Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to take a few moments today to acknowledge the work and leadership of Willie McCarter who has served for the past 15 years as chairman of the International Fund for Ireland, IFI.

The IFI was conceived by my old friend Tip O'Neill who secured the original funding in 1986. Willie McCarter became involved with the fund in 1989 and became chairman in 1992. Under his tenure, the fund flourished and became an integral economic tool that helped bring peace and understanding in Northern Ireland.

The investments that the IFI made in border counties provided an economic boost to communities that had no hope. In tumultuous times where communities were divided by religion, the IFI sponsored projects that not only created desperately needed jobs but employment where Catholics and Protestants worked side by side.

Marcelle and I have become close friends with Willie and his wife Mary. I know that our friendship will transcend his departure as chairman from the IFI. We look forward to visits with both of them here and in Ireland for many years to come.

The Irish Times interviewed Willie McCarter prior to his stepping down as chairman of the IFI at the end of February. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Since early November, over 1,000 citizen-soldiers from the Vermont National Guard have answered the time-honored call to duty. These proud, strong, and intelligent men and women of the 86th Brigade were activated for service in the Middle East. In some of the most moving series of events I have experienced as Senator, these Vermonters separated from loved ones at various sendoff ceremonies all across the State. They formed into ranks and marched off for training and, eventually, for war. In mobilizing for service, they joined almost 200 members of Vermont's Green Mountain Boys who just returned from their yearlong deployment to Iraq. Watching over this moving sendoff and standing as a strong, intelligent, and assuring presence was the Adjutant General of the State of Vermont, MG Martha Rainville.

Superbly carrying out her responsibilities as Vermont's senior military leader, General Rainville has ensured that these units, as well as any deploying Vermont Guard company, squadron, or detachment, have had the best preparation possible. She always tries to make certain that the Vermont National Guard has the resources to carry out any mission, whether at home or abroad. At the same time, General Rainville has a special empathy for her soldiers and airmen, working to comfort them during the inevitable pains of family separation.

I am very proud that General Rainville has recently been reelected by the Vermont Legislature to the position of Vermont Adjutant General and that, late last year, she was recognized as Vermonter of the Year by the Burlington Free Press, one of Vermont's largest circulation newspapers. General Rainville is a consummate professional, skilled leader, and caring human being. She has had a noticeable effect on the readiness of the 4,000 members of the Vermont National Guard and has become a critical part of the leadership of the entire National Guard, one of our Nation's most cherished institutions. These recognitions are representative of all the Guard members, families, and employers from Vermont who are making huge sacrifices for the war efforts.

Martha Rainville assumed the position of Adjutant General of the State of Vermont in 1997. She gained valuable experience and understanding of the military from her service as a commander of the maintenance unit of the 158th Fighter Wing of the Vermont Air National Guard. When she stood up and said she was ready to take the reigns of the entire Guard, she promised to bring a fresh approach to tackling the Guard's tasks and challenges.

From the first day, General Rainville has brought a careful yet energetic approach to her position. She pays close attention to the day-to-day operations of the Vermont Guard, yet gives her commanders the flexibility to do the job right. This ability to balance small details with a sense of the larger picture has enabled the Vermont National Guard to respond so well to its real-world missions after September 11. From 24-hour air patrols to increasing security along the northern border to deploying for the war in Iraq, the Vermont Guard has responded well due in part to General Rainville's leadership.

Vermont Adjutant General Martha Rainville is a credit to the National Guard, the State of Vermont, and the country as a whole. I am so proud to have seen her move through the ranks in Vermont and assume her critically important role. I know she will continue to provide strong leadership to our proud citizen-soldiers, and I believe she deserves our gratitude, our congratulations, and our thanks.

Mr. President, I am pleased to call attention to the extraordinary public service of Judge William B. Bryant. Last July, I introduced S. 2619, a bill that would have designated the new annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C., the ``William B. Bryant Annex.'' It was the Senate companion bill to legislation introduced by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia.

While the House bill passed by voice vote, the Senate bill was stalled by objection. There was concern that a courthouse annex be named for a judge still serving. This objection was adhered to despite the numerous exceptions to such a rule, including another exception enacted last year.

It would have been worthy of celebration this last month, during Black History Month, if we could have held such a naming ceremony involving Judge Bryant. Others prevented that from taking place. I believe it important that we continue every month to recognize the extraordinary contributions of African Americans. Congresswoman Norton has been willing to seek to accommodate those Senators who objected by revising this bill to delay the effective date of the naming until after Judge Bryant steps down from the Court. It is sadly ironic that Judge Bryant's continuing historic service is held against honoring him. He continues to perform duties as a senior

Federal judge at the age of 93. I commend Congresswoman Norton for her efforts and determination. I hope that this change will remove the final impediment and allow the District of Columbia and the Nation to honor Judge Bryant before his 94th birthday this September.

The value of Judge Bryant's service has been recognized by his colleagues. Judge Bryant and his lifelong service to the law was celebrated in a September 16, 2004 Washington Post article. The article details a life spent dedicated to public service.

Judge Bryant began his legal career with the belief that lawyers could make a difference in eliminating the widespread racial segregation in the United States. He became a criminal defense lawyer in 1948, taking on many pro bono cases and was soon recognized by the U.S. Attorney's office for his skills as a defense attorney. The U.S. Attorney's office hired him in 1951 and he became the first African American to practice in Federal court here in the District.

Judge Bryant was nominated by President Johnson to the Federal bench in 1965 and became the first African American Chief Judge for the United States District Court in D.C. Forty years later, Judge Bryant still works at the courthouse four days a week and the Washington Post reports that he handled more criminal trials than any other senior judge on the court last year. Judge Bryant said in an interview with the Post: ``I feel like I'm part of the woodwork. I have to think hard to think of a time when I wasn't in this courthouse.''

The Washington Post article mentions that E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., the son of the judge for whom the Federal courthouse is named, praised the recommendation that the annex be named after Judge Bryant. He said that his father ``admired Judge Bryant tremendously'' and would have wanted the annex to be named after him.

Before my introduction of this bill last year, Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, requested for himself and all the other judges on the court that the newly constructed annex be named after Judge Bryant. They appreciate the historic significance of Judge Bryant's service.

I urge the Senate this year to move ahead with this important commendation of Judge Bryant's lifetime of service and dedication to the principles of the Constitution and the law.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to call attention to the extraordinary public service of Judge William B. Bryant. Last July, I introduced S. 2619, a bill that would have designated the new annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C., the ``William B. Bryant Annex.'' It was the Senate companion bill to legislation introduced by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia.

While the House bill passed by voice vote, the Senate bill was stalled by objection. There was concern that a courthouse annex be named for a judge still serving. This objection was adhered to despite the numerous exceptions to such a rule, including another exception enacted last year.

It would have been worthy of celebration this last month, during Black History Month, if we could have held such a naming ceremony involving Judge Bryant. Others prevented that from taking place. I believe it important that we continue every month to recognize the extraordinary contributions of African Americans. Congresswoman Norton has been willing to seek to accommodate those Senators who objected by revising this bill to delay the effective date of the naming until after Judge Bryant steps down from the Court. It is sadly ironic that Judge Bryant's continuing historic service is held against honoring him. He continues to perform duties as a senior

Federal judge at the age of 93. I commend Congresswoman Norton for her efforts and determination. I hope that this change will remove the final impediment and allow the District of Columbia and the Nation to honor Judge Bryant before his 94th birthday this September.

The value of Judge Bryant's service has been recognized by his colleagues. Judge Bryant and his lifelong service to the law was celebrated in a September 16, 2004 Washington Post article. The article details a life spent dedicated to public service.

Judge Bryant began his legal career with the belief that lawyers could make a difference in eliminating the widespread racial segregation in the United States. He became a criminal defense lawyer in 1948, taking on many pro bono cases and was soon recognized by the U.S. Attorney's office for his skills as a defense attorney. The U.S. Attorney's office hired him in 1951 and he became the first African American to practice in Federal court here in the District.

Judge Bryant was nominated by President Johnson to the Federal bench in 1965 and became the first African American Chief Judge for the United States District Court in D.C. Forty years later, Judge Bryant still works at the courthouse four days a week and the Washington Post reports that he handled more criminal trials than any other senior judge on the court last year. Judge Bryant said in an interview with the Post: ``I feel like I'm part of the woodwork. I have to think hard to think of a time when I wasn't in this courthouse.''

The Washington Post article mentions that E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., the son of the judge for whom the Federal courthouse is named, praised the recommendation that the annex be named after Judge Bryant. He said that his father ``admired Judge Bryant tremendously'' and would have wanted the annex to be named after him.

Before my introduction of this bill last year, Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, requested for himself and all the other judges on the court that the newly constructed annex be named after Judge Bryant. They appreciate the historic significance of Judge Bryant's service.

I urge the Senate this year to move ahead with this important commendation of Judge Bryant's lifetime of service and dedication to the principles of the Constitution and the law.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, for his opening statement. I know he has worked hard on this matter.

The Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Vermont, and the distinguished President pro tempore have noted that it is spitting snow outside. Unfortunately, some think this is a time for panic. They should go to Alaska. They should go to Vermont. They should go over to the mountains of Pennsylvania.

I say to the President pro tempore, you heard me mention not so long ago that I was back home in Vermont. I was listening to the news, and almost as an afterthought they said: By the way, we should have a dusting of snow tonight; No more than 3 to 5 inches. Down here, of course, everything comes to a screeching halt.

Why I bring this up I have no idea, except that when watching TV crews going out begging to get one shot of a snowflake, I say: Go to Alaska. Go to Vermont. We will show them what real weather is.

Today, we are beginning debate on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005--a big title for S. 256. But it is an important debate. It is the first time in 4 years the Senate has debated bankruptcy reform legislation. I hope it is going to be a fair and informed and beneficial debate that will improve this bipartisan bill and help us enact bankruptcy reform into law.

Both the chairman and I have worked very hard with Senators on our sides of the aisle. We have tried to move this legislation forward. But we know that bankruptcy is a complex area of law. It has many competing public policy interests between debtors and creditors and even among competing creditors.

The very complex and competing interests involved in achieving fair reforms of our bankruptcy system demand that we work in a bipartisan manner throughout the legislative process.

I mentioned that 4 years ago we debated this issue. I mentioned that because today our Nation has an entirely different face than it did then. We have endured the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We have immersed ourselves in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have witnessed a parade of financial misdeeds--more than misdeeds, financial thefts and skulduggery by major U.S. corporations. We have even watched as pension programs, and the promises of the pension programs, were shortchanged by nearly $100 billion. All these factors have only deepened the financial woes of an already struggling economy. So when we debate this issue today we are discussing real life today, not what it was in 2001.

I think for this legislation to be appropriate and fair, the key provisions have to be carefully examined. If necessary, they have to be modernized, they have to be amended.

Earlier this month, our committee held a bipartisan hearing on bankruptcy reform legislation. As I said, that was our first hearing in 4 years. It was an informed discussion. A week later, the Judiciary Committee held its first markup on bankruptcy legislation in 4 years. During that meeting, we considered 11 amendments, 5 of which were accepted.

They improved the bill. In fact, they were accepted unanimously. I am particularly pleased the committee accepted the Leahy-Grassley amendment that clarifies that any judgment, order, or settlement agreement for violation of securities fraud law after the filing of a bankruptcy case is nondischargeable. In other words, if you want to defraud somebody in securities, if you want to pull some of these big fraud actions we have seen in the past few years, you are not going to escape the consequences by bankruptcy.

During consideration of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Senator Grassley and I worked together to amend the Bankruptcy Code to make judgments and settlements based on security law violations nondischargeable. We wanted to protect the victims' ability to recoup their losses and hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions. This change in the law was based on a Judiciary Committee amendment that Senator Grassley and I introduced to my corporate fraud legislation, S. 2010, the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act that was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee. It was later adopted as a floor amendment by a vote of 99 to nothing in 2002.

Recently a bankruptcy court wrongly interpreted the new law by finding that a securities fraud judgment, order, or settlement must be in existence at the time the bankruptcy petition is filed to be nondischargeable. That was never intended. This court precedent could result in future courts discharging securities frauds judgments, orders, or settlements that are entered into after a debtor files for bankruptcy.

To give you an idea of what a get-out-of-jail-free card this is, an Enron executive could avoid paying his securities fraud judgment by filing for bankruptcy where the securities fraud litigation is pending. That would be wrong. Neither Republicans nor Democrats who supported that amendment want that to happen. So the Leahy-Grassley amendment, which was accepted by all Members, Republicans and Democrats, in the committee during committee consideration, would remedy that injustice and makes it clear that Congress intended for all securities fraud judgments, orders, or settlements to be nondischargeable.

Another area we have to consider is the economic hardships faced by service members' families. When you get a call to serve your country in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere--and now it is a disproportionate number of guardsmen and reservists who are called up; I watch this as the cochair of the National Guard caucus of the Senate--it can cause loss of family income, the close of a family business, a whole lot of other unexpected expenses. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for service members and their families to be forced into filing for bankruptcy relief. We have to protect those who are fighting for us. I know Senators Durbin and Nelson have taken an interest in this issue. I look forward to hearing their thoughts on how we can help the situations faced by service members serving our Nation and their families.

I spoke of the financial misdeeds of U.S. corporations. When you talk about Enron and WorldCom, others, it leaves a very bitter taste in the mouths of average Americans. If an average American were to steal $500 or $1,000, they might go to jail. Apparently, if you steel $100 million, $200 million, or $500 million, you are a hero. When it is done, there are no heroes, not to any of us. They have damaged investor confidence. They have shaken our capital markets. Senators Sarbanes, Kennedy, Durbin, Harkin, and Cantwell have prepared amendments to address the ongoing problems caused by corporate abuse.

We must strengthen the financial safety net for hard-working American families who confront illness or injury. Medical problems contribute to about half of all bankruptcies, even though most of those who file had health insurance when they became sick. Many lose their jobs and their insurance because they got sick. Others face thousands of dollars in copayments and deductibles for services not covered by their insurance. Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Clinton, and Corzine will be leading the debate on this issue.

Since we last considered bankruptcy reform legislation, financially troubled companies have shortchanged their pension promises by nearly $100 billion, putting workers approaching retirement age or responsible companies and actually taxpayers at risk. We will hear from Senators Harkin, Rockefeller, and Dayton during debate over this issue.

I know that Senators Grassley, Durbin, Dodd, Feinstein, and others share a commitment to include credit industry reform in a balanced bankruptcy bill. The millions of credit card solicitations made to American consumers in the past year have contributed to the rise in consumer debt and bankruptcy. It is relatively easy to obtain credit. We have heard the stories of a neighbor's dog getting a $3,000 preapproved credit card. Kids go to college and are inundated with preapproved credit cards. So it is relatively easy to obtain them. Not nearly enough is done to ensure that credit is properly managed. Currently, credit card statements fail to include all of the information necessary to allow individuals to make fully informed financial decisions. Additional disclosure is needed to ensure that individuals completely understand the implications of their credit card use.

Senator Akaka intends to offer the credit card minimum payment warning act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor with him. It will provide a wake-up call for consumers by making it very clear what costs they are going to incur if they make only the minimum payments on their credit cards. The personalized information they will receive for each of their accounts will help consumers make informed choices about their debts. In an era of computers, this is not a real burden on the companies.

Senator Feingold, a longtime protector of working middle and lower income families who rely on the ability to resolve overwhelming financial burdens through bankruptcy, is going to offer several amendments to improve this bill. Senator Feingold and I have worked together on bankruptcy reform issues for a long time. I know his expertise and the measures he means to propose will enhance this legislation.

We have to be careful that our efforts to ensure accountability in the bankruptcy process do not inadvertently create problems for privacy and security. We are in an age where personal information--far too much personal information--can be easily digitized and shared. If it falls into the wrong hands, it is abused. Identity theft is one danger, as is tracking and harassing a battered spouse. We can look for accountability, but we have to find ways to minimize the possibilities of abuse.

Four years ago, the committee adopted the Leahy-Hatch amendment to protect the personal privacy of consumers whose information is held by firms in bankruptcy as part of bankruptcy reform legislation. I am pleased this bill retains this proprivacy provision.

Our bipartisan provision permits bankruptcy courts to honor the privacy policies of business debtors. It creates a consumer privacy ombudsman to protect personal privacy in bankruptcy proceedings. I appreciate Senator Hatch's efforts to add important consumer privacy protections to the code.

Unfortunately, the Leahy-Hatch amendment is needed because the customer lists and databases of failed firms now can be put up for sale in bankruptcy without any privacy considerations, even in violation of the failed firm's own public privacy policy against sale of personal customer information to third parties.

Let me just tell you what happened in this case, and it is not untypical. We had an online toy store called Toysmart.com. Toysmart.com wanted to encourage parents to allow their children to go online and, in doing so, they promised on their Web site that personal information voluntarily submitted by visitors to the site--such as name, address, billing information, childhood preferences--would never be shared with a third party. If you are a parent, you would look at that and say: I feel a little bit better about this. I don't want my son or daughter's names out there.

Guess what happened. They filed for bankruptcy in 2000. Even though they had made this promise to parents and children, the personal customer information was put on the auction block. In a way, the bankruptcy court had a catch-22. I suspect the judge realized that this was violating everything every parent thought of, but under the law at that time, there was only one real asset. It was this mailing list. It wasn't the old desks or loading docks or the warehouse. Those were empty. It wasn't the computers. Those would be out of date every few months. The one item of any value was the mailing list. The mailing list that parents had been promised would never go out, the children's names would never be sold, that had to go into bankruptcy. That is why we have the Leahy-Hatch amendment.

The Leahy-Hatch provision included in this legislation adds privacy protections and a consumer privacy ombudsman to the bankruptcy code. We wanted to prevent future cases like Toysmart.com. Once somebody tells you we are going to keep your kids, information confidential, it will be.

We have seen in the news recently the ChoicePoint Inc. breach. It is just the latest example of why we need to take special care with databases containing America's personal information. It is astounding that a company in the business of providing data for background checks and law enforcement purposes failed to assess the legitimacy of its own customers. It sold

personal data on 145,000 individuals to scam artists. Many of the victims had no idea that ChoicePoint existed, let alone that the company compiled data. How irresponsible, how wrong. How can the people who run ChoicePoint sleep at night? This is one of the most outrageous things we have heard. How can they possibly hold themselves up as a company? We now find that as this was going on, some of them were making millions of dollars in stock options. This is outrageous. I would hope that the Department of Justice and others are looking at this. How can anybody be this negligent? How can anybody be this criminal? They make millions of dollars, the people running it. Somebody who has a mom and pop somewhere can find, because they were so negligent, because they opened the doors and let the scam artists come in, they may lose their business. Somebody who has a child in college may not be able to pay the tuition. Somebody who is trying to make the rent or the mortgage, living paycheck to paycheck, may not be able to.

Apparently, according to the press this past week, their executives will make millions of dollars on stock while their customers are being clobbered. What shame. And we haven't heard a single one of them step forward and say how ashamed they are by this outrageous action.

It has become all too familiar. In recent years, headlines have recounted how personal information has been compromised and database breaches of government contractors, at banks, at universities, even a blood bank. One hospital on the west coast sends things to be translated in Pakistan. All these secret medical records that you think are so private, they sent it over to Pakistan, and the person in Pakistan said: I want more money.

If you don't give me more money--because I am in Pakistan, and you cannot touch me here--I am going to put all of these people's medical records online. What were they thinking, the people who run this thing? They make a whole lot of money, but, boy, they are clobbering the people who go there. This puts America's most private information at risk not only for financial crimes but for stalking. You can find out who lives alone, who is vulnerable, who could be blackmailed, and find out who may be a victim for scam artists. The administration talks about fighting terrorism. This creates a potential avenue for a terrorist to masquerade as an innocent person.

I have called for a series of hearings on how we ensure data security, privacy and proper use in the information age. I am pleased that Chairman Specter has agreed to my request for hearings, and I look forward to these opportunities to consider these issues closely.

We need to take reasonable measures in the bankruptcy process to guide what information will be available publicly and to whom. Debtors are often required to submit documents containing highly personal information. Declaring bankruptcy is challenging enough for those who find themselves in that circumstance, we shouldn't make it worse by creating the possibility that they will be victimized later on. I am submitting an amendment to provide protections in handling personal data in those submissions. These changes reflect current Judicial Conference policy and were included in last term's Hatch-Leahy Federal Courts Improvement Act.

First, my amendment expands the court's discretion to protect information such as social security numbers and passport numbers. The bankruptcy courts are in a unique position to properly balance the need to share information with the need to protect privacy, and we should rely on their good judgment and discretion as much as possible. The amendment draws from the current civil procedure discovery rules to set a standard against which the court can apply its discretion. The amendment also allows individuals to request that the court protect sensitive information before it is placed in the public record. This protection is particularly important given our increasing reliance on electronic filing, where information is immediately available to the public.

Second, my amendment provides important protection for social security numbers. Originally promised to be narrow in purpose and use, social security numbers are now the universal identifier with the key to unlock access to bank accounts and other highly sensitive areas. We must treat these numbers commensurate with their power, and ensure that they are only accessed in appropriate situations by authorized users. My amendment would allow debtors to limit disclosure to only the last four digits of his or her social security number in the notices that are filed with the court. The amendment still protects creditors where necessary, and specifies that creditors who are on the schedule of assets and liabilities should receive the full tax payer identification number in the notices sent specifically to the creditor.

This idea of truncation isn't new. Just last year, we passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, and that Act required truncation of credit card and debit card numbers on receipts given to cardholders.

As I stand here on the Senate floor, I look at the Presiding Officer, my neighbor from New Hampshire, and I see waiting to speak the other distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. We come from an area where we believe in privacy. We live in a country where we are giving up more and more of our privacy all the time. We have to be careful. We are giving it up not just in corporate areas but in government. Both conservatives and liberals ought to join hands on how much information we are willing to give up on ourselves and allow to go into databanks. An example is what happened with Bank of America, which is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. All of their records were lost. Good Lord, they send something off or ship it off by plane--not private, but they mail it to a location with backup files of all of their customers. I don't know. I suspect maybe their top executives fly by private jets. Maybe they don't understand that the three Senators on the floor right now fly commercially, and we know how often you get your bags lost or a suitcase lost. They just lost thousands upon thousands upon thousands of files on their customers. How would you like to be a Bank of America customer and wake up and find out they were so stupid and negligent that they lost all your information? They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

But I digress. I mentioned privacy. I have kept an article. It is the only thing I have ever framed that was written about me in one of our newspapers. To put this into context, you have to understand that we live on a dirt road in an old farmhouse. We have an adjoining farm family who kind of watches over the place when we are not there. The reporter in this article drives up on a Saturday with out-of-State license plates and asks the farmer sitting on the porch, ``Does Senator Leahy live up this road?''

The farmer said, ``Are you a relative of his?''

He said, ``No.''

``Are you a friend of his?''

He answered, ``Not really.''

``Is he expecting you?''

``No.''

``Never heard of him.''

That is the kind of privacy we like. These people in a cavalier way-- like Bank of America and all--are giving information away. We are finding more and more that our own Government is being lax with the information they have. Of course, the information can often be wrong. The third most senior Member of the Senate has been stopped half a dozen times getting on an airplane when going home--something he has been doing for decades--because he is on a terrorist list. He is one of the most recognizable people in America, and he cannot get off this list. You have to kind of ask, how much are we willing to give up and what does it do for us? Bank of America didn't do much of anything. These are some of the reforms included in the bill. I hope we will all look at this carefully and work together closely.

Requiring truncation of social security numbers is similarly reasonable. It provides protection against abuse, but still allows for important information sharing to take place.

These are just some of the reforms that should be included in this bill. I hope that all Senators will give fair and thoughtful consideration to amendments proposed on either side of the aisle. When the Senate works productively and constructively, we can

improve legislation on a bipartisan basis. I have worked with Senator Grassley and others to make bipartisan improvements in the past and I hope that we can do that again on this bankruptcy reform legislation.

In particular, I urge my colleagues to give full consideration to an amendment Senator Schumer will offer to make sure debts incurred through violence and other illegal acts at health clinics may not be discharged in bankruptcy. Senator Schumer has been the leader on ending this bankruptcy abuse and I have always been proud to support his efforts. Any fair bankruptcy reform measure should end abusive bankruptcy filings used to avoid the legal consequences of violence, vandalism and obstruction to deny access to legal health services.

As we move forward with reforms that are appropriate to eliminate abuses in the system, we need to remember the people who use the system, both the debtor and the creditor. We need to balance the interests of creditors with those of the poor and middle class who need the opportunity to resolve overwhelming financial burdens.

These are important subjects that have a real impact on the lives of many people who have already suffered from illnesses or divorce or job loss. We should utilize the expertise of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Senate passes balanced legislation.

I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Grassley, Senator Specter and the rest of my colleagues to make more bipartisan improvements on the Senate floor to enact balanced bankruptcy reform legislation into law.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, the Anti- Phishing Act of 2005, which targets a serious threat to the security of the Internet.

Phishing is a rapidly growing class of identity theft scams on the Internet that is causing both short-term losses and long-term economic damage. In the short-term, these scams defraud individuals and financial institutions. Estimated losses from phishing attacks are now in the billions of dollars, and those losses are growing. The short- term losses, however, are just a chapter in a larger story. In the long-term, phishing undermines the public's trust in the Internet. By making consumers uncertain about the integrity of the Internet's complex addressing system, phishing threatens to make us all less likely to use the Internet for secure transactions. If you can't trust where you are on the web, you are less likely to use it for commerce and communications.

Those well versed in popular culture may guess that phishing was named after the phenomenally popular Vermont band, Phish. But phishing over the Internet was in fact named from the sport of fishing, as an analogy for its technique of luring Internet prey with convincing email bait. The ``F'' is replaced by a ``P-H'' in keeping with a computer hacker tradition.

Phishing attacks usually start with emails that are, in Internet jargon, ``spoofed.'' That is, they are made to appear to be coming from some trusted financial institution or commercial entity. The spoofed email usually asks the victim to go to a website to confirm or renew private account information. These emails offer a link that appears to take the victim to the website of the trusted institution. In fact the link takes the victim to a phony website that is visually identical to that of the trusted institution, but is in fact run by the criminal. When the victim takes the bait and sends their account information, the criminal uses it--sometimes within minutes--to transfer the victim's funds or to make purchases. Phishers are the new con artists of cyberspace.

Phishing is on the rise. The Anti-Phishing Working Group reports that the number of new phishing messages climbed at a monthly rate of 38 percent in the last six months of 2004. The number of new phishing websites has climbed 24 percent per month since last August. And phishing attacks are increasingly sophisticated. Early phishing attacks were by novices, but there is now evidence that some attacks are backed by organized crime. Some of the attacks these days also include spyware, a type of software that is secretly installed on the victim's computer to surreptitiously capture account information when the victim visits legitimate websites.

In addition, the Internet faces the threat of ``pharming.'' This insidious crime does not rely on email bait. Rather, it attacks web browsers and the Internet's addressing system. The effect is that even individuals who type a desired Internet destination into their web browser may be redirected to a phony web site, with the same disastrous result as clicking on the phony link in a phishing attack.

Some phishers and pharmers can be prosecuted under wire fraud or identity theft statutes, but often these prosecutions take place only after someone has been defrauded. For most of these criminals, that leaves plenty of time to cover their tracks. It has been reported that the average phishing website is active on the Internet for less than six days. Moreover, the mere threat of these attacks undermines everyone's confidence in the Internet. When people cannot trust that websites are what they appear to be, they will not use the Internet for their secure transactions. Traditional wire fraud and identity theft statutes are not sufficient to respond to phishing and pharming.

The Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 protects the integrity of the Internet in two ways. First, it criminalizes the bait. It makes it illegal to knowingly send out spoofed email that links to sham websites with the intention of committing a crime. Second, it criminalizes the sham websites that are the true scene of both types of crime.

There are, of course, important First Amendment concerns to be protected. The Anti-Phishing Act protects parodies and political speech from being prosecuted as Phishing. We have worked closely with various public interest organizations to ensure that the Anti-Phishing Act does not impinge on the important democratic role that the Internet plays.

To many Americans, phishing and pharming are new words. They are certainly a new form of an old crime. They are also very serious, and we need to act aggressively to keep them from eroding the public's trust in online commerce and communication. I look forward to working with others in the Senate in addressing this growing threat to the Internet with effective and responsible action.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, the Anti- Phishing Act of 2005, which targets a serious threat to the security of the Internet.

Phishing is a rapidly growing class of identity theft scams on the Internet that is causing both short-term losses and long-term economic damage. In the short-term, these scams defraud individuals and financial institutions. Estimated losses from phishing attacks are now in the billions of dollars, and those losses are growing. The short- term losses, however, are just a chapter in a larger story. In the long-term, phishing undermines the public's trust in the Internet. By making consumers uncertain about the integrity of the Internet's complex addressing system, phishing threatens to make us all less likely to use the Internet for secure transactions. If you can't trust where you are on the web, you are less likely to use it for commerce and communications.

Those well versed in popular culture may guess that phishing was named after the phenomenally popular Vermont band, Phish. But phishing over the Internet was in fact named from the sport of fishing, as an analogy for its technique of luring Internet prey with convincing email bait. The ``F'' is replaced by a ``P-H'' in keeping with a computer hacker tradition.

Phishing attacks usually start with emails that are, in Internet jargon, ``spoofed.'' That is, they are made to appear to be coming from some trusted financial institution or commercial entity. The spoofed email usually asks the victim to go to a website to confirm or renew private account information. These emails offer a link that appears to take the victim to the website of the trusted institution. In fact the link takes the victim to a phony website that is visually identical to that of the trusted institution, but is in fact run by the criminal. When the victim takes the bait and sends their account information, the criminal uses it--sometimes within minutes--to transfer the victim's funds or to make purchases. Phishers are the new con artists of cyberspace.

Phishing is on the rise. The Anti-Phishing Working Group reports that the number of new phishing messages climbed at a monthly rate of 38 percent in the last six months of 2004. The number of new phishing websites has climbed 24 percent per month since last August. And phishing attacks are increasingly sophisticated. Early phishing attacks were by novices, but there is now evidence that some attacks are backed by organized crime. Some of the attacks these days also include spyware, a type of software that is secretly installed on the victim's computer to surreptitiously capture account information when the victim visits legitimate websites.

In addition, the Internet faces the threat of ``pharming.'' This insidious crime does not rely on email bait. Rather, it attacks web browsers and the Internet's addressing system. The effect is that even individuals who type a desired Internet destination into their web browser may be redirected to a phony web site, with the same disastrous result as clicking on the phony link in a phishing attack.

Some phishers and pharmers can be prosecuted under wire fraud or identity theft statutes, but often these prosecutions take place only after someone has been defrauded. For most of these criminals, that leaves plenty of time to cover their tracks. It has been reported that the average phishing website is active on the Internet for less than six days. Moreover, the mere threat of these attacks undermines everyone's confidence in the Internet. When people cannot trust that websites are what they appear to be, they will not use the Internet for their secure transactions. Traditional wire fraud and identity theft statutes are not sufficient to respond to phishing and pharming.

The Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 protects the integrity of the Internet in two ways. First, it criminalizes the bait. It makes it illegal to knowingly send out spoofed email that links to sham websites with the intention of committing a crime. Second, it criminalizes the sham websites that are the true scene of both types of crime.

There are, of course, important First Amendment concerns to be protected. The Anti-Phishing Act protects parodies and political speech from being prosecuted as Phishing. We have worked closely with various public interest organizations to ensure that the Anti-Phishing Act does not impinge on the important democratic role that the Internet plays.

To many Americans, phishing and pharming are new words. They are certainly a new form of an old crime. They are also very serious, and we need to act aggressively to keep them from eroding the public's trust in online commerce and communication. I look forward to working with others in the Senate in addressing this growing threat to the Internet with effective and responsible action.

Mr. President, I ask, on behalf of Senator Baucus, unanimous consent that Brian Townsend, a detailee from the IRS, be permitted privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 256, including all votes.

Mr. President, at the end of last year, Marcelle and I attended an event at Georgetown University where Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was awarded a honorary degree.

Everyone present at this ceremony was captured by the remarks that the archbishop gave in accepting the degree. He artfully wove us through three ``stories'' to demonstrate the importance of a Catholic university in the Jesuit tradition.

So that all of my colleagues have an opportunity to review the remarks of Cardinal McCarrick, and because of the admiration I have for him, I ask that his acceptance speech at the award of his honorary degree from Georgetown University be printed in the Record.

The material follows:

Remarks by Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, D.D., Ph.D., Archbishop of

Washington, on the Occasion of His Receiving a Honorary Degree,

Georgetown University, December 1, 2004

As Father Brian [McDermott] was reading those wonderful

words and as the president repeated them, I thought of the

wonderful Jewish expression, ``From your mouth to God's

ears.'' I just hope the Lord doesn't get mad that you said

all those nice things about me. Dr. President, Dr. Villani,

Chairman of the Board, members of the board, Your Excellency,

The Apostolic Nuncio [Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo] and my

brother bishops, my--I guess I should say my Georgetown

family now--and I say that with great joy.

I want to begin by telling you sincerely how honored I am

in receiving this degree from Georgetown. I've long regarded

this institution as one of the finest educational

institutions in the United States. During my four years in

Washington, I've always felt part of it in a very special

way. To receive its degree now is a very special joy for me,

and I want you all to know how much I do appreciate it.

I have tremendous respect for your president, Dr. DeGioia.

I was privileged to be present at his inauguration, and to

prophesy at that time that he would lead this institution to

greater heights of excellence and to a continuing growth in

the realization of its mission as a Catholic university in

the Jesuit tradition. My prophecy is coming true every day.

My respect for the Society of Jesus goes back to my early

years of high school when I admired the Jesuits so much that

I found myself going to two of their high schools, not at the

same time, but one after the other until I finally got it

right and received my diploma. My own education in high

school and college has been much enhanced by the excellence

of the ratio studiorum and by its challenges. It has been an

education for which I am so very grateful, and through which

I have been so very blessed. As a matter of fact, since the

rector of Georgetown is my personal theologian, I'm still

learning from the Society and appreciating that wisdom and

insight so very much.

My relationship to Georgetown, as I began to intermit a

moment ago, is not of a visitor in a Catholic institution.

The local bishop is always part of any enterprise which is

related to the Church. A university such as ours is clearly

one of the great boasts and glories of our Catholic community

here in Washington. I have been here many times during the

last four years. I've enjoyed that privilege. I've been here

for academic celebrations, for lectures, for interfaith

moments of prayer, at times of national crisis, for meetings

with students, and often for Mass in your chapels. In the

beginning, I was happy to be welcomed by all of you at the

University. Now I no longer see myself just as a welcomed

visitor, but as part of the family. It is therefore always

a joy when I hear someone say instead of ``Welcome to the

University,'' ``It's nice to have you back.''

Georgetown University, in its stated mission, sees itself

truly and essentially as a Catholic institution in the Jesuit

tradition. That fact opens its life to many wonderful

challenges and many great opportunities. It is a place where

Catholic scholars may freely exercise a faithful witness to

what the Church teaches. It is a place where non-Catholic

scholars and professors, who add so much to the life of this

institution, can pursue their own fields of study with the

assurance that truth is the master here, and that its pursuit

is always welcome. Their understanding of the mission of this

institution adds so much to society's understanding of what

Georgetown is all about. I pray that those who are not

Catholic, both in the faculty and the student body, will

always find inspiration an example from the Catholics who

teach here, both cleric and lay, as well as a deeper

understanding of what we're all about, and what our mission

is--not just in the Church but in society and in the world at

large.

The preparation of Catholic leaders for the future of our

nation is a noble role. The preparation of those who are not

Catholic in their own burgeoning opportunity to play roles of

leadership in our country, has an equal importance because it

enables the leaders of tomorrow to learn about us, about the

Church, and to appreciate our own Catholic mission in this

complex society. This has always been one of the great roles

of the Society of Jesus, and I pray it will continue always

to be so here at Georgetown. May those of the immediate

family always be challenged to holiness, and those of the

wider family allowed to see what our life in the Lord and in

His church is all about. In the religious life of the

students and faculty at Georgetown, may there always be this

quest for holiness since this has to be the role within any

Catholic institution. The example of the Jesuits, according

to the rule of the great Ignatius, must always be a

challenge, not just to holiness of life, but to priests in

religious vocations both for the Society and for the Diocesan

in priesthood, and for religious life as well. I always

rejoice

in a special way to find graduates of Georgetown hearing the

Lord's call to service in priestly and religious ministry.

This, too, is a measure of our Catholic life and of our deep

Jesuit tradition.

I want to speak briefly tonight about the global importance

or the international aspect of a Catholic university in the

Jesuit tradition. Basically, there are three points I want to

make. First is that the mark of every great university is

caring. The mark of every great Catholic university is

wonder. The mark of every great Catholic university in the

Jesuit tradition is adventure.

The first, caring, demands that there be a background of

authentic humanism in the very nature and mission of every

university, a sense of caring. A great university such as

Georgetown is called to manifest this in a world that tends

so much to be mechanistic and ideological. Secondly, the role

of a Catholic university demands a sense of wonder, of

mystery, and appreciation that everything in this world is

not able to be subjected to positivistic criteria. We believe

that there is a reality beyond the mere material that calls

for recognition of the spiritual, the wonderful. And finally,

the Jesuit tradition of this institution calls for it to be

adventurous, innovative, inventive in the deepest sense. I

believe the young people of today would say with great

solemnity, the ability to think outside the box.

I would like briefly to develop these three points by three

stories. They are stories which have made a difference in my

life. They are perhaps three stories that have been my

instruction in where I am today. The first, the one which we

can call the humanistic, the caring, takes place in Africa,

and challenges us to understand the deep relationship which

each of us has with every other human being on the planet,

reminding us that we are all brothers and sisters in God's

one human family. The second which takes place in Asia, and

which is the only one that I relate second hand, is a story

that reminds us of the need for wonder in every Catholic

life. And finally, the story of an extraordinary Catholic

educator, who is a Jesuit, a story from Eastern Europe,

will bring us out of the box. Let me tell you these three

stories.

Years ago when I was a young bishop, I was sent on a

mission to the Sudan for Catholic Relief Services. I tell

this story because I think it is a big moment in my own life

and has made a change. I see in my growth what may affect the

university and its life. I was fascinated by the Sudan. I had

never been in that part of Africa. I met priests. I met

bishops. I met Muslim leaders. I met the poor. One day, one

of the priests said, ``If you have half a day, we'll go

across the Nile and go beyond Umderman.'' (Umderman, if you

used to go to the old movies is where Kitchener had that

great battle and Lord Gordon was killed.) So I said,

``Sure.'' We went across the Nile, which itself is a great

experience, got to the other side and said, ``What are we

going to see?'' He said, ``No, we're not going to stop

here.'' We went about 25 more miles west into the desert.

There, after the city of Umderman had long since passed, we

saw a huge city of tents. We went in to see some of the

families, and translated, I heard several things.

We're all members of God's one human family, but I never

saw it more clearly than there. These were the people,

probably some from Dafur, but this is 20 years ago, who when

the drought came and there was no water, could not do any

farming, could not take care of their flock. So they gathered

up their families and went toward the river, the Nile, where

water will always be. Now they couldn't get to the Nile. They

had to stop 25 miles away because they were not allowed to go

there. They would have overwhelmed, so the government said,

the facilities. And so they stayed there, and every day they

paid some entrepreneurs who drove little trucks to the Nile,

filled them up with water, and then came back. Of course,

they didn't come back for free. And gradually, these people

paid all the money that they had with them until it was gone.

And after the money was gone, they began to sell their

furniture. And after their furniture was gone, they began to

sell their animals. And after their animals were gone, they

began to sell their children.

Listening to the families, for whom the sacrifice of an

older child had to be made so that younger children could

survive, it is a story that is engrained in my heart because

I think that it showed me that all life has to have caring in

it. All life has to have a sense of who we are as God's

people. A university has to have that, any university,

because if we are training people without understanding that

we are all related, that we're all one family, then we are

training them for a world that does not exist. That's the

first lesson. A university must be involved in caring and in

showing people how to care. I think Georgetown is.

The second story happened in East Timor. I had gone to East

Timor for some other reason, and it was maybe three months

after the elections, and two months or one month after the

whole country had been in a state of terrible turmoil, and

those who did not want East Timor to be free began to kill

all the leaders. Anyone who taught in school, anyone who had

a good job, anyone who had any kind of an education was a

target for these militias.

The Catholic Church had been very important to these

people. Eighty-five percent of the people had been Catholic,

surprisingly, in one of these small islands of Indonesia. A

great bishop, Bishop Belo, who won the Nobel Prize, was

guarding the flock and taking care of them all. One day I

went to visit him. I went to visit him in the charred ruins

of his house, and then they told me the story.

About a week before, there had been marauding bands, always

armed and always dangerous and violent. The people began to

become afraid. The bishop's house was a place with a large

lawn. The people came into the lawn trying to seek protection

from him who was a leader and from being together. Maybe

1,000 people were gathered there in the lawn, and the bishop

came out and began to talk to them. While they were there,

suddenly a band of militia came in with their guns, pushing

the people aside, pushing the bishop aside. We heard all

kinds of different things that may have been said, but

ultimately they lit a fire and threw it in the bishop's

house. The bishop went to try to save it, but he was held

back. The people were awed, and scared, and afraid to do

anything. While the bishop was watching the destruction of

his house, and while the people in desperate fear were

just standing around, a young man came out of the crowd.

It was dark except for the flames. He went to the bishop,

tried to move him away from the flames. A soldier came up,

pushed the young man away, and stuck his gun in the

bishop's back, and got ready to pull the trigger. There

was a hush, and almost a scream at the same time among the

people. The young man came back and gently pushed the

bishop forward and stood behind him, between the gun and

the bishop and did not move. The man with the gun didn't

know what to do, and there was silence. Where did this

fellow come from, this young man? Nobody knew him. But

somehow he found courage that nobody else had. Somehow he

found an ability to, in a world full of violence and

anger, he found a sense of wonder and mystery. The man

with the gun became embarrassed because he didn't know

what to do. So, he hit the young man, pulled his gun back,

and walked back to the soldiers. The moment was enough to

break the tension, so the militia left. The bishop turned

around to thank the young man. He wasn't there anymore. He

had disappeared into the crowd.

I thought, there is a sense of wonder and mystery in your

life when people find courage to do things that one would

never expect, when people find the ability to stand up for

something that they believe, even if it threatens their life

or everything they have. A Catholic university has to prepare

people for that. A Catholic university has to somehow enhance

in every human being that sense of wonder, that sense of

mystery, that sense that you can do what you never thought

you could do. You can rise above yourself, and your spirit

can be enflamed, and enhanced by the needs that you see in

your brothers. A university that is truly Catholic, has to

pass that lesson along. I think Georgetown does.

The third and last story is a different kind of story. It's

a story of a Jesuit; an extraordinary Jesuit. In Slovakia, at

the time of the communist persecution, only a certain number

of priests were allowed to be ordained. To ordain outside

that number, the bishop would be thrown into prison and the

priest as well. There was a young Jesuit who had commissioned

to be a priest called Jan Chryzostom Korec. Korec was

ordained at maybe 26 years-old, and began to serve as a

priest. The Jesuit provincial of Slovakia who was living in

disguise and living underground as so many were, came to see

him one day. He said, ``Father Korec, Bishop Hnilica--who was

an underground bishop--has permission to consecrate you a

bishop. And we feel that you should accept.'' Well, this is a

man now 27 years old, but unless somebody accepted this

burden, the Church could disappear. So ultimately he said,

``Yes, I will do whatever you think is right.'' So, in the

kitchen of a friend the next night, he was consecrated a

bishop. Then he once again disappeared and continued to work

as a priest.

About six months later, the provincial came to him again

and said, ``Korec, we have a man now who is ready to be

ordained a priest, a man of the Society. Will you ordain

him?'' He said, ``Okay.'' and he ordained the young man in a

park at twilight. Unfortunately, the young man was not as

careful as he should have been, and the authorities found out

that he was a priest. They brought him in and they began to

put him under all kinds of tortures and difficulties.

Finally, he said, ``I was ordained a priest quietly,

secretly.'' And they said, ``Who did it?'' After more

torture, he said, ``Korec.'' So they went and called Korec

in, and they said, ``Are you a bishop?'' Without going into

any kind of Jesuitical subtleties, he said, ``Me, a bishop,

that's the silliest thing I've ever heard!'' He kept saying

that and they let him go. He didn't look like a bishop. Well,

six months later, the provincial came back and he said, ``We

have another man. Will you ordain him?'' Korec ordained him

in somebody's living room. And this man, too, unfortunately,

after some months was caught, brought in, tortured, revealed

Korec, and so then they had him. They sent him away to prison

in solitary confinement. He was there 18 years. And then

finally in the Prague spring, they allowed him to come out

and to work. They gave him a job working in a chemical

factory, unpacking chemical things and spillage: a very

dangerous job. He did it quietly. Now he no longer had the

right to be a priest, so they gave him these other jobs.

He's an interesting man, and gradually people looked for

him. Gradually, he began quietly to be a priest again.

They weren't

sure of him, so the lamp in his one-room bedroom apartment

was wired. They listened to all of his conversations.

He has wonderful stories to tell about playing the radio so

loud that the neighbors complained, but at least he could

have conversations then. Gradually, he began to do things

that no one else has been able to do. When the iron curtain

fell, he was acknowledged as a bishop. He went down to see

the Holy Father. The Holy Father told him that he was to be

given given the Diocese of Nitra, which is the diocese of St.

Methodius, of the great Sts. Cyril and Methodisum, one of

those great wonderful sees.

About two years after that I was in Slovakia and I was

talking to one of the vice-presidents of the Slovak

parliament who was a Catholic. We were talking about those

tough days of the communist regime. And I said, ``How did you

ever get your education?'' He said, ``I went to the

university.'' I said, ``Which one?'' He said, ``I went to

Korec University.'' I said, ``What do you mean?'' He said,

``Every Saturday when we had off--because they had to work on

Sunday. Every Saturday which was our day off, we'd pack some

salami and some beer and go up into the hills and Father

Korec would come. All day long, we would sit, and he would

teach us about the Church, about Catholic Social Thought,

about philosophy, about theology.'' And this man said to me,

``I know more about these things than if I had gone to the

university for four years because we never missed a Saturday.

Dozens of us would go. He would write on pieces of paper what

we had to know, and he would make 50 copies all in his own

handwriting.'' I've seen them.

To be adventurous. To be inventive. Not to let the world

make it impossible for you to grow, and live, and enjoy.

Always to listen to that other voice that says you can do it:

find a way. I think that's the mark of a Jesuit tradition,

and I think we find it here at Georgetown.

I've kept you too long with these stories of mine, but I

feel that a story, like a picture, is worth a thousand words.

These stories, as I said at the beginning, have moved me,

maybe hopefully a little further in my understanding of what

education is. Maybe it will give us all an understanding of

what I mean when I say a great Catholic university in the

Jesuit tradition has to be.

Every university should teach its students and its faculty

and administration that we live in a world of brothers and

sisters, not as strangers and enemies, but that we all share

a common dignity, and that all lives are precious, everyone's

life. Secondly, to be truly Catholic, we must be open to

wonder, to mystery, the mysteries of our faith, the mysteries

of love, the mysteries even of science which will always be

searching for greater clarity. As Catholics, we must never be

afraid of mystery, of that wonder that causes us to do things

we never thought we could do. Our faith is built on mystery,

and to be truly wise, and truly educated, we must be men and

women who accept wonder as an essential element of our

existence. And finally, in the story of Cardinal Korec (who

ultimately became a cardinal), we are challenged to see what

a university can also be when circumstances and the

challenges of the world around us call us all to find in

different ways the great things that are essential for our

lives and vital for our growth and wisdom. I find these

things here at Georgetown. I pray that they always will be

here. I pray, too, that these elements of deep human concern

of wonder and adventure, may be even more developed, more

understood and embraced, under great leadership with great

men and women in a brilliant future which will always be part

mystery and even always part out of the box. Thank you very

much.

Mr. President, America's antitrust laws play a vital role in protecting consumers and ensuring a competitive marketplace for business. The vigorous enforcement of these laws also helps promote and maintain the efficiency of our markets by promoting competition, innovation, and technological development. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Kohl and Senator DeWine in introducing the Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, legislation that will provide the Department of Justice with long overdue authority in investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust violations.

Congress acted in 1890 with passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act to prohibit abusive monopolization and anticompetitive practices. Since that time, the Department of Justice's enforcement efforts have benefited consumers in terms of lower prices, greater variety, and higher quality of products and services. Despite the value and impact of criminal antitrust cases, however, criminal antitrust investigations do not currently qualify for judicially approved wiretaps. While the Justice Department may engage in court-authorized searches of business records, it may only monitor phone calls of informants or the conversations of consenting parties.

The Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005 will add criminal price fixing and bid rigging to the many crimes that are already ``predicate offenses'' for wiretap purposes. More than 150 ``predicate offenses'' are currently included in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, including crimes of lesser impact and significance than criminal antitrust violations. In light of the seriousness of economic harms caused by violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the inability of the Justice Department to obtain wiretaps when investigating criminal antitrust violations makes little sense. Moreover, the evidence that can be acquired through wiretaps is precisely the type of evidence that is essential for the successful prosecution and prevention of serious antitrust violations. This bill equips the Department of Justice investigators and prosecutors to enforce zealously the criminal antitrust laws of the United States.

Mr. President, America's antitrust laws play a vital role in protecting consumers and ensuring a competitive marketplace for business. The vigorous enforcement of these laws also helps promote and maintain the efficiency of our markets by promoting competition, innovation, and technological development. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Kohl and Senator DeWine in introducing the Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, legislation that will provide the Department of Justice with long overdue authority in investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust violations.

Congress acted in 1890 with passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act to prohibit abusive monopolization and anticompetitive practices. Since that time, the Department of Justice's enforcement efforts have benefited consumers in terms of lower prices, greater variety, and higher quality of products and services. Despite the value and impact of criminal antitrust cases, however, criminal antitrust investigations do not currently qualify for judicially approved wiretaps. While the Justice Department may engage in court-authorized searches of business records, it may only monitor phone calls of informants or the conversations of consenting parties.

The Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005 will add criminal price fixing and bid rigging to the many crimes that are already ``predicate offenses'' for wiretap purposes. More than 150 ``predicate offenses'' are currently included in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, including crimes of lesser impact and significance than criminal antitrust violations. In light of the seriousness of economic harms caused by violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the inability of the Justice Department to obtain wiretaps when investigating criminal antitrust violations makes little sense. Moreover, the evidence that can be acquired through wiretaps is precisely the type of evidence that is essential for the successful prosecution and prevention of serious antitrust violations. This bill equips the Department of Justice investigators and prosecutors to enforce zealously the criminal antitrust laws of the United States.

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

Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of this bill, and I am pleased to again work with Senator DeWine to help ensure that our government discloses what it knows about Nazi war criminals and their counterparts in the Japanese Imperial Government.

We passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act in 1998, and I had the opportunity to work on the bill in the Judiciary Committee. The act required U.S. Government agencies to disclose documents in its possession that related to Nazi war criminals and was later expanded to cover the Japanese Government. Congress took care to respect legitimate national security concerns, including exemptions to allow agencies to withhold documents under a variety of circumstances, provided they reported such withholding promptly to the relevant committees.

The act also established the Interagency Working Group, IWG, to study and report on the documents held by government agencies. Through no fault of its own, the IWG has not been able to complete its work, and the legislation before us today would extend its life for an additional 2 years.

President Clinton instructed agencies to comply fully and rapidly with the act. Most have done so. The Central Intelligence Agency, however, has until recently insisted on a cramped interpretation of the statute that did not accord with congressional intent. The CIA's approach if left unquestioned would have denied researchers and the American people a complete accounting of U.S. Government information about Nazi war criminals.

The plain reading of the act says that if the CIA, or any other agency, possesses documents relating to war criminals, all such documents must be disclosed unless a specific statutory exemption applies. I understand that the FBI, the Army, and other agencies covered by the law adopted that interpretation. The CIA, however, took the position that it must disclose only those documents directly relating to the individual's criminality.

In recent weeks, however, under the continued prodding of Senator DeWine and the public members of the IWG, the CIA has agreed to revise its interpretation of the law and provide the IWG with the additional documentation it has sought. Richard Ben-

Veniste, Elizabeth Holtzman, and Tom Baer, the public members, deserve our thanks for their persistent efforts to uncover the whole truth about the criminals of World War II that is contained in U.S. Government files.

In addition to providing additional information, the CIA must also comply with its obligation under the act to report to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Government Reform Committee whenever it invokes an exemption to avoid disclosing documents. Seven years after enactment, we have yet to receive any such report from the CIA, even as it declined to disclose a number of documents sought by the

Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a partner with the Senator from Texas in introducing the OPEN Government Act of 2005. I have devoted a considerable portion of my work in the Senate to improving Government oversight, Government openness and citizen ``right-to-know'' laws to make Government work better for the American people, and at times it has been a lonely battle. Finding dedicated allies on the other side of the aisle has proven difficult. That is why I am delighted to have a partner in John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn has a distinguished record of supporting open government dating back to his days as Attorney General of Texas. In fact,

some of the provisions in the bill we introduce today are modeled after sections of the Texas Public Information Act.

I believe that we both see this effort as the first of many bipartisan steps we can take together in the new Congress. Senator Cornyn and I began to forge a partnership on improving public access to Government information well over a year ago when, during the 108th Congress, we worked with several other Senators and with the Library of Congress to improve the publicly accessible congressional information website, THOMAS. He and I also cooperated last fall in a successful effort to ensure that ``government information,'' including the application of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, be subject to the jurisdiction of both the Judiciary Committee and the newly constituted Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The bill we introduce today is a collection of commonsense modifications designed to update FOIA and improve the timely processing of FOIA requests by Federal agencies. It was drafted after a long and thoughtful process of consultation with individuals and organizations that rely on FOIA to obtain information and share it with the public, including the news media, librarians, and public interest organizations representing all facets of the political spectrum.

The OPEN Government Act reaffirms the fundamental premise of FOIA: Government information belongs to all Americans and should be subject to a presumption in favor of disclosure. James Madison said that ``a popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or perhaps both.'' His caution rings just as true today. The public's right to know what its government is doing promotes accountability, imbues trust and contributes to our system of checks and balances.

First enacted in 1966, FOIA represents the foundation of our modern open Government laws. In 1996, I was the principal author of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, which updated FOIA for the internet age. The bill we introduce today is the next step: a practical set of important modifications that respond to common complaints and limitations in the current system that we have heard, whether from frequent FOIA requestors, such as representatives of the press, or individual citizens who may only occasionally rely on FOIA, but who nonetheless deserve timely and comprehensive responses to their requests.

Chief among the problems with FOIA implementation is agency delay. Following the successful model of the Texas Public Information Act, this legislation imposes penalties on agencies that miss statutory deadlines to release documents and strengthens reporting requirements on FOIA compliance.

The OPEN Government Act responds to some confusion over the applicability of FOIA to agency records that are held by outside private contractors. It does this by clarifying that such records are subject to FOIA wherever they are located.

Our legislation establishes an ombudsman to mediate FOIA disputes between agencies and requestors, a step that many FOIA requestors believe will help to ameliorate the need for FOIA litigation in the Federal courts. We hope that this mechanism will work to the benefit of all parties. However, where mediation fails to resolve disputes, our bill preserves the rights of requestors to litigate under FOIA.

Our bill responds to recent Federal jurisprudence by explicitly providing for recovery of attorneys' fees under the so-called ``catalyst theory.'' That is, where a FOIA lawsuit was the catalyst for an agency determination to release documents prior to a court's entry of judgment, the plaintiff may recover attorneys' fees.

Finally, the bill requires reports on a controversial law, the Critical Infrastructure Information Act, enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and it protects fee-waiver status for journalists under FOIA.

Letters of support for the OPEN Government Act have been submitted by the American Association of Law Libraries, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Associated Press Managing Editors, Association of Health Care Journalists, Center for Democracy & Technology, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, Committee of Concerned Journalists, Education Writers Association, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Federation of American Scientists/Project on Government Secrecy, Free Congress Foundation/Center for Privacy & Technology Policy, Freedom of Information Center/University of Missouri, The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, The Heritage Foundation/Center for Media and Public Policy, Information Trust, National Conference of Editorial Writers, National Freedom of Information Coalition, National Newspaper Association, National Security Archive/George Washington University, Newspaper Association of America, People for the American Way, Project on Government Oversight, Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Society of Environmental Journalists.

The Freedom of Information Act is an invigorating mechanism that helps keep our government more open and effective and closer to the American people. FOIA has had serious setbacks in recent years that endanger its effectiveness. This legislation is a rare chance to advance the public's right to know.

I thank my colleague, the Senator from Texas, for the time and effort he has devoted to protecting the public's right to know, and I urge all members of the Senate to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a partner with the Senator from Texas in introducing the OPEN Government Act of 2005. I have devoted a considerable portion of my work in the Senate to improving Government oversight, Government openness and citizen ``right-to-know'' laws to make Government work better for the American people, and at times it has been a lonely battle. Finding dedicated allies on the other side of the aisle has proven difficult. That is why I am delighted to have a partner in John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn has a distinguished record of supporting open government dating back to his days as Attorney General of Texas. In fact,

some of the provisions in the bill we introduce today are modeled after sections of the Texas Public Information Act.

I believe that we both see this effort as the first of many bipartisan steps we can take together in the new Congress. Senator Cornyn and I began to forge a partnership on improving public access to Government information well over a year ago when, during the 108th Congress, we worked with several other Senators and with the Library of Congress to improve the publicly accessible congressional information website, THOMAS. He and I also cooperated last fall in a successful effort to ensure that ``government information,'' including the application of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, be subject to the jurisdiction of both the Judiciary Committee and the newly constituted Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The bill we introduce today is a collection of commonsense modifications designed to update FOIA and improve the timely processing of FOIA requests by Federal agencies. It was drafted after a long and thoughtful process of consultation with individuals and organizations that rely on FOIA to obtain information and share it with the public, including the news media, librarians, and public interest organizations representing all facets of the political spectrum.

The OPEN Government Act reaffirms the fundamental premise of FOIA: Government information belongs to all Americans and should be subject to a presumption in favor of disclosure. James Madison said that ``a popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or perhaps both.'' His caution rings just as true today. The public's right to know what its government is doing promotes accountability, imbues trust and contributes to our system of checks and balances.

First enacted in 1966, FOIA represents the foundation of our modern open Government laws. In 1996, I was the principal author of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, which updated FOIA for the internet age. The bill we introduce today is the next step: a practical set of important modifications that respond to common complaints and limitations in the current system that we have heard, whether from frequent FOIA requestors, such as representatives of the press, or individual citizens who may only occasionally rely on FOIA, but who nonetheless deserve timely and comprehensive responses to their requests.

Chief among the problems with FOIA implementation is agency delay. Following the successful model of the Texas Public Information Act, this legislation imposes penalties on agencies that miss statutory deadlines to release documents and strengthens reporting requirements on FOIA compliance.

The OPEN Government Act responds to some confusion over the applicability of FOIA to agency records that are held by outside private contractors. It does this by clarifying that such records are subject to FOIA wherever they are located.

Our legislation establishes an ombudsman to mediate FOIA disputes between agencies and requestors, a step that many FOIA requestors believe will help to ameliorate the need for FOIA litigation in the Federal courts. We hope that this mechanism will work to the benefit of all parties. However, where mediation fails to resolve disputes, our bill preserves the rights of requestors to litigate under FOIA.

Our bill responds to recent Federal jurisprudence by explicitly providing for recovery of attorneys' fees under the so-called ``catalyst theory.'' That is, where a FOIA lawsuit was the catalyst for an agency determination to release documents prior to a court's entry of judgment, the plaintiff may recover attorneys' fees.

Finally, the bill requires reports on a controversial law, the Critical Infrastructure Information Act, enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and it protects fee-waiver status for journalists under FOIA.

Letters of support for the OPEN Government Act have been submitted by the American Association of Law Libraries, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Associated Press Managing Editors, Association of Health Care Journalists, Center for Democracy & Technology, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, Committee of Concerned Journalists, Education Writers Association, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Federation of American Scientists/Project on Government Secrecy, Free Congress Foundation/Center for Privacy & Technology Policy, Freedom of Information Center/University of Missouri, The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, The Heritage Foundation/Center for Media and Public Policy, Information Trust, National Conference of Editorial Writers, National Freedom of Information Coalition, National Newspaper Association, National Security Archive/George Washington University, Newspaper Association of America, People for the American Way, Project on Government Oversight, Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Society of Environmental Journalists.

The Freedom of Information Act is an invigorating mechanism that helps keep our government more open and effective and closer to the American people. FOIA has had serious setbacks in recent years that endanger its effectiveness. This legislation is a rare chance to advance the public's right to know.

I thank my colleague, the Senator from Texas, for the time and effort he has devoted to protecting the public's right to know, and I urge all members of the Senate to join us in supporting this important legislation.