Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York.

We are both members of the Judiciary Committee. We had an opportunity to discuss and debate this amendment in the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Schumer's amendment is a critical amendment. Essentially, when this body in 1994 passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, we said that individuals should be able to go into clinics without being obstructed. The law was very clear.

The law also has led to successful criminal and civil judgments against groups that use intimidation and outright violence to prevent people from obtaining or providing reproductive health services.

This law would be seriously damaged if we do not close this loophole that has allowed some antiabortion extremists to use bankruptcy to shield their assets. The Senator from New York mentioned the founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, who said in 1998 after filing for bankruptcy:

I have filed a chapter 7 petition to discharge my debts to

those who would use my money to promote the killing of the

unborn.

In my home State of California there was a similar incident involving a man by the name of John Stoos and several other people in 1989 who were sued by the operators of a Sacramento abortion clinic for allegedly blocking the clinic's entrance and harassing patients. A judge ordered Stoos and others to pay nearly $100,000 in attorney's fees incurred by the clinic. As a result, Stoos filed for personal bankruptcy, listing that debt among many he could not pay. These actions are clear evidence of abuse of the bankruptcy system. This bankruptcy bill should stop them.

I hope the Schumer amendment would be accepted by this Senate.

Let me use this time to speak a bit more generally about this bill. I voted for this bill when it left committee. I have decided to vote against this bill in the Senate. I want to say why. In committee, we were asked to withhold all amendments to the floor. We knew the bill was not a perfect bill. We have seen it improved over the years. We knew it was better than the House bill. And with all complicated, difficult bills, the tradition of the Senate has always been the floor debate and discussion. In a majority of times as a product of floor debate and discussion, problems in the bill can be remedied.

We knew there were problems in the bill. For example, I have an amendment which I have withdrawn which says that the credit card companies should, in fact, notify a minimum payer how long it would take that payer of a credit card, if he only paid the minimum amount of interest, to pay off the debt. Senator Akaka had a similar amendment. It was summarily

defeated. I had an amendment; I had two Republican cosponsors. I learned it would also be summarily defeated. Thanks to Senator Shelby and Senator Sarbanes, the Banking Committee has taken an interest in this and in the future and will take a look at it.

Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is this bill is all for the credit card companies. I know there is credit card fraud. I know that has to be met. I felt the bill was important to pass. However, I also felt the bill should be balanced and that we should see that the consumer is also protected in this process, protected with notice of what a minimum payment means, and also, frankly, protected against high interest rates.

Senator Dayton moved an amendment which would limit interest rates on credit cards to 30 percent. The amendment was summarily defeated. The fact is with penalties, with other charges, with high interest rates-- and many companies have interest rates, believe it or not, well in excess of 30 percent--a minimum payer cannot ever pay the full debt because the interest on the debt, if combined with certain penalties and/or fixed payments, becomes such that it overwhelms the principal. Many people do not know that.

The fact is 40 percent of credit card holders pay off their debt every month; 40 percent make only the minimum payment; and 20 percent are kind of 50/50 in that category. For those 60 percent who are generally people who are not as informed, not as able to pay back their bill, who may have one, two, three, four, five, six different credit cards, because this is a credit economy, credit card companies have been able, with very little interest to the payer of the debt, to solicit huge fees, penalties, and interest rates. This is plain wrong.

If we are unable to correct it, which I had hoped would be corrected by these amendments that have been presented, I cannot vote for this bill as long as these gross injustices remain.

Let's for a moment look at the 30-percent interest rate. It is very high. Inflation is about 2 percent. The interest rate on 3-month Treasury bills is 2.75 percent. The national average lending rate on a 30-year mortgage is 5.59 percent. Yet an amendment to limit interest rates on credit cards to 30 percent went down dramatically.

I mention there are companies that are charging high annual interest rates. Some charge 384 percent, 535 percent. Amazingly, one Delaware- based company has charged 1,095 percent, according to the Minnesota chapter of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, other major newspapers have pointed out where fees, rates, and charges have buried debtors. They have pointed out a multitude of cases. A special education teacher from my home State worked a second job to keep up with $2,000 in monthly payments. She collectively went to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt. Even though she did not use her cards to buy anything else, her debt doubled to $49,574 by the time she filed for bankruptcy last June. Effectively, interest payments are half of the debt. She will never be able to pay that off.

To push people like this from chapter 7 into chapter 13, when what is the problem is interest rates and penalty fees that truly do victimize an unsuspecting individual--how could this Senate do that, if someone is going to charge a 100-percent interest rate?

One of my own staff members found that simply getting a credit card cash advance resulted in an immediate 3 percent fee which was simply added to the interest rate.

The result is even the most careful credit card users find themselves often swamped, particularly those who can only afford to make a minimum payment, and the fees, charges, and interests pile up, making it virtually impossible to ever pay off the debt.

This amendment would have been a meaningful addition to the bill. It certainly would have added fairness. It certainly would have sent a signal to credit card companies that the sky is not the limit. Yet it was defeated.

Senator Schumer's asset protection trust, of which I was a cosponsor, was another indication of where wealthy people could shelter assets and not have to pay back in chapter 13. These are some of the inequities.

In recent years a number of financial and bankruptcy planners have taken advantage of the law of a few States to create what is called an ``asset protection trust.'' These trusts are basically mechanisms for rich people to keep money despite declaring bankruptcy.

They are unfair, and violate the basic principle of this underlying legislation--that bankruptcy should be used judiciously to deal with the economic reality that sometimes people cannot pay their debts, but to prevent abuse of the system.

This loophole is an example of where the law, if not changed, permits, or even encourages, such abuse.

The amendment was simple. It set an upper limit on the amount of money that could be shielded in these asset protection trusts, capping the amount at $125,000.

The bottom line: Without this amendment, wealthy people will be able to preserve significant sums of money in an asset protection trust, effectively retaining their assets while wiping away their debts.

The proposed cap amount, $125,000, is not a small sum. It is more than enough to ensure that the debtor is not left destitute. I believe it is a reasonable amount--it is deliberately based on the now-accepted $125,000 limit for the homestead exemption, which will also remain available to a debtor.

I would also like to say a few words about my concerns about what appears to be a new policy in the Senate.

It appears that the Republican leadership has decided that rather than honoring the 200 plus year tradition of the Senate as a deliberative body, the Senate should be run like the House of Representatives. There appears to be a new process being implemented in which the Senate should no longer seriously consider amendments on the floor to improve bills.

We are now in the middle of the second major piece of legislation where the majority has decided that amendments by the minority will be rejected wholesale regardless of the merits.

It appears that even when serious problems in the underlying legislation are raised and even when the Republican leadership agrees that the problem exists, amendments offered by the minority will be rejected.

In fact, when the Judiciary Committee was marking up the bill, Senators were asked not to offer amendments and instead offer them on the floor. Statements were made by the Acting-Chairman like, ``I know we are going to go through this on the floor and I don't see any reason to keep us here all day and all night''; and, ``[You will] have every opportunity to present these amendments on the floor.''

Yet, upon reaching the floor, Senators have found that their amendments are not being considered on the merits.

It is the Senate's job to carefully debate, carefully consider, and pass the very best laws we can. But now the Senate is being asked to simply pass legislation as drafted, regardless of its content.

This lack consideration and care does a disservice to the Senate and to the Senators who work hard to reach compromises and find common ground. But more importantly, it does a disservice to the American people.

We are here to develop the best policy we can, not to simply play political games and jam through legislation for the sake of expediency.

As I began, I want to be clear. I support bankruptcy reform legislation, and I support many of the provisions in the underlying bill. However, throughout this process many important issues have been raised that identify serious problems that must be addressed. The Senate has been and should remain a deliberative body that seeks to draft the best legislation we can. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing.

And unfortunately, based on these concerns, I regret that I am no longer able to support the bankruptcy legislation. I do not believe the bill before us is balanced. There remain many serious problems that must be addressed before I am ready to support the legislation. I have decided because of the summary disposition of amendments by the other side, this Democrat Member is going to vote ``no'' in the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask the time be charged equally on both sides during the quorum call.

I appreciate the willingness of the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee to work with Senators Kyl, Brownback, and me on this important issue. And I understand that the Banking Committee has an interest in regulating credit cards.

I would like to state here, for the record, the key points of the agreement that we have arrived at:

Senators Shelby and Sarbanes have agreed to hold a hearing within 6 months on the substance of the amendment to the Bankruptcy Bill that Senator Kyl, Brownback, and I offered, on increasing notice to credit card holders who pay only their minimum monthly payments. I understand that this hearing will address a set of issues relating to credit cards and consumer rights. However, I also understand that Senators Shelby and Sarbanes will ensure that the substance of agreement, will be directly considered, and will be an area of focus, during that hearing, and that I will be afforded the opportunity to testify.

I understand that Senators Shelby and Sarbanes will work with me, with Senator Kyl, and with members of the Banking Committee to ensure that this issue and my bill are carefully considered. My bill would give those consumers who make only the minimum required payments for 6 months detailed notice about the interest and length of time that it will take them to pay their own individual debt and interest.

Because the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee agree to take these actions, I will agree to withdraw my amendment. Do Senators Shelby and Sarbanes agree?

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with Senator Allen that would allow hybrids to access High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.

California and other States, such as Arizona, Colorado, and Georgia, do not want to risk losing their Federal highway dollars by acting without a waiver from the Department of Transportation to implement laws permitting hybrid vehicles to use HOV lanes.

Virginia has decided to take that risk because the benefit of having more fuel efficient cars on the roads is greater.

This bill would allow the Department of Transportation to grant such a waiver to States.

The purpose of this bill is to encourage Americans to buy and drive hybrids, which provide an innovative solution to help reduce our thirst for gasoline.

Allowing hybrids into HOV lanes is a low-cost and quick incentive to promote the use of hybrids.

Hybrid vehicles are more fuel efficient than cars powered by internal combustion engines and they emit fewer greenhouse gases that lead to global warming.

Burning less gas can also help us to gain independence from foreign sources of energy.

The cost of hybrid technology will decrease by bringing more hybrids into the market.

And, people can make smarter, more fuel efficient, less polluting choices while getting to and from work faster.

Several States, including my State of California, have acted on their own to permit hybrid vehicles to use HOV lanes.

Current Federal law, however, only grants States the flexibility to allow electric or natural gas powered vehicles to drive in the HOV lanes with a single passenger.

Right now, there are approximately 20,000 high-mileage hybrid car owners in California waiting to take advantage of a State law that went into effect on January 1, 2005. This State law, sponsored by assemblywoman Fran Pavley, allows hybrid vehicles that get 45 miles- per-gallon or better to use diamond or HOV lanes until 2008.

As California has 40 percent of the Nation's carpool lanes, high- mileage hybrid owners stand to gain a significant benefit for driving these cars.

Some critics have expressed concerns that HOV lanes will get overloaeded, but each State can stop the program if congestion becomes a problem.

Hybrids only account for a fraction of the cars sold today--43,435 hybrids out of a total of 16.7 million vehicles were sold in 2003!

If States want to act to encourage their citizens to drive more fuel efficient, less polluting vehicles, we need to give them the tools to do so.

It is my hope that Congress will pass this bill quickly so that hybrid drivers in California, Georgia, Colorado and elsewhere can take advantage of the HOV lanes.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with Senator Allen that would allow hybrids to access High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.

California and other States, such as Arizona, Colorado, and Georgia, do not want to risk losing their Federal highway dollars by acting without a waiver from the Department of Transportation to implement laws permitting hybrid vehicles to use HOV lanes.

Virginia has decided to take that risk because the benefit of having more fuel efficient cars on the roads is greater.

This bill would allow the Department of Transportation to grant such a waiver to States.

The purpose of this bill is to encourage Americans to buy and drive hybrids, which provide an innovative solution to help reduce our thirst for gasoline.

Allowing hybrids into HOV lanes is a low-cost and quick incentive to promote the use of hybrids.

Hybrid vehicles are more fuel efficient than cars powered by internal combustion engines and they emit fewer greenhouse gases that lead to global warming.

Burning less gas can also help us to gain independence from foreign sources of energy.

The cost of hybrid technology will decrease by bringing more hybrids into the market.

And, people can make smarter, more fuel efficient, less polluting choices while getting to and from work faster.

Several States, including my State of California, have acted on their own to permit hybrid vehicles to use HOV lanes.

Current Federal law, however, only grants States the flexibility to allow electric or natural gas powered vehicles to drive in the HOV lanes with a single passenger.

Right now, there are approximately 20,000 high-mileage hybrid car owners in California waiting to take advantage of a State law that went into effect on January 1, 2005. This State law, sponsored by assemblywoman Fran Pavley, allows hybrid vehicles that get 45 miles- per-gallon or better to use diamond or HOV lanes until 2008.

As California has 40 percent of the Nation's carpool lanes, high- mileage hybrid owners stand to gain a significant benefit for driving these cars.

Some critics have expressed concerns that HOV lanes will get overloaeded, but each State can stop the program if congestion becomes a problem.

Hybrids only account for a fraction of the cars sold today--43,435 hybrids out of a total of 16.7 million vehicles were sold in 2003!

If States want to act to encourage their citizens to drive more fuel efficient, less polluting vehicles, we need to give them the tools to do so.

It is my hope that Congress will pass this bill quickly so that hybrid drivers in California, Georgia, Colorado and elsewhere can take advantage of the HOV lanes.

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

Mr. President, gender equality is critical to peace and prosperity around the world. As we become more interconnected, it is crucial that the rights of women are recognized by all countries as fundamental human rights because countries which value women's rights are more stable, freer, and more prosperous. Therefore, it is befitting that I rise today to commemorate, March 8, 2005, International Women's Day.

The genesis of International Women's Day comes from a number of provocative moments in history. On March 8, 1857, women working in the textile and clothing industry in New York City staged a protest demanding better working conditions and higher wages. More than 50 years later on March 8, 1908, 15,000 women marched through New York City in support of voting rights, shorter work hours, and an end to child labor.

It is because of these strong and courageous women that we recognize today as International Women's Day. They lit the torch for gender equality and passed it down through the generations to us. We have a duty and a responsibility to continue their noble work and I am ready to do so by ensuring that the voices of women from around the world are heard loud and clear.

Mohandas K. Gandhi once said, ``There is no occasion for women to consider themselves subordinate to men.'' Yet, even today, there are places around the world where this is not the case. If the United States aims to be a great champion of the rights of women and girls for the rest of the world, we must do more to promote respect for women as well as increase their participation in every aspect of a country's civic, political, and economic life. Today, I would like to highlight several issues related to women that require decisive leadership: the role of women in Iraq and Afghanistan, international family planning programs, and the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

We all know that Iraq can only complete a peaceful transition to a country based on the rule of law, human rights, and democracy with the full participation of women. One year ago today, the United States sought to assist Iraq on this path when the Department of State established the Iraqi Women's Democracy Initiative along with the

U.S. Iraqi Women's Network. Through these grants, the U.S. reached out to Iraqi women and informed them of the importance of their vote and role in the new Iraq.

On January 30, 2005, the world watched as 58 percent of Iraqi voters turned out for an election in which 25 percent of the candidates running were women. In the months following the elections, special training will focus on constitution drafting, legal reform, and the legislative process, so that women may ensure their rights are enshrined in the new constitution. While I am encouraged by recent positive events, we must remain vigilant and encourage our Iraqi friends to put the active and meaningful participation of women in the new Iraq at the top of their agenda.

Last year, Women for Women International commissioned a survey of Iraqi women and found that despite ethnic educational, religious, and economic differences, an overwhelming majority of women in Iraq support a strong role for themselves in the new Iraq. Of the women surveyed, 94 percent want to secure legal rights for women, 84 percent want the right to vote on the final Constitution, and 95 percent think there should be no restrictions on education. It is the duty of the United States to assist Iraqi women in realizing these goals and I encourage my colleagues to continue to support funding for women's initiatives in Iraq.

One of the great success stories of our campaign against terrorism is the liberation of the women and girls of Afghanistan from the brutal oppression of the Taliban regime. Under the Taliban, women in public were forced to cloak themselves in shroud-like burkas while being accompanied by a male relative or else risk being beaten mercilessly. Most Afghan women were restricted by the Taliban from working, receiving an education, from visiting doctors, and from receiving humanitarian aid.

The women of Afghanistan have the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families. More and more women in Afghanistan are getting an education, earning a living, receiving medical attention, and participating in public life.

In fact, I was pleased to hear that Hamid Karzai made history last week when he appointed Habiba Sarabi as Afghanistan's first female provincial governor.

During the Taliban regime, Ms. Sarabi fled from Kabul to Pakistan. Following the removal of the Taliban from power in 2001, she was selected for Mr. Karzai's cabinet and instantly became a hero not just for women and girls, but for all Afghans. Her story is truly a testament to the remarkable turnaround taking place in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, obstacles still remain that prevent women and girls from reaching their full potential.

A recent U.N. report from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to the Economic and Social Council's Commission on the Status of Women states:

while the status of women and girls has improved, overall

progress has been uneven. The volatile security situation and

traditional social and cultural norms continue to limit

women's and girls' role in public life and deny them the full

enjoyment of their rights. The massive needs in terms of

reconstruction of infrastructure and strengthening of human

capacity, including in the fields of education and health

care, will require the sustained attention and support of

national actors and the international community for many

years to come.

Our victory in Afghanistan will be lost if women and girls are not afforded basic human rights and equal opportunity. The United States must not forget our commitment to provide a better future for Afghan women of all ages, and I urge my colleagues to stay the course and support additional assistance for education, health care, and democracy training for women and girls in the years ahead.

Once again, as we commemorate International Women's Day, I regret to point out that the Senate has still not acted on the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Convention, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, has been ratified by 179 countries to date, including every other democracy in the world.

By ratifying the Convention, states commit themselves to take appropriate steps to eliminate discrimination against women in political and public life, law, education, employment, health care, commercial transactions, and domestic relations.

I am shocked and disappointed that the United States has failed to ratify this Convention. Every year we fail to ratify this important Convention, we compromise our ability to lead the world as the torchbearer for women's rights. Not only would signing the Convention reaffirm our Nation's leadership role on these issues, it would bring us closer with our friends and allies who have already ratified the pact. I urge the Senate to act on the Convention this year.

The United Nations Population Fund UNFPA is the single largest global source for maternal health and family planning programs, working in over 140 countries.

Nevertheless, since 2002, the Bush administration has withheld over $90 million in vital U.S. contributions to UNFPA because of its perceived ties with China's family planning program and policies. The administration has taken these actions despite a report from a State Department fact finding team that the UNFPA in no way supported or was involved in coercive abortions or involuntary sterilization. As a result of administration actions, millions of poor women and families have been deprived of desperately needed care.

The work of UNFPA benefits women in need around the world. In the wake of the horrific tsunami that struck South Asia, UNFPA has been working to ensure that women and girls in this area are receiving the care they need. UNFPA's priorities are reproductive health, including safe childbirth, prevention of violence against women and girls, and psychosocial counseling for those affected by the 26 December tsunami.

In early January, UNFPA asked for $28 million to support its tsunami- related work in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Maldives as part of the United Nations interagency Flash Appeal. A month later, over 70 per cent of the requested funding had been received or pledged from various donors, including Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, China, Norway, and New Zealand. The United States is absent from this list.

No women should be prevented from receiving the assistance she deserves to plan and care for healthy families. We need to ensure that women have access to the educational and medical resources they need to control their reproductive destinies and their health so they will be able to better their own lives and the lives of their families.

Women are the backbone of our global society. They are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, and our grandmothers. They nurture us and teach us the lessons of life and how to be a better person. As such, I am proud to commemorate March 8, 2005, as International Women's Day.

There are many great issues facing women and the United States. However, I am confident and optimistic we can address problems such as family planning, the burgeoning roles of women in Iraq and Afghanistan, and eliminating all forms of discrimination against women.

As a United States Senator, I truly believe it is our duty as the leader of the free world to address and seek workable solutions to every problem that women face around the world. We can--and we must.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, in offering an amendment which would address a serious loophole in the bankruptcy bill we are now considering it allows rich debtors to unfairly shield assets from their creditors.

In recent years a number of financial and bankruptcy planners have taken advantage of the law of a few States to create what is called an ``asset protection trust.'' These trusts are basically mechanisms for rich people to keep money despite declaring bankruptcy. They are unfair, and violate the basic principle of this underlying legislation that bankruptcy should be used judiciously to deal with the economic reality that sometimes people cannot pay their debts, but to prevent abuse of the system.

This loophole is an example of where the law, if not changed, permits, or even encourages, such abuse.

The amendment is simple: It sets an upper limit on the amount of money that can be shielded in these asset protection trusts, capping the amount at $125,000. This amount parallels the limit placed on the similar ``homestead exemption'' elsewhere in the bill. The homestead exemption allows some assets to be protected from creditors in bankruptcy where they are in the form a residential home.

The bottom line: Wealthy people will be able to preserve only $125,000 in an asset protection trust.

This amount, $125,000, is not a small sum. It is more than enough to ensure that the debtor is not left destitute. But I believe it is a reasonable amount. It is deliberately based on the now-accepted $125,000 limit for the homestead exemption, which will also remain available to a debtor.

Yesterday the New York Times, in an article entitled Proposed Law on Bankruptcy Has Loophole detailed the potential problem in this bill. The article quotes Professor Elena Marty-Nelson, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Florida, who states:

[i]f the bankruptcy legislation currently [before the

Senate] gets enacted, debtors won't need to buy houses in

Florida and Texas to keep their millions [t]he millionare's

loophole that is the results of these trusts needs to be

closed.

Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School is also quoted in the article. She notes that:

[t]his is just a way for rich folks to be able to slip

through the noose on bankruptcy and, of course, the double

irony for her is that the proponents of this bill keep

pressing it as designed to eliminate abuse.

I unanimously consent that the full text of the article be printed in the Record.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 2, 2005]

Proposed Law on Bankruptcy Has Loophole

(By Gretchen Morgenson)

The bankruptcy legislation being debated by the Senate is

intended to make it harder for people to walk away from their

credit card and other debts. But legal specialists say the

proposed law leaves open an increasingly popular loophole

that lets wealthy people protect substantial assets from

creditors even after filing for bankruptcy.

The loophole involves the use of so-called asset protection

trusts. For years, wealthy people looking to keep their money

out of the reach of domestic creditors have set up these

trusts offshore. But since 1997, lawmakers in five states--

Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Rhode Island and Utah--have passed

legislation exempting assets held domestically in such trusts

from the federal bankruptcy code. People who want to

establish trusts do not have to reside the five states; they

need only set their trust up through an institution in one of

them.

``If the bankruptcy legislation currently being rushed

through the Senate gets enacted, debtors won't need to buy

houses in Florida or Texas to keep their millions,'' said

Elena Marty-Nelson, a law professor at Nova Southeastern

University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., referring to generous

homestead exemptions in those states. ``The millionaire's

loophole that is the result of these trusts needs to be

closed.''

Yesterday in Washington, Republicans in the Senate beat

back the first in a series of Democratic amendments aimed at

softening the effects of the bankruptcy bill on military

personnel, and the majority leader of the House vowed to get

quick approval of the bill if the Senate did not

significantly alter it.

``We will grab hold of it just like we did class action if

it is a good and clean bankruptcy reform bill,'' said

Representative Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, referring to

the quick action the House took last month on a measure

limiting class-action lawsuits.

The Senate bill is favored by banks, credit card companies

and retailers, who say it is now too easy for consumers to

erase their debts through bankruptcy. It is almost identical

to previous versions that have been introduced in Congress,

unsuccessfully, since 1998. Perhaps because the current bill

was written so long ago, some legal authorities say, it does

not address the new state laws that have allowed asset

protection trusts to flourish.

``This is just a way for rich folks to be able to slip

through the noose on bankruptcy, and, of course, the double

irony here is that the proponents of this bill keep pressing

it as designed to eliminate abuse,'' said Elizabeth Warren, a

law professor at Harvard Law School. ``Yet when provisions

that permit real abuse by rich people are pointed out, the

bill's proponents look the other way.''

Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, is the

main sponsor of the bankruptcy bill. His press secretary,

Beth Levine, said the senator's staff was unaware of the

trusts and the loophole for the wealthy that they

represented. ``The senator is always open to suggestions for

closing these loopholes,'' she said.

Money held in asset protection trusts can elude creditors

because federal bankruptcy law exempts assets governed by

``applicable nonbankruptcy law.'' Intended to preserve rights

to property under state law, the exemption makes it difficult

for creditors to get hold of assets that they would not be

able to seize through a nonbankruptcy proceeding in state

court.

Asset protection trusts have become increasingly popular in

recent years among physicians, who fear large medical

malpractice awards, and corporate executives, whose assets

are at greater peril now because of new laws. The Sarbanes-

Oxley legislation, for example, requires chief executives and

chief financial officers to certify that their companies'

financial statements are accurate; anyone who knowingly

certifies false numbers can be fined up to $5 million. In

addition, under Sarbanes-Oxley, executives may have to

reimburse their companies for bonuses or other incentive

compensation they received if their company's financial

reports have to be restated in later years. ``Given all the

notoriety of what we're seeing today, from HealthSouth to

WorldCom, there is probably more of an impetus for executives

to consider going this route,'' said Scott E. Blakeley, a

lawyer at Blakeley & Blakeley in Irvine, Calif. ``And yet in

the bankruptcy bill, this topic is not touched.''

While it is difficult to quantify how much money is sitting

in domestic asset protection trusts, their popularity is

undeniable, bankruptcy specialists said. ``I've heard figures

for foreign asset protection trusts and those probably are in

the billions,'' said Adam J. Hirsch, a law professor at

Florida State University. ``I haven't seen any figures for

domestic asset protection trusts, but they could very well be

the same.''

Current federal bankruptcy law protects assets held in a

type of trust, known as a spendthrift trust, traditionally

set up by one family member to benefit another. But current

law does not protect the assets of people who set up

spendthrift trusts to benefit themselves. And the law limits

the purposes of the trusts that qualify for exemption.

Retirement planning or paying for education are two approved

purposes for such trusts. By contrast, domestic asset

protection trusts can be set up by the same people who plan

to benefit from them. In addition, there are no caps on the

dollar amount of assets they can hold and no restrictions on

their purpose, Ms. Marty-Nelson said. One limitation is that

the trusts cannot be set up by people who are already

insolvent.

The states that allow these trusts do so to attract the

significant money management and trustee fees that accompany

them, Mr. Hirsch said. ``It's what is known in the parlance

of legal policy analysis as a race to the bottom,'' he said.

The authors of the Delaware law, for example, noted when it

was passed in 1997 that it was meant to ``maintain Delaware's

role as the most favored jurisdiction for the establishment

of trusts.''

In some ways, asset protection trusts are similar to the

homestead exemption that keeps homes in Florida, Texas and

other states out of the reach of creditors. But the

bankruptcy law now under consideration limits this exemption

to $125,000 for those who purchased the home within 40 months

of their bankruptcy filing or for those who have committed

securities fraud.

Ms. Marty-Nelson said the bankruptcy bill should at least

apply such a cap to domestic asset protection trusts. Better

yet, she said, the bill should exclude these trusts from the

federal exemption altogether.

``Congress can and should close this huge loophole,'' she

said.

I believe it is critical that we appropriately reform our bankruptcy system, and I applaud the efforts of Senator Grassley and others to do that. But it is important that we ensure that, wherever possible, loopholes subject to abuse are closed. This is just such a loophole. I hope that my colleagues will join me and Senator Schumer in closing this one.

Mr. President, in light of the most recent evidence uncovered about Enron's participation in the Western Energy Crisis, I rise today to introduce the Energy Market Oversight Bill with Senators Levin, Harkin, Cantwell and Wyden.

This bill would: Improve Price Transparency in Wholesale Electricity Markets. The bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish an electronic system to provide information about the price and availability of wholesale electricity to buyers, and sellers, and the public.

Prohibit Round Trip Electricity Trades. The bill prohibits the simultaneous buying and selling of the same quantity of electricity at the same price in the same location with no financial gain or loss. Round trip or ``wash trades'' are essentially bogus trades whereby no electricity changes hands, but the profit from the trades enriches the bottom-line of a company's financial report.

Increase Penalties for Violations of Federal Power Act. Maximum fines for violations of the Federal Power Act are increased from $5,000 to $1,000,000.; and maximum sentences are increased from 2 to 5 years. Current fines are extraordinarily low and therefore provide no deterrence to illegal activity.

Increase Penalties for Violations of Natural Gas Act. The bill increases maximum fines for violations of the Natural Gas Act from $5,000 to $1,000,000.

Prohibit Manipulation in Electricity Markets. Manipulation is prohibited in the wholesale electricity markets and FERC is given discretionary authority to revoke market-based rates for violations. Strangely enough, manipulation of energy markets is not specifically prohibited. This would add language to Part II of the Federal Power Act.

Repeal the ``Enron exemption''. Repeals the Commodities Future Modernization Act exemption for large traders in energy commodities and applies the anti-manipulation and anti-fraud provisions of the Commodities Exchange Act to all Over the Counter trades in energy commodities and derivatives. In my view, when Congress exempted energy from the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, it created the playing field for the Western Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, and cost millions of people millions of dollars.

Provide CFTC the Tools to Monitor OTC Energy Markets. For Over the Counter trades in energy commodities and derivatives that perform a significant price discovery function, including trades on electronic trading facilities, the bill requires large sophisticated traders to keep records and report large trades to the CFTC. This does not change the law, only applies the law that exists for futures contracts to over the counter trades in the energy markets.

Limit on Use of Data. Requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to seek information that is necessary for the limited purposes of detecting and preventing manipulation in the futures and over the counter markets for energy; to keep proprietary trade and business data confidential except when used for law enforcement purposes. This does not require the real-time publication of proprietary data.

No Effect on Non-Energy Commodities or Derivatives. The bill would not alter or affect the regulation of futures markets, financial derivatives, or metals. We have specifically stated on page 20 the following: ``The amendments made by this title have no effect on the regulation of excluded commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act.''

In addition, the bill states: ``The amendments made by this title have no effect on the regulation of metals under the Commodity Exchange Act.''

The Western Energy Crisis of 2000-2001 has still not been resolved. Meanwhile, more and more information about Enron's role in the crisis emerges. On February 3, 2005, the Snohomish Public Utility District released transcripts of tapes showing that on January 17, 2001, Enron traders concocted false repairs for a Las Vegas power plant--making power unavailable that would have been delivered to California--on the very same day that supplies were so tight that Northern California experienced a Stage 3 power emergency and rolling blackouts hit as many as 2 million consumers.

By taking the plant offline, Enron was also in direct violation of an Emergency Power Order by U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson that required power generators to make power available to California.

Telephone transcripts between Enron and the Las Vegas plant

Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I are introducing legislation to combat the use of fraudulent immigration documents, particularly passports and other travel documents.

The need to prevent and prosecute passport and travel document fraud is clear, and this bill would increase penalties for the use of fraudulent travel documents.

We know that the threat of terrorism against the United States is real and as the 9/11 Commission Report states, ``for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.'' In order to minimize the threat of terrorism to the United States, we must make every effort to limit the use of fraudulent immigration documents.

The bill Senator Sessions and I are introducing would make the use of fraudulent travel documents--such as passports, Border Crossing Cards, Canadian driver's licenses or identification cards, transportation letters for parolees, military identification cards or green cards--an aggravated felony which will mandate detention and increase the likelihood of prosecution.

Today, this is not the case. Instead, fraudulent documents are routinely returned to the offender and individuals are allowed to return home without suffering any consequences from their attempts to circumvent our immigration laws.

Why is this a problem?

Firstly, admission to the United States is a privilege and not a right. We should not tolerate fraud and deception at our ports of entry, particularly because it should be apparent that a terrorist organization as sophisticated as Al Qaeda is well aware of our current procedures and can be expected to take full advantage of them.

Secondly, the 9/11 Commission found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001 could have been intercepted by border officials, based in part on their travel documents. In fact, all but one of the September 11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document and some of those documents were acquired by fraud. All of the hijackers opened bank accounts in their names and used passports and other identification documents that appeared valid on their face.

Even before September 11, 2001, the use of fraudulent immigration documents to enter the United States was a threat that we did not sufficiently heed.

Let me give you some known examples of terrorists who have entered, or attempted to enter the United States, with fraudulent travel documents: Ahmed Ajaj and Ramzi Yousef attempted to enter the United States with fraudulent passports. Both were later implicated or convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing in February of 1993.

Ahmed Ressam used a fraudulently obtained Canadian passport, and, in 1999 attempted to cross the border from Canada at Port Angeles in Washington State. A border inspector felt Mr. Ressam looked nervous, and a search of his car turned up a trunk full of bombs. There is some debate about the exact target(s) of the attack; however, it seems likely that Los Angeles International Airport and perhaps the millennium celebrations in Seattle were the intended targets.

It is no secret that: as the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear, Al Qaeda has established a complex international travel network that allowed, and presumably still allows, its operatives to legally travel worldwide to train, conduct reconnaissance or otherwise prepare for an attack. This network included, and presumably still includes, the use of altered and counterfeit passports and visas.

Many countries, including France, Portugal and Saudi Arabia, have reported tens of thousands of passports and travel documents stolen. When these are stolen in large numbers, they are sold on the black market to others.

The 9/11 Commission found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who they claim to be--and ensured consequences for any violations--it could potentially have denied entry, deported or come into further contact with the terrorists that were involved in the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General issued the following reports on lost and stolen passports: ``A Review of the Use of Stolen passports from Visa Waiver Countries to Enter the United States'', December 2004; and, ``An Evaluation of the Security Implications of the Visa Waiver Program'' (April 2004).

I encourage my colleagues to read these reports on the vulnerabilities in our current border security. To summarize, the reports state that: In the United States alone, immigration officials have records for 1.2 million stolen passports.

Aliens applying for admission into the United States using stolen passports have little reason to fear being caught and are usually admitted. It has been standard practice to simply return a fraudulent passport to an individual seeking entry and let them return to their country. This, in effect, is the soft underbelly of the entire passport system.

The Director of the U.S. National Central Bureau of INTERPOL said that for 55 of the 181 INTERPOL countries, there probably were over 10 million lost and stolen passports that might be in circulation.

Law enforcement officials state that lost and stolen passports are the greatest security problem associated with the Visa Waiver Program.

And now that I've mentioned the Visa Waiver Program, let me say a few things about this program.

I believe the Visa Waiver Program is the Achilles heel in our immigration system. This program allows roughly 13 million individuals to enter the United States each year from 27 countries, without a visa--meaning they enter without a thorough background and security check.

Since we do not have in place a fully operational entry and exit program, specifically an exit system, we have no real way of knowing if millions of travelers who entered the United States have left as required.

Last year, Congress extended the deadline for one year for countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program to include biometric indicators in passports to verify the identity of bearers at the request of the Administration.

It is likely this deadline will again need to be extended.

I believe that granting another extension will be another opportunity for terrorists, organized crime rings, petty crooks, counterfeiters and forgers to continue entering the United States virtually unnoticed because we won't be able to confirm that they are who they say they are.

The bottom line is that we must crack down on document fraud if we are to protect our borders. There are thousands, even millions, of lost, stolen and fraudulent international passports, travel documents, driver's licenses and other identity documents in circulation, and we must now allow those to compromise our homeland security.

The purpose of this bill is twofold: first, to give the Department of Justice the incentive to vigorously prosecute all cases involving passport and travel document fraud, as well as certain other egregious cases of immigration document fraud.

Second, by encouraging policies that make these cases a priority for prosecution, it will require that Department of Homeland Security officials not return fraudulent documents to travelers, but instead turn them over to the Department of Justice so that they can institute criminal proceedings.

Unfortunately, the prosecution of immigration document fraud is not a high priority for the Department of Justice, because, although current penalties allow for a sentence of up to 25 years, typically most alien's convicted of travel document fraud serve less than one year in prison.

Also, the immigration consequences of document fraud are relatively minor. Low sentences, coupled with minimal immigration consequences, do not provide much incentive for U.S. Attorneys nationwide to consider the prosecution of immigration document cases a priority nor can they be seen as anything but a slap on the wrists of the offenders.

Senator Sessions and I pose a solution to this problem by toughening penalties so that we instill in those seeking to use fraudulent travel and immigration documents a real sense of fear that they will be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under our laws.

In any kind of meaningful border protection plan, one must have a good sense of who is entering and exiting the country. That simply cannot be known if the individual is using a fraudulent document.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in light of the most recent evidence uncovered about Enron's participation in the Western Energy Crisis, I rise today to introduce the Energy Market Oversight Bill with Senators Levin, Harkin, Cantwell and Wyden.

This bill would: Improve Price Transparency in Wholesale Electricity Markets. The bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish an electronic system to provide information about the price and availability of wholesale electricity to buyers, and sellers, and the public.

Prohibit Round Trip Electricity Trades. The bill prohibits the simultaneous buying and selling of the same quantity of electricity at the same price in the same location with no financial gain or loss. Round trip or ``wash trades'' are essentially bogus trades whereby no electricity changes hands, but the profit from the trades enriches the bottom-line of a company's financial report.

Increase Penalties for Violations of Federal Power Act. Maximum fines for violations of the Federal Power Act are increased from $5,000 to $1,000,000.; and maximum sentences are increased from 2 to 5 years. Current fines are extraordinarily low and therefore provide no deterrence to illegal activity.

Increase Penalties for Violations of Natural Gas Act. The bill increases maximum fines for violations of the Natural Gas Act from $5,000 to $1,000,000.

Prohibit Manipulation in Electricity Markets. Manipulation is prohibited in the wholesale electricity markets and FERC is given discretionary authority to revoke market-based rates for violations. Strangely enough, manipulation of energy markets is not specifically prohibited. This would add language to Part II of the Federal Power Act.

Repeal the ``Enron exemption''. Repeals the Commodities Future Modernization Act exemption for large traders in energy commodities and applies the anti-manipulation and anti-fraud provisions of the Commodities Exchange Act to all Over the Counter trades in energy commodities and derivatives. In my view, when Congress exempted energy from the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, it created the playing field for the Western Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, and cost millions of people millions of dollars.

Provide CFTC the Tools to Monitor OTC Energy Markets. For Over the Counter trades in energy commodities and derivatives that perform a significant price discovery function, including trades on electronic trading facilities, the bill requires large sophisticated traders to keep records and report large trades to the CFTC. This does not change the law, only applies the law that exists for futures contracts to over the counter trades in the energy markets.

Limit on Use of Data. Requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to seek information that is necessary for the limited purposes of detecting and preventing manipulation in the futures and over the counter markets for energy; to keep proprietary trade and business data confidential except when used for law enforcement purposes. This does not require the real-time publication of proprietary data.

No Effect on Non-Energy Commodities or Derivatives. The bill would not alter or affect the regulation of futures markets, financial derivatives, or metals. We have specifically stated on page 20 the following: ``The amendments made by this title have no effect on the regulation of excluded commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act.''

In addition, the bill states: ``The amendments made by this title have no effect on the regulation of metals under the Commodity Exchange Act.''

The Western Energy Crisis of 2000-2001 has still not been resolved. Meanwhile, more and more information about Enron's role in the crisis emerges. On February 3, 2005, the Snohomish Public Utility District released transcripts of tapes showing that on January 17, 2001, Enron traders concocted false repairs for a Las Vegas power plant--making power unavailable that would have been delivered to California--on the very same day that supplies were so tight that Northern California experienced a Stage 3 power emergency and rolling blackouts hit as many as 2 million consumers.

By taking the plant offline, Enron was also in direct violation of an Emergency Power Order by U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson that required power generators to make power available to California.

Telephone transcripts between Enron and the Las Vegas plant

Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I are introducing legislation to combat the use of fraudulent immigration documents, particularly passports and other travel documents.

The need to prevent and prosecute passport and travel document fraud is clear, and this bill would increase penalties for the use of fraudulent travel documents.

We know that the threat of terrorism against the United States is real and as the 9/11 Commission Report states, ``for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.'' In order to minimize the threat of terrorism to the United States, we must make every effort to limit the use of fraudulent immigration documents.

The bill Senator Sessions and I are introducing would make the use of fraudulent travel documents--such as passports, Border Crossing Cards, Canadian driver's licenses or identification cards, transportation letters for parolees, military identification cards or green cards--an aggravated felony which will mandate detention and increase the likelihood of prosecution.

Today, this is not the case. Instead, fraudulent documents are routinely returned to the offender and individuals are allowed to return home without suffering any consequences from their attempts to circumvent our immigration laws.

Why is this a problem?

Firstly, admission to the United States is a privilege and not a right. We should not tolerate fraud and deception at our ports of entry, particularly because it should be apparent that a terrorist organization as sophisticated as Al Qaeda is well aware of our current procedures and can be expected to take full advantage of them.

Secondly, the 9/11 Commission found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001 could have been intercepted by border officials, based in part on their travel documents. In fact, all but one of the September 11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document and some of those documents were acquired by fraud. All of the hijackers opened bank accounts in their names and used passports and other identification documents that appeared valid on their face.

Even before September 11, 2001, the use of fraudulent immigration documents to enter the United States was a threat that we did not sufficiently heed.

Let me give you some known examples of terrorists who have entered, or attempted to enter the United States, with fraudulent travel documents: Ahmed Ajaj and Ramzi Yousef attempted to enter the United States with fraudulent passports. Both were later implicated or convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing in February of 1993.

Ahmed Ressam used a fraudulently obtained Canadian passport, and, in 1999 attempted to cross the border from Canada at Port Angeles in Washington State. A border inspector felt Mr. Ressam looked nervous, and a search of his car turned up a trunk full of bombs. There is some debate about the exact target(s) of the attack; however, it seems likely that Los Angeles International Airport and perhaps the millennium celebrations in Seattle were the intended targets.

It is no secret that: as the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear, Al Qaeda has established a complex international travel network that allowed, and presumably still allows, its operatives to legally travel worldwide to train, conduct reconnaissance or otherwise prepare for an attack. This network included, and presumably still includes, the use of altered and counterfeit passports and visas.

Many countries, including France, Portugal and Saudi Arabia, have reported tens of thousands of passports and travel documents stolen. When these are stolen in large numbers, they are sold on the black market to others.

The 9/11 Commission found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who they claim to be--and ensured consequences for any violations--it could potentially have denied entry, deported or come into further contact with the terrorists that were involved in the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General issued the following reports on lost and stolen passports: ``A Review of the Use of Stolen passports from Visa Waiver Countries to Enter the United States'', December 2004; and, ``An Evaluation of the Security Implications of the Visa Waiver Program'' (April 2004).

I encourage my colleagues to read these reports on the vulnerabilities in our current border security. To summarize, the reports state that: In the United States alone, immigration officials have records for 1.2 million stolen passports.

Aliens applying for admission into the United States using stolen passports have little reason to fear being caught and are usually admitted. It has been standard practice to simply return a fraudulent passport to an individual seeking entry and let them return to their country. This, in effect, is the soft underbelly of the entire passport system.

The Director of the U.S. National Central Bureau of INTERPOL said that for 55 of the 181 INTERPOL countries, there probably were over 10 million lost and stolen passports that might be in circulation.

Law enforcement officials state that lost and stolen passports are the greatest security problem associated with the Visa Waiver Program.

And now that I've mentioned the Visa Waiver Program, let me say a few things about this program.

I believe the Visa Waiver Program is the Achilles heel in our immigration system. This program allows roughly 13 million individuals to enter the United States each year from 27 countries, without a visa--meaning they enter without a thorough background and security check.

Since we do not have in place a fully operational entry and exit program, specifically an exit system, we have no real way of knowing if millions of travelers who entered the United States have left as required.

Last year, Congress extended the deadline for one year for countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program to include biometric indicators in passports to verify the identity of bearers at the request of the Administration.

It is likely this deadline will again need to be extended.

I believe that granting another extension will be another opportunity for terrorists, organized crime rings, petty crooks, counterfeiters and forgers to continue entering the United States virtually unnoticed because we won't be able to confirm that they are who they say they are.

The bottom line is that we must crack down on document fraud if we are to protect our borders. There are thousands, even millions, of lost, stolen and fraudulent international passports, travel documents, driver's licenses and other identity documents in circulation, and we must now allow those to compromise our homeland security.

The purpose of this bill is twofold: first, to give the Department of Justice the incentive to vigorously prosecute all cases involving passport and travel document fraud, as well as certain other egregious cases of immigration document fraud.

Second, by encouraging policies that make these cases a priority for prosecution, it will require that Department of Homeland Security officials not return fraudulent documents to travelers, but instead turn them over to the Department of Justice so that they can institute criminal proceedings.

Unfortunately, the prosecution of immigration document fraud is not a high priority for the Department of Justice, because, although current penalties allow for a sentence of up to 25 years, typically most alien's convicted of travel document fraud serve less than one year in prison.

Also, the immigration consequences of document fraud are relatively minor. Low sentences, coupled with minimal immigration consequences, do not provide much incentive for U.S. Attorneys nationwide to consider the prosecution of immigration document cases a priority nor can they be seen as anything but a slap on the wrists of the offenders.

Senator Sessions and I pose a solution to this problem by toughening penalties so that we instill in those seeking to use fraudulent travel and immigration documents a real sense of fear that they will be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under our laws.

In any kind of meaningful border protection plan, one must have a good sense of who is entering and exiting the country. That simply cannot be known if the individual is using a fraudulent document.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 19.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback's name to this amendment as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and myself. Because Senator Kyl has an urgent appointment, I will make a very brief statement and then turn it over to Senator Kyl, and then I will wrap up. I ask unanimous consent to be able to do that.

Mr. President, today 144 million Americans have credit cards and they are charging more debt than they have in the past. Let me give one example of that. Credit card debt between 2001 and 2002 increased 8\1/2\ percent. Between 1997 and 2002, it increased 36 percent, and between 1992 and 2002, it increased by 173 percent. Forty to 50 percent of all credit card holders make only the minimum payment.

I am a supporter of the bankruptcy bill, but here is the rub: Individuals get six, seven, or eight different credit cards, pay only the minimum payment required, and then end up with debt rolling over their shoulders like a tsunami. That happens in case after case. So that is the predicate for this amendment. It is like Senator Akaka's amendment, but it is less onerous than the amendment of Senator Akaka. I will explain that, but first I defer to my cosponsor, the Senator from Arizona.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his cosponsorship on this amendment and also for his friendship as well.

We have talked about credit card debt increasing. Let me talk a little bit about what it is today. It has increased from about $251 billion in 1990 to over $790 billion in the year 2000. That is an increase of 300 percent.

There has been a dramatic rise in personal bankruptcies during these same years. In 1990 there were 718,107 personal bankruptcies. In 2000 that number had almost doubled to 1,217,972 personal bankruptcy filings. In 2004 it went up again, to 1,563,145 personal bankruptcy filings. Many of these personal bankruptcies are from people who get a credit card. It looks alluring. They do not recognize what a 17-, 18-, 19-percent interest rate can do. They pay just the minimum payment. They pay it for 1 year, 2 years--they have something else, they get another card, they get another card, they get another card, they do the same thing.

They get 2 or 3 years down the pike and they find that the interest on the debt is such that they can never repay these cards, and they do not know what to do about it.

We say that the credit card companies have some responsibility. During the first 6 months of the minimum payment of the balance, the credit card companies, under this amendment, would just put forward what they negotiated to put forward in California. There are a couple of options, and it is just really incremental debt sizes. If you have $1,000 worth of debt, and you make the minimum payment, this is what happens. If you have $2,500 worth of debt or $5,000 worth of debt, this is what happens. So there is that scheme and that is in the underlying bill. Or another one, which is $250, $500, or $750 in debt.

After that, if the consumer makes only minimum payments for 6 consecutive months, then this is where the bill comes in. The credit card company is responsible for letting the individual know essentially how much interest they have, and disclose in each subsequent bill the length of time and total cost which is required to pay the debt plus interest.

People have to know this. If they are a minimum-payment person, they have to know what it means to make those minimum payments over a substantial period of time.

The amendment would also require that credit card companies be responsible to put out a 800 number, included on the monthly statement, where consumers can call to get an estimate of the time it would take to repay their balance, if only making minimum payments, and the total amount of those payments. If the consumer makes only minimum payments for these 6 months they, then, receive the 800 number and they can begin to get involved and understand it.

Senator Kyl pointed out the differences between our bill and the Akaka amendment. The underlying bill, as I said, provides only for basic payment disclosure. The bill does not require credit card companies to disclose to card holders exactly how much each individual card holder will need to pay, based on his or her own debt, if a card holder is only making minimum payments.

As I said, what we do is after 6 months of these basic minimum payments, then the credit card company must let the individual know: You have X dollars remaining on your debt, the interest is Y, and your payout time will take Z, or whatever it is.

We think this is extraordinarily important. We believe it will minimize

bankruptcies. This, I suppose, is what I deeply believe. When companies charge very substantial interest rates, they have an obligation to let the credit card holder know what those minimum payments really mean, in terms of the ability of a minimum payment to completely pay back that debt--how long it takes. I have people close to me I have watched, with six or seven credit cards, and it is impossible for them, over the next 10 or 15 years, to pay off the debt if they continue making just minimum payments. Therefore, they have to find a way to resolve that debt. To date, you have two recourses.

One recourse is you go into a counseling center and they can repackage all this debt for you and put it into one and somehow work out an agreement with the credit card company. I tried to do this for someone. As a matter of fact, the credit card company would not agree to any reduced payment. Or they go into bankruptcy.

These huge numbers of bankruptcy filings show that this is, indeed, a problem. If we are going to have a bankruptcy bill, and I certainly support a bankruptcy bill, it is also important that the credit card companies play their role in disclosure. That disclosure is that if you make a minimum payment, and your interest is 17, 18, 19 percent or even 21 percent, here is what it means in terms of the length of time you will be paying your bill and what it will take to pay that bill.

I think you will have people who are more cautious, which I believe is good for the bankruptcy courts in terms of reducing their caseloads, and also good for American consumers.

I join with Senators Kyl and Brownback in presenting this amendment, which is a kind of compromise to the Akaka amendment, in hopes that the Senate will accept it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Black History Month.

This month celebrates the accomplishments of African Americans, honors the tremendous sacrifices they have made to promote the strength of our great nation, and recognizes their enormous contributions to our diverse American culture.

Black History Month is a time to reflect on the accomplishments and heroes of the past, as well as a time to salute the leaders of today.

The first Negro History Week took place in 1926 and was coordinated by Dr. Carter G. Woodson, the son of former slaves, the second African American ever to earn a PhD from Harvard University, and founder of the Journal of Negro History. Dr. Woodson's goal was to raise awareness of and funding for the study of black culture and history in America.

The second week of February was chosen for Negro History Week to honor the birthdays of President Abraham Lincoln, who promulgated the Emancipation Proclamation, and Frederick Douglass, one of the most prominent black abolitionists.

In 1972 Negro History Week was changed to Black History Week to reflect the changing social attitudes toward race in America, and in 1976 February officially became Black History Month.

The theme of this year's Black History Month is ``The Niagara Movement: Black Protest Reborn, 1905-2005.''

The Niagara Movement was the forerunner to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It was founded in 1905 by a group of black intellectuals, led by W.E.B. DuBois, John Hope, and William Monroe Trotter, who called for full civil liberties, an end to racial discrimination, and recognition of human brotherhood.

In my home State of California, you will find many African American leaders who have contributed to the legacy set forth by the Niagara Movement. They are true humanitarians and epitomize the ideals of the civil rights movement.

I would first like to recognize Roy Willis, a resident of my hometown of San Francisco, for his 35 years of history-making contributions to California and over 45 years of service to our nation as a civil rights pioneer.

In 1958, Roy Willis ended racial segregation at the University of Virginia by becoming its first African American student.

In 1967, he went on to Harvard Business School to earn his MBA. While at Harvard he organized and co-founded the Harvard Business School African American Student Union over strenuous objection from the school's administration. Despite their objections, the AASU was able to convince the administration that it needed to do much more to recruit African American students.

Thanks to the pioneering efforts of Mr. Willis, the Harvard Business School AASU has helped to graduate thousands of African American MBAs over the past 36 years. It has produced many of today's brightest leaders, and continues to create the leaders of tomorrow.

Roy moved to northern Californian after earning his MBA in 1969. In the early 1970s he became one of the founding members of BAPAC, the Black American Political Association of California, which has become one of California's largest and most effective organizations in the areas of voter registration, homeownership and economic development.

He has enjoyed a successful career in real estate development, and dedicates himself to creating projects that enhance the community.

The next great Californian I would like to recognize is Bishop Hamel Hartford Brookins, better known as Bishop H. H. Brookins.

He is truly a living legend. Bishop Brookins ascended to positions of international leadership as a champion of black political and economic empowerment, Third World liberation, business enterprise development, and church growth.

After graduating from the University of Kansas, Bishop Brookins was thrust into the civil rights arena in 1954 in the wake of hostile reactions by Wichita citizens to the historical Supreme Court decision, Brown vs. the Board of Education. Bishop Brookins organized and was elected President of a 200 member interracial ministerial alliance which was committed to the peaceful effective implementation of the desegregation decision. From Kansas, Bishop Brookins was appointed to the prestigious First AME Church of Los Angeles where he was a major force in quelling the Watts riots of 1965.

At the 1972 General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, he was elected 91st Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. His assignments as Bishop have taken him across the country and around the world.

One of his biggest accomplishments has been establishing the first modern day economic development program in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Under his inspired leadership, church members have invested more than $1,000,000 in ``The People's Trust Fund,'' which provides loans to black entrepreneurs who have been denied bank loans, enables churches to obtain loans at reduced rates, provides scholarships to black theology students, and assists the elderly and indigent with emergency funds.

Outside the church, Bishop Brookins demonstrates his zealous concern for meaningful social action through his Chairmanship of the Board of Directors of the South Los Angeles Development Corporation, a $6 million state funded job training program which has successfully placed more than 4,000 black teenagers in jobs in the electronics and word processing fields. In addition, he is one of the founding members of Operation PUSH and has served as a national board member of TransAfrica, an organization that lobbies on behalf of African and Third World countries.

Bishop Brookins is a local hero in Los Angeles. Because of his passion for social justice and racial equality, African Americans in the City of Los Angeles have moved forward in the areas of housing, public education, health, and unemployment.

The story of struggles and triumphs of African Americans cannot be told without including the pastor of the First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles, the Rev. Cecil L. ``Chip'' Murray.

In 1977 Dr. Murray was assigned to First AME Church, the oldest black church in Los Angeles. His new church family had 300 active members when he arrived, but under his leadership the congregation has multiplied to over 17,000 members.

Reverend Murray has helped First AME Church to develop a program called ``Beyond the Walls,'' which consists of close to 40 task forces that help deal with issues affecting the congregation and community as a whole. Each member joins a task force to help take the effort to every corner of the community.

Dr. Murray has exhorted his congregation to go beyond Bible studies and reach out to build 2,000 units of low-income housing, provide thousands of jobs, expand neighborhood food programs and educate young people through college scholarships and its own elementary schools.

Though Reverend Murray retired last year, ending his illustrious 27- year tenure as leader of First AME Church, he has left an indelible mark on the community.

Each of these leaders has made a profound impact which reaches far beyond their local communities. They are just a few of the many who have given their blood, sweat, and tears to make America a better place for themselves and for their children.

They have had many successes, but the struggle is not over. We can always do better, and these heroes fight every day to continue the legacy of the civil rights movement and to make America a more perfect union.

Mr. President, I am pleased to take the time today during Black History Month to honor these individuals and the many tremendous contributions that African Americans make every day to our society.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation to authorize the extension of the Nazi War Crimes Records Disclosure Act and the Japanese Imperial Army Disclosure Act for an additional 2 years.

In 1998, Congress passed the Nazi War Crimes Records Disclosure Act to ensure that the records of our national security and intelligence agencies related to the criminal activities of the Nazi regime could, after more than half a century, become public.

During the 106th Congress, I introduced, and the President signed into law, the Japanese Imperial Army Disclosure Act which expanded the scope of the original statute to cover war crimes that occurred in the Pacific theater.

That legislation was sought by a large number of Californians who believed that there was an effort to keep information about possible Japanese Imperial Army abuse of war prisoners from the public record.

Indeed, both pieces of legislation were much needed because many of the records and documents regarding Germany's and Japan's wartime activities were classified and hidden in U.S. government archives and repositories. Even worse, according to some scholars, some of these records were being inadvertently destroyed.

The statutes were designed to work through an Interagency working group which would ensure that the documents that needed to be declassified would be declassified, and that the process would occur in an orderly and expeditious manner.

At the time, it was recognized that there could be circumstances where classification was still appropriate, so the best way for the working group to conduct its work was to do so in coordination with other agencies. What we did not recognize was the bureaucratic setbacks that the working group would encounter.

The bottom line here is that the working group did its part and tried diligently to meet its deadline. Nevertheless, despite the group's best efforts, it appears that delay and confusion on the part of the CIA have obstructed its progress.

As a result, the working group, through no fault of its own, was unable to complete this important work within the timetable that the legislation contemplated and now requires additional time to finish.

I find this to be very unfortunate because the time has already long since passed for the full truth to come out.

However, I have been assured that the intelligence community, in general, and the CIA, in particular, have a renewed understanding of the importance of this matter and will now work expeditiously with the working group until the work is completed.

With the fast-thinning ranks of our brave American World War II veterans, it is all the more imperative that the truth comes out sooner, not later. Especially for those that were the victims of war crimes, there should be a full accounting of what happened so that old wounds have a chance to heal.

We need to pass this legislation now so the working group can finish the work that it has started before it is too late. Our veterans gave and risked their lives for this country. The least we can do is provide them with the truth before they are all gone.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday I introduced legislation to improve our Nation's ability to use the criminal law to guard against and respond to terrorist attacks at our seaports--the Reducing Crime at America's Seaports Act of 2005.

I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Biden, Specter, Kyl, and Allen, who have co-sponsored this bill, in moving forward with this initiative.

The Nation's seaports are a tremendous asset to our economy. They also represent a significant vulnerability to a possible terrorist attack.

Much of our national commerce travels through these ports. Ninety percent of all cargo tonnage moves through the 50 biggest ports. Just 25 of those ports account for 98 percent of the Nation's container traffic--two of the largest such ports, Oakland and Los Angeles/Long Beach, are in my home State of California.

A modern port, which handles huge ships laden with thousands of containers, and vast amounts of critical bulk cargo, is complex and sprawling. It is also extremely vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

The very complexity and size of our ports make them an obvious and attractive target for a terrorist. With hundreds of miles of wharves and piers, a vast volume of boat, truck and car traffic, lengthy perimeters, ports can be the perfect target.

Not only are they vulnerable to attack, the consequences of even a small attack could be overwhelming. Commerce would be devastated, not only at

and around the port, but all around the Nation, because the goods moving through ports are the lifeblood of industry and commerce throughout the Nation. The human cost would also be terrible, because ports not only employ thousands of workers; they are without exception located near large metropolitan population centers.

My concern is not just theoretical. The available intelligence analysis supports the conclusion that seaports are a critical vulnerability. Our terrorist enemies are well aware of the vulnerability of these ports, and are well equipped to do terrible damage.

This problem is heightened by two critical factors: the first is the growing importance of containers in maritime commerce. Since their introduction in the late 1960s, container traffic has grown. It now accounts for 66 percent of dollar value of all U.S. maritime traffic. In some ports, such as Los Angeles/Long Beach, it constitutes most of the trade. The problem with containers is that they are, by definition, a potential delivery device for a terrorist weapon. Whether conventional explosives, biological agents, or a nuclear device, such as a so-called ``dirty bomb,'' containers complicate the problem of securing our ports. The second factor is the increasing possibility that terrorists have, or will soon acquire, the ability to mount unconventional attacks, such as nuclear, radiological or biological attacks. In such a case our ports provide both a method for bringing such things into the country for an attack inland, and can be the target itself.

There is a lot to do to secure our ports. Some of it requires long term investment in capital improvements. But we can accomplish much simply by fine-tuning the tools we already have. Among those tools is the criminal law. These laws are vital to those on the front line--the Coast Guard, the FBI, Customs Agents, and the State, local and private authorities who protect our ports every day.

This bill will improve the criminal law applicable to ports in the following ways: it would clarify that the law prohibiting fraudulent access to transport facilities includes seaports and waterfronts within its scope, as well as increase the maximum term of imprisonment for a violation from 5 years to 10 years. According to the Report of the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports: ``[c]ontrol of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the seaports is often lacking.'' Such unauthorized access is especially problematic, since inappropriate controls may result in the theft of cargo and, more dangerously, undetected admission of terrorists.

It would amend the U.S. Code to make it a crime: One, for a vessel operator knowingly to fail to slow or stop a ship once ordered to do so by a Federal law enforcement officer, including the Coast Guard; two, for any person on board a vessel to impede boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by federal law; or three, for any person on board a vessel to provide false information to a federal law enforcement officer. Any violation of this section would be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 5 years. A core function of the Coast Guard is law enforcement at sea, especially in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11. While the Coast Guard has authority to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to force a vessel to stop or be boarded, ``refusal to stop,'' by itself, is not currently a crime.

It creates a new criminal provision to make it a crime to willfully use a dangerous weapon, including chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials, or explosive, with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person on board a passenger vessel. Any violation of this section, including attempts and conspiracies, would be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 20 years and, if death results, for a term of imprisonment up to life. This section would close a potential gap in existing law by making it clear that ``passenger vessels'' like cruise ships are included within the scope of transportation vehicles covered by the provision.

The bill would amend existing law which covers violence against maritime navigation to make it a crime to intentionally damage or tamper with any maritime navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard or under its authority, if such act endangers the safe navigation of a ship. The Coast Guard maintains over 50,000 navigational aids on more than 25,000 miles of waterways. These aids, which are relied upon by all commercial, military and recreational mariners, are essential for safe navigation and are, therefore, inviting targets for terrorists.

The bill would make it a crime to: One, knowingly place in waters any device or substance which is likely to damage a vessel or its cargo, interfere with a vessel's safe navigation, or interfere with maritime commerce; or two, knowingly discharge a hazardous substance into U.S. waters, with the intent to endanger human life or welfare. Any violation of these provisions would be punishable by a fine and/or a term of imprisonment up to life; if death results, the offense could be punishable by a sentence of death. This addresses the vulnerability of our shorelines and ports to such a terrorist attack the results could be economically and environmentally devastating.

The law would make it a crime to knowingly and willfully transport aboard any vessel an explosive, biological agent, chemical weapon, or radiological or nuclear materials, knowing that the item is intended to be used to commit a terrorist act. Any violation of this provision would be punishable by a fine and/or a term of imprisonment up to life; if death results, the offense could be punished by a sentence of death. It would also make it a crime to knowingly and willfully transport aboard any vessel any person who intends to commit, or is avoiding apprehension after having committed, a terrorist act.

The law creates a set of crimes involving attacks on sea vessels. Modeled upon the existing criminal sanctions for destruction or interference with aircraft or aircraft facilities, updating them in the maritime area to harmonize them with coverage in the aviation context. Specifically, this section would make it a crime to: One, damage or destroy a vessel or its parts, a maritime facility, or any apparatus used to store, load or unload cargo and passengers; two, perform an act of violence against or incapacitate any individual on a vessel or at or near a facility; or three, knowingly communicate false information that endangers the safety of a vessel.

The law would also subject any individual who knowingly conveys false information about the offenses described above, or other named offenses, to a civil penalty up to $5,000. In addition, an individual who willfully and maliciously or recklessly conveys false information would be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 5 years.

The law would amend the U.S. Code to prohibit the carrying of a dangerous weapon, including a firearm or explosive, at a seaport or on board a vessel. Any violation of this section, and conspiracies, would be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 10 years; an individual who willfully or recklessly violates this section would be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 15 years; if death results, the offense would be punishable by a term of imprisonment up to life. According to the Interagency Commission Report, ``[a]t many seaports, the carrying of firearms is not restricted, and thus internal conspirators and other criminals are allowed armed access to cargo vessels and cruise line terminals.''

The bill expands the scope of section 659 of title 18, theft of interstate or foreign shipments, to include theft of goods from additional transportation facilities or instruments, including trailers, cargo containers, and warehouses. In addition, it would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for low-level thefts from 1 year to 3 years and clarify that the determination of whether goods are ``moving as an interstate or foreign shipment'' is made by considering the entire cargo route, regardless of any temporary stop between the point of origin and final destination.

In addition to making changes to the criminal law, the bill creates mechanisms to permit the government to efficiently acquire data necessary to target scarce enforcement resources. Recognizing that cargo theft is not only a significant economic problem in its own right, but an indicator of porous

security, and thus of terrorist vulnerability, the law creates meaningful reporting requirements.

This bill would require the Attorney General to one, mandate the reporting of cargo theft offenses; and two, create a database containing the reported information, which would be appropriately integrated with other agencies' information-collection efforts and made available to governmental officials. Despite the fact that cargo theft is a well-known problem, there exists no national data collection and reporting systems that capture the magnitude of serious crime at seaports.

The bill increases the penalties for noncompliance with certain manifest reporting and record-keeping requirements, including information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country from which the shipments originated. The effectiveness of Federal, State and local efforts to secure ports is compromised by criminals' ability to evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the content of cargo--with little more than a slap on the wrist, if that. The existing statutes simply do not provide adequate sanctions to deter criminal or civil violations. As a consequence, vessel manifest information is often wrong or incomplete--and our ability to assess risks, make decisions about which containers to inspect more closely, or simply control the movement of cargo is made virtually impossible.

Our Nation's ports represent a critical vulnerability point in our Nation's defenses. It is critical that we take steps to reduce this vulnerability, develop defenses, and, unfortunately, plan for mitigation should there be an attack. There is much to do, including providing additional funding. This bill addresses one aspect of the problem by improving and adding to the criminal justice tools which can protect our ports. It is a relatively narrow bill, with a precise focus on the problem at hand.

I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this much-needed improvement to our law.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Coleman again this year to re-introduce the Ryan Haight Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation will protect the safety of Americans who choose to purchase their prescription drugs legally over the Internet.

This legislation is necessary because of a growing problem of illegal prescription drug diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Coupled with the ease of access to the Internet, it has led to an environment where illegitimate pharmacy websites can bypass traditional regulations and established safeguards for the sale of prescription drugs. Internet websites that allow consumers to obtain prescriptions drugs without the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship pose an immediate threat to public health and safety.

To address this problem, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act makes several critical steps, to ensure safety and to assist regulatory authorities in shutting down ``rogue'' Internet pharmacies.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits the dispensing or sale of a prescription drug based solely on communications via the Internet such as the completion of an online medical questionnaire.

Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

Under this bill, for a domestic Web site to sell prescription drugs legally, the web site would have to display identifying information such as the names, addresses, and medical licensing information for pharmacists and physicians associated with the Web site.

In addition, if a person wants to use the Internet to purchase their prescription drugs he or she will not be prohibited from doing so under this bill but, in order to do so, must already have a prescription for the drug that is valid in the United States prior to making the Internet purchase.

Reliance on the Internet for public health purposes and the expansion of telemedicine, particularly in rural areas, make it essential that there be at the very least a minimum standard for what qualifies as an acceptable medical relationship between patients and their physicians.

According to the American Medical Association, a health care practitioner who offers a prescription for a patient he or she has never seen before, based solely on an online questionnaire, generally does not meet the appropriate medical standard of care.

Let me illustrate the situation facing our country today. If a physician's office prescribed and dispensed prescription drugs the same way Internet pharmacies currently can do, it would look something like this: a physician opens a physical office, asks a patient to fill out a medical history questionnaire in the lobby and give his or her credit card information to the office manager. There is no nurse, and therefore no one to take the patients' height, weight, blood pressure, verify his or her medical history, and so forth and no one to answer the patient's questions regarding their health.

The questionnaire is then slipped through a hole in the window; the office manager takes it to the physician, or person acting as the physician, who then writes the prescription and hands it to the pharmacist, or person acting as the pharmacist, in the next room. Once the patient signs his credit card, he is on his way out the door, drugs in hand.

No examination is performed, no questions asked, and no verification or clarification of the answers provided on the medical history questionnaire.

This illustration is not an exaggeration. It occurs everyday all across the United States. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates that there are around 500 identifiable rogue pharmacy Web sites operating on the Internet.

According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, 31 States and the District of Columbia either have laws or medical board initiatives addressing Internet medical practice.

Many States have already enacted laws defining acceptable practices for qualifying medical relationships between doctors and patients and this bill would not affect any existing State laws.

For example, California law was changed in 2000 to say: ``no person or entity may prescribe, dispense, or furnish, or cause to be prescribed, dispensed, or furnished dangerous drugs or dangerous devices [defined as any drug or device unsafe for self-use] on the Internet for delivery to any person in this state, without a good faith prior examination and medical indication . . .''

I believe California's law is a perfect example of why this legislation is needed. The law only applies to persons living in California. As we all know, however, the Internet is not bound by State or even country borders.

This legislation makes a critical step forward by providing additional authority for State Attorneys General to file an injunction in Federal court to shut down an Internet site operating in another State that violates the provisions in the bill.

Under current law, in order to close down an Internet website selling prescription drugs prosecutors must take enforcement actions in every State where the Internet pharmacy operates, requiring a tremendous amount of resources in an environment where the location of the website is difficult, if not impossible, to determine or keep track of.

This bill will allow a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of the law in every jurisdiction where the pharmacy is operating.

While this legislation pertains to domestic Internet pharmacies, the practice of international pharmacies selling low-cost drugs to U.S. consumers who have valid prescriptions from their doctors deserves to be discussed and debated on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate will act this year on prescription drug importation legislation.

In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, California in whose memory this bill is named.

Ryan was an 18-year old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001.

His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-State pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story and others like it force us to ask why anyone in the U.S. would be able to access such highly addictive and dangerous drugs over the Internet with such ease?

Why was there no physician or pharmacist on the other end of this teenager's computer verifying his age, his medical history and that there was a valid prescription?

That is why I support this legislation. It makes sensible requirements of Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

With simple disclosure requirements for Internet sites such as names, addresses and medical or pharmacy licensing information, patients will be better off and State medica1 and pharmacy boards can ensure that pharmacists and doctors are properly licensed.

Lastly, this bill will give State attorneys general the authority they need to shut down rogue Internet pharmacies operating in other states.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a resolution with Senators Snowe, McCain, Chafee, Murray, Jeffords, Durbin, Lieberman, Leahy, Lautenberg, Boxer, Cantwell, Akaka and Reed that urges the Administration to participate in international negotiations and actively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol goes into effect today. More than 140 nations, including all 25 members of the European Union, Russia and China, have ratified the agreement to reduce man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

The United States, which accounts for about one-fourth of the greenhouse gases believed responsible for global warming, has refused to ratify the treaty.

Thirty-five of the world's thirty-eight industrialized countries-- except for the United States, Australia, and Monaco--have ratified this important treaty.

This means that industrialized nations are bound to cut their combined greenhouse gases by 5 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

The United States is missing an important opportunity to protect our planet's environment by not ratifying the Protocol.

I believe this is a huge mistake.

There is emerging consensus that global warming is real.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``Since the 1900s global average temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration have increased dramatically, particularly compared to their levels in the 900 preceding years.''

Scientists now agree on three main Facts about global warming.

Fact 1: The Earth is warming.

Fact 2: The primary cause of this warming is man-made activities, especially fossil fuel consumption.

Fact 3: If we don't act now to reduce emissions, the problem will only get worse.

We have already begun to see the impacts of climate change: four hurricanes of significant force pounded the state of Florida in a six week period last fall. The storms formed over an area of the ocean where surface temperatures have increased an average of 17 degrees over the past decade.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are beginning to disappear in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the Park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

In California, water supplies are threatened by smaller snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada. Record snowfalls this winter have provided hope for this summer but the region still could face drought or floods unless temperatures stay cold enough to maintain the snowpack and average snowfall continues for the rest of the precipitation season.

If we take strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there will be 27 percent snowpack remaining in the Sierras at the end of the century.

However, if we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, there will only be 11 percent snowpack left in the Sierras at the end of the century.

The San Diego based Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a preeminent center for marine science research, will release a study later this week showing that global warming will likely have serious ramifications in the very near future, including: a water crisis in the western United States in the next 20 years due to smaller snowpacks.

The disappearance of the glaciers in the Andes in Peru in as little as 10 years, leaving the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The melting of two-thirds of the glaciers in western China by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants.

Further, the UN Comprehensive Assessment of Freshwater Resources of the World estimates that by 2025, around 5 billion people, out of a total

world population of 8 billion, will not have access to adequate water supplies.

And concern about the effects of climate change is mounting around the world.

Scientists fear that an ``ecological catastrophe'' is developing in Tibet with the melting of the region's glaciers as a result of global warming.

Glaciers in West Antarctica are thinning twice as fast as they did in the 1990s

The mean air temperature has risen 4-5 degrees in Alaska in the past three decades causing glaciers to melt and the coastline to recede.

Peru's Quelccaya ice cap, the largest in the tropics, could be gone by 2100 if it continues to melt at its current rate--contracting more than 600 feet a year in some places.

In addition, according to National Geographic, ``the famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80 percent since 1912. Glaciers in the Garhwal Himalaya in India are retreating so fast that researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035. Arctic sea ice has thinned significantly over the past half century, and its extent has declined by about 10 percent in the past 30 years. Greenland's ice sheet is shrinking.''

The Pew Center for Climate Change reports strong evidence of global warming in the United States. The findings included: the red fox has shifted its habitat northward, where it is encroaching on the Arctic fox's range.

Southern, warm-water fish have begun to infiltrate waters off Monterey, California, which were previously dominated by colder-water species.

The Alaskan tundra, which has for thousands of years been a depository for carbon dioxide, has begun to release more of the gas into the air than it removes because warmer winters are causing stored plant matter to decompose.

There have been documented trends in which the natural timing of animal or insect life cycles changed and the plants on which they depended did not. Many Southern species of butterflies have disappeared entirely over the past century as their range contracted.

According to the International Climate Change Taskforce, of which Senator Snowe is a Co-Chair, if the earth's average temperature increases by more than 2 degres Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the world could face substantial agricultural losses, countless people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts such as malaria.

Even more critically, if the temperature rises more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, we could be at risk for catastrophic/weather events. For instance, we would risk losing the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which could raise sea levels, shut down the Gulf Stream, and destroy the world's forests.

Climate change is real. Its impacts are already being felt. If emissions keep growing at projected levels, greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will reach levels unknown since the time of the dinosaurs during the lifetimes of children born today.

That is why my colleagues and I have introduced this resolution that: Urges the Administration to engage in international discussions on post-Kyoto greenhouse gas reductions.

Calls upon the Administration to take action NOW to reduce emissions domestically.

Encourages the United States to keep global average temperatures from increasing more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial levels.

As the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is the responsibility of the United States to lead by example. By not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, we have sent a harsh message to the world that the largest emitter and contributor to global warming refuses to participate in a worldwide program aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

But fortunately, even though the federal government has refused to acknowledge global warming, many States have recognized that in spite of the federal government's inaction, action must be taken.

Nearly 40 States have developed their own climate plans.

A emission trading system is emerging in the Northeast that will require large power plants from Maine to Delaware to reduce their carbon emissions.

Eighteen States and Washington, DC have enacted renewable portfolio standards. They include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.

California has enacted legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle tailpipes--it is expected that the Northeastern States and Canada will also follow California's lead.

Yet without concerted Federal action, the United States will not be able to achieve real, significant greenhouse gas reductions.

As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, we must act now to reduce the impacts of climate change and save the environment for future generations.

The Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. Though the Protocol ends, the United States needs to lead and move to negotiate a post-Kyoto framework. There are many things we can do. For example, we can: use our forests and our farmland as a depository for carbon to prevent it from being released into the atmosphere; develop new technologies such as clean coal, renewable energy, and hydrogen vehicles; make better use of existing technologies such as hybrid vehicles and energy efficient buildings, appliances, and power generation; and use market-based programs, such as cap and trade, to reduce emissions with the least harm to economy.

Being a responsible steward of the climate is more than just taking steps to pollute less. It also requires participating in international negotiations on the policies the world will need to achieve significant, long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Coleman again this year to re-introduce the Ryan Haight Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation will protect the safety of Americans who choose to purchase their prescription drugs legally over the Internet.

This legislation is necessary because of a growing problem of illegal prescription drug diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Coupled with the ease of access to the Internet, it has led to an environment where illegitimate pharmacy websites can bypass traditional regulations and established safeguards for the sale of prescription drugs. Internet websites that allow consumers to obtain prescriptions drugs without the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship pose an immediate threat to public health and safety.

To address this problem, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act makes several critical steps, to ensure safety and to assist regulatory authorities in shutting down ``rogue'' Internet pharmacies.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits the dispensing or sale of a prescription drug based solely on communications via the Internet such as the completion of an online medical questionnaire.

Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

Under this bill, for a domestic Web site to sell prescription drugs legally, the web site would have to display identifying information such as the names, addresses, and medical licensing information for pharmacists and physicians associated with the Web site.

In addition, if a person wants to use the Internet to purchase their prescription drugs he or she will not be prohibited from doing so under this bill but, in order to do so, must already have a prescription for the drug that is valid in the United States prior to making the Internet purchase.

Reliance on the Internet for public health purposes and the expansion of telemedicine, particularly in rural areas, make it essential that there be at the very least a minimum standard for what qualifies as an acceptable medical relationship between patients and their physicians.

According to the American Medical Association, a health care practitioner who offers a prescription for a patient he or she has never seen before, based solely on an online questionnaire, generally does not meet the appropriate medical standard of care.

Let me illustrate the situation facing our country today. If a physician's office prescribed and dispensed prescription drugs the same way Internet pharmacies currently can do, it would look something like this: a physician opens a physical office, asks a patient to fill out a medical history questionnaire in the lobby and give his or her credit card information to the office manager. There is no nurse, and therefore no one to take the patients' height, weight, blood pressure, verify his or her medical history, and so forth and no one to answer the patient's questions regarding their health.

The questionnaire is then slipped through a hole in the window; the office manager takes it to the physician, or person acting as the physician, who then writes the prescription and hands it to the pharmacist, or person acting as the pharmacist, in the next room. Once the patient signs his credit card, he is on his way out the door, drugs in hand.

No examination is performed, no questions asked, and no verification or clarification of the answers provided on the medical history questionnaire.

This illustration is not an exaggeration. It occurs everyday all across the United States. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates that there are around 500 identifiable rogue pharmacy Web sites operating on the Internet.

According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, 31 States and the District of Columbia either have laws or medical board initiatives addressing Internet medical practice.

Many States have already enacted laws defining acceptable practices for qualifying medical relationships between doctors and patients and this bill would not affect any existing State laws.

For example, California law was changed in 2000 to say: ``no person or entity may prescribe, dispense, or furnish, or cause to be prescribed, dispensed, or furnished dangerous drugs or dangerous devices [defined as any drug or device unsafe for self-use] on the Internet for delivery to any person in this state, without a good faith prior examination and medical indication . . .''

I believe California's law is a perfect example of why this legislation is needed. The law only applies to persons living in California. As we all know, however, the Internet is not bound by State or even country borders.

This legislation makes a critical step forward by providing additional authority for State Attorneys General to file an injunction in Federal court to shut down an Internet site operating in another State that violates the provisions in the bill.

Under current law, in order to close down an Internet website selling prescription drugs prosecutors must take enforcement actions in every State where the Internet pharmacy operates, requiring a tremendous amount of resources in an environment where the location of the website is difficult, if not impossible, to determine or keep track of.

This bill will allow a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of the law in every jurisdiction where the pharmacy is operating.

While this legislation pertains to domestic Internet pharmacies, the practice of international pharmacies selling low-cost drugs to U.S. consumers who have valid prescriptions from their doctors deserves to be discussed and debated on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate will act this year on prescription drug importation legislation.

In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, California in whose memory this bill is named.

Ryan was an 18-year old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001.

His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-State pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story and others like it force us to ask why anyone in the U.S. would be able to access such highly addictive and dangerous drugs over the Internet with such ease?

Why was there no physician or pharmacist on the other end of this teenager's computer verifying his age, his medical history and that there was a valid prescription?

That is why I support this legislation. It makes sensible requirements of Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

With simple disclosure requirements for Internet sites such as names, addresses and medical or pharmacy licensing information, patients will be better off and State medica1 and pharmacy boards can ensure that pharmacists and doctors are properly licensed.

Lastly, this bill will give State attorneys general the authority they need to shut down rogue Internet pharmacies operating in other states.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.