We must make sure that credit counseling is an effective tool to help consumers avoid bankruptcy. In order to do this, credit card issuers should waive the amount owed in interest and fees for consumers who enter a consolidated payment plan. Successful completion of a debt management plan benefits both creditors and consumers. Mr. President, for many consumers, paying off their debt is not easy. My bill will help people who are struggling to repay their obligations. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation to help consumers enrolled in debt management plans to successfully repay their creditors, free themselves from debt, and avoid bankruptcy.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2005. This bill will provide local law enforcement in border communities with much needed assistance in combating border-related criminal activity. For far too long, law enforcement agencies operating along the border have had to incur significant costs due to the inability of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. It is time that the Federal Government recognizes that border communities should not have to bear this burden alone.

The bill I am introducing today is aimed at enhancing security in the border region by giving law enforcement agencies the manpower and resources they need to combat border-related crimes. Specifically, the bill would establish a competitive grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law enforcement situated along the border cover some of the costs they incur as a result of dealing with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, stolen vehicles, and other border-related crimes, and authorizes $30 million a year to carry out the program. Funds allocated under the grant program could be used to hire additional personnel, obtain necessary equipment, upgrade law enforcement technology, and cover overtime and transportations costs.

Law enforcement agencies serving communities within 100 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada, as well as any other agencies located outside of this geographical limit located in an area which has been designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as a ``High Impact Area,'' would be eligible to apply for the grants. Priority in awarding grants would go to law enforcement agencies serving communities with populations under 50,000. Two-thirds of the funds would be set aside for the six states with the highest alien apprehension rates and one-third for areas designated as ``High Impact Areas.''

It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to adequately secure the Nation's borders and prevent the flow of undocumented persons and illegal drugs into the country. Despite the fact that the Border Patrol apprehends over 1 million people each year trying to illegally enter the United States, the number of illegal aliens in the United States continues to rise as thousands of individuals enter the country through our porous borders. The border region is also a major corridor for the shipment of drugs--according to the El Paso Intelligence Center, 65 percent of the narcotics that are sold in the United States enter the country through the Southwest border.

By virtue of their proximity to an international border, many of adverse consequences of the failure of the Federal Government to adequately secure the border fall on the border communities. In traveling around the New Mexico-Mexico border region, I have heard repeatedly how drug trafficking, kidnappings, human smuggling, and the destruction of private property, such as the tearing down ranchers' cattle fences, are impacting our communities.

The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies located along the border are small, rural departments charged with patrolling large areas of land with few officers and very limited resources. Counties along the Southwest border are some of the poorest in the country and are not in the position to cover the additional costs associated with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and other border-related crimes.

According to a 2001 study by the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, local law enforcement and criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration exceed $89 million every year. The States of Arizona and New Mexico have declared states of emergency in order to provide local

law enforcement with immediate assistance in addressing criminal activity along the border. It is time that the Federal Government step up and share some of this burden.

We are making some headway in terms of increasing the number of Border Patrol agents along the border. Despite the fact that the administration only requested funding to hire an additional 210 Border Patrol agents in its 2006 Budget Request, Congress has appropriated enough funding to hire and train an additional 1,500 agents. We are making some progress, and I am pleased that additional agents have been sent to New Mexico, but we must face the reality that much more needs to be done and we are a long way off from securing our borders and preventing the illegal flow of drugs and undocumented person into this country. I believe that this is an area that Congress can, and should, be doing more.

We need more Border Patrol agents, better technology, and a comprehensive strategy to meet our security needs. We also need to reform our broken immigration system so we are able to more effectively target those who pose a threat to our country. However, we must also remember the role local law enforcement play in responding to criminal activity that occurs in the border region. Increasing funding for local law enforcement will help border communities alleviate some of these problems and enhance security in the border region.

Federal assistance is desperately needed to help border law enforcement agencies address the unique challenges that arise from being situated along an international border and the lack of overall border security. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this important bill and give law enforcement the resources they need to meet these challenges.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2005. This bill will provide local law enforcement in border communities with much needed assistance in combating border-related criminal activity. For far too long, law enforcement agencies operating along the border have had to incur significant costs due to the inability of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. It is time that the Federal Government recognizes that border communities should not have to bear this burden alone.

The bill I am introducing today is aimed at enhancing security in the border region by giving law enforcement agencies the manpower and resources they need to combat border-related crimes. Specifically, the bill would establish a competitive grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law enforcement situated along the border cover some of the costs they incur as a result of dealing with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, stolen vehicles, and other border-related crimes, and authorizes $30 million a year to carry out the program. Funds allocated under the grant program could be used to hire additional personnel, obtain necessary equipment, upgrade law enforcement technology, and cover overtime and transportations costs.

Law enforcement agencies serving communities within 100 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada, as well as any other agencies located outside of this geographical limit located in an area which has been designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as a ``High Impact Area,'' would be eligible to apply for the grants. Priority in awarding grants would go to law enforcement agencies serving communities with populations under 50,000. Two-thirds of the funds would be set aside for the six states with the highest alien apprehension rates and one-third for areas designated as ``High Impact Areas.''

It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to adequately secure the Nation's borders and prevent the flow of undocumented persons and illegal drugs into the country. Despite the fact that the Border Patrol apprehends over 1 million people each year trying to illegally enter the United States, the number of illegal aliens in the United States continues to rise as thousands of individuals enter the country through our porous borders. The border region is also a major corridor for the shipment of drugs--according to the El Paso Intelligence Center, 65 percent of the narcotics that are sold in the United States enter the country through the Southwest border.

By virtue of their proximity to an international border, many of adverse consequences of the failure of the Federal Government to adequately secure the border fall on the border communities. In traveling around the New Mexico-Mexico border region, I have heard repeatedly how drug trafficking, kidnappings, human smuggling, and the destruction of private property, such as the tearing down ranchers' cattle fences, are impacting our communities.

The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies located along the border are small, rural departments charged with patrolling large areas of land with few officers and very limited resources. Counties along the Southwest border are some of the poorest in the country and are not in the position to cover the additional costs associated with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and other border-related crimes.

According to a 2001 study by the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, local law enforcement and criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration exceed $89 million every year. The States of Arizona and New Mexico have declared states of emergency in order to provide local

law enforcement with immediate assistance in addressing criminal activity along the border. It is time that the Federal Government step up and share some of this burden.

We are making some headway in terms of increasing the number of Border Patrol agents along the border. Despite the fact that the administration only requested funding to hire an additional 210 Border Patrol agents in its 2006 Budget Request, Congress has appropriated enough funding to hire and train an additional 1,500 agents. We are making some progress, and I am pleased that additional agents have been sent to New Mexico, but we must face the reality that much more needs to be done and we are a long way off from securing our borders and preventing the illegal flow of drugs and undocumented person into this country. I believe that this is an area that Congress can, and should, be doing more.

We need more Border Patrol agents, better technology, and a comprehensive strategy to meet our security needs. We also need to reform our broken immigration system so we are able to more effectively target those who pose a threat to our country. However, we must also remember the role local law enforcement play in responding to criminal activity that occurs in the border region. Increasing funding for local law enforcement will help border communities alleviate some of these problems and enhance security in the border region.

Federal assistance is desperately needed to help border law enforcement agencies address the unique challenges that arise from being situated along an international border and the lack of overall border security. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this important bill and give law enforcement the resources they need to meet these challenges.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.