Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield for a question without losing his right to the floor, I ask the Senator from Maryland, if the bill was passed in its current form, could investment banks that advised or underwrote securities for companies such as Enron or WorldCom that filed bankruptcy, which ended up defrauding investors, could they then be hired to represent the interests of the same defrauded creditors during the bankruptcy proceeding? The way the bill is now written, without our amendment, could they then be hired to represent the interests of the defrauded creditors?

Mr. LEAHY. This is not the time to weaken conflict-of-interest standards. If we are doing anything, we ought to be strengthening conflict-of-interest standards. The provisions Senators Sarbanes and Warner and I seek to modify are fundamentally at odds with the work of the Congress and the SEC, fundamentally at odds with the work to restore public confidence in financial and corporate transactions. I thank them for offering this with me. All we want to do is to make sure we increase the confidence and accountability in our public markets for millions of Americans whose economic security is threatened by corporate greed and not have the Senate put an imprimatur on the use of people with enormous conflicts of interest, especially when consumers are hurting so badly. I see the senior Senator from Maryland. He is far more familiar with how these things have worked in these major corporations. He is the author of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. I yield the floor to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am joined by friends and colleagues, the senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, and the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, in offering a bipartisan amendment that will moderately preserve the current conflict-of-interest standards for investment banks. We are doing this to safeguard the integrity of the bankruptcy process. Section 414 of the underlying bill would severely weaken the disinterested persons rule. That was an important conflict-of-interest standard. It has actually been part of the Bankruptcy Code since 1938. It has been there before I was born. We believe that the standard embodied in current law is critical to protecting the interests of investors and the public. So our bipartisan amendment is a modest compromise. It limits the conflict-of-interest prohibition, not a total exclusion but just 5 years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. In other words, a prohibition which has been the bankruptcy law forever would now be cut back just to apply in the 5 years immediately preceding the bankruptcy. I think it is a reasonable compromise. The current disinterested persons standards are intended to ensure that professionals who advise a company in bankruptcy have no conflicts of interest, are neutral, and when we consider how huge some of these bankruptcy have been, Enron and others, we want somebody without a conflict of interest; we want somebody who can be neutral. Since bankruptcy proceedings involve reexamining prior transactions, an investment bank that underwrote those prior transactions could not be expected to act as a neutral, disinterested party. It is almost like saying, I wrote these transactions when you went into this multimillion or multibillion-dollar bankruptcy but do not worry, I will now be the disinterested party to advise you where we go now. I think the reason we have the current standard, the reason it has worked well for nearly 7 decades, is because it has helped maintain public confidence in the bankruptcy system. Section 414 of the bill before us eliminates the current conflict-of- interest standard. It is a standard that prohibits investment banks that have had a close financial relationship with the debtor from playing a major role in the bankruptcy process. I have talked to a lot of people who are far more knowledgeable on this than I, and they tell me you cannot expect that an investment bank that served as an underwriter of a bankrupt company's securities would then provide an independent assessment of that underwriting as an adviser in the bankruptcy of the company. In other words, you want to find somebody who can give you an independent, neutral assessment in bankruptcy of the underwriting. You don't go to the person who did the underwriting. Of course, they are going to say: Great job. Man, that person did a great job, whoever it was--oh, that was me? Boy, I did a great job. The investors, especially in these huge bankruptcies, the pensioners who have suffered financial damage through the bankruptcy, deserve neutrality. They don't deserve somebody where it looks as if it is such a cozy deal there is no way they are going to recover. If the bill is passed in its current form, the investment banks that advised or underwrote securities for companies such as Enron or WorldCom prior to bankruptcy, having advised or underwritten those securities, could then be hired to represent the interests of the defrauded creditors during the bankruptcy proceeding. Just think of this. The people who were involved in putting the creditors and the investors and the people whose pension money was in there, the people who were involved putting all their money at risk, can now be hired to represent their interest. There is a blatant conflict of interest and that is why it has been forbidden for seven decades. Firms that had a part in those companies could then end up staying on the payroll in bankruptcy and they could make huge profits, sometimes from their own fraud. What kind of message are we sending to those everyday Americans who invested for their kids' college or their own pensions, who suffered as a result of corporate misdeeds, if we then say that is OK, now we are going to give a whole lot of money to the people who set this mistake up in the first place? We talked to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. They strongly recommended that Congress keep the current conflict-of-interest standards in place. Actually, in their report they concluded: Strict disinterestedness standards are necessary because of the unique pressures inherent in the bankruptcy process. These are the people who understand this better than anybody in this Chamber. Supporters of the underlying bill have voiced their opposition to the inclusion of section 414. I wish they would listen to what a member of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, Judge Edith Jones. She is a member of the commission. She asked us to remove section 414. She said: If professionals who have previously been associated with the debtor continue to work for the debtor during a bankruptcy case, they will often be subject to conflicting loyalties that undermine their foremost fiduciary duty to the creditors. . . . Section 414, in removing investment bankers from a rigorous standard of disinterestedness, is out of character with the rest of this important legislation and . . . it should be eliminated. Again, if you have a bankruptcy of a WorldCom, an Enron, something like that, and you have all these people with the pension money in it, the kids' college funds in there, their business in there, their own retirement in there, you cannot then turn around and say we are going to let the same people decide what happens to you in bankruptcy as the people who did the things that put us into bankruptcy in the first place. William Donaldson is the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He wrote to us to express the opposition of the SEC to section 414 of the bill. He said: [We] believe that it would be a mistake to eliminate the exclusion in a similar one-size-fits-all manner at a time when investor confidence is fragile. Keep that in mind. It does something further. Not only do we end up hurting the people who have to rely on the bankruptcy court being honestly run, but he also wants to keep up investor confidence. He was joined in that position by his predecessor Arthur Levitt, and by a number of nationally renowned experts. National consumer organizations have written to us to warn of the danger of weakening conflict-of- interest controls, as this bill would allow: If the participants in Enron's earlier financial dealings had managed the investigation, it is quite legitimate to wonder how many of these financial misdeeds would have come to light in the first place. Without existing conflict-of- interest prohibitions in place, it is possible that some of the same firms that have come under investigation by the SEC for illegal activities in the current corporate scandals might very well have been allowed to serve as ``objective'' advisers in this and other bankruptcy proceedings. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, Consumer Action, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and the National Consumer Law Center be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 83.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my amendment, cosponsored by my friend and colleague, Senator Cantwell, would greatly assist the many victims of domestic violence whose physical well-being or whose children's physical well-being would be threatened by summary eviction as a result of filing or bankruptcy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our amendment be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. Congress must recognize that victims of domestic violence face dangerous situations and should not be forced from housing due to their financial difficulties. We cannot force women and children who have endured domestic violence from safe spaces that provide the stability needed to make a new life. Exhibit 1 (Purpose: To protect victims of domestic violence who file for bankruptcy from summary eviction if their physical well-being is threatened) On page 156, line 18, insert ``, unless the debtor certifies under penalty of perjury that the debtor is a victim of domestic violence whose physical well-being or whose children's physical well-being would be threatened if relief from the stay is granted'' before the semicolon. regulating credit cards

Mr. LEAHY. The connection between domestic violence, economic abuse, and housing is overwhelming. Women and children who are fleeing domestic violence make up a significant portion of the homeless population. According to the United States Conference of Mayors, 57 percent of cities surveyed identified domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness. These women and children are homeless because in their desperate attempt to leave their abusers they find themselves with few, if any, funds with which they can support themselves. Victims of domestic violence have a tough time finding room at emergency homeless or domestic violence shelters, and often fail to find adequate housing because affordable, long-term housing is not available in so many communities. If housing is available there are often long waiting lists. Victims face unique causes of their financial hardships due to the fact that batterers frequently harass their victims at work, and survivors are often fired or cannot maintain steady employment resulting in losing the ability to pay for housing. Faced with the lack of stable housing, finances and services, victims must choose between life with an abusive partner and life on the streets. Our amendment would provide leniency for women and children who are affected by domestic violence and would, in fact, help victims to move forward and start new lives. Without the threat of losing their housing, women and children who are survivors of domestic violence will not be forced to a situation where they are homeless or returning to their abuser. This amendment would modify the bankruptcy code to ensure better protection for victims of domestic violence by granting them relief from summary eviction from their rental housing. Relief may be granted only under the condition that the debtors certify under penalty of perjury that they are victims of domestic violence whose physical well- being or whose children's physical well-being would be threatened through eviction. our amendment would not allow families to take advantage of the system, but it will be a life-saver for those who would face danger if they lost their homes. This amendment is supported by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network To End Domestic Violent and the Family Violence Prevention Fund. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters from those groups voicing that support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue which, while not one that you would likely read about on the front page of the newspapers, is important nonetheless. It concerns the alarming rate of deterioration of the habitat of the Irrawaddy Dolphin in Southeast Asia. Recent statistics indicate that there are fewer than 100 Irrawaddy left in the world. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has placed the Irrawaddy Dolphin on its list of critically endangered species. The primary reasons for this sharp decline include destructive fishing practices, such as the use of dynamite or electric current, and mercury runoff from gold mines. These practices are leading to the extinction of an entire species. Why should we care? Perhaps a quote from President John Kennedy provides the best answers to this question. In a 1963 address at American University, President Kennedy said ``. . . in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal.'' I know every Member of the Senate wants to make the world a better place for our children and grandchildren. I am almost as certain that ensuring the survival of the Irrawaddy dolphin, an extraordinary species, would be something that we could do to help achieve this goal. Congress has spoken on this issue. In the Senate report that accompanied last year's Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, Congress directed the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, to devise a strategy to help reverse the habitat decline of the Irrawaddy dolphin. Some important nongovernmental organizations are already working on this issue, including the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Bronx Zoo in their Species Survival Program partnership. I hope USAID's strategy, which is due shortly, will be a first step in forming a public-private partnership that will prevent the Irrawaddy dolphin from going the way of the dodo and the passenger pigeon. Once a species is gone, it is gone forever. We need to be sure this does not happen.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I, again, join in the introduction of our NOPEC bill. I am sincerely sorry that this bill has not yet become law, and I hope that the situation we face as a nation will lead the Senate to recognize the toll that the OPEC producers are exacting from the American people. As gasoline prices continue to skyrocket, exceeding $2 a gallon in many communities, we must have a real correction. As heating oil prices have soared, the President needs to take notice. Without correction and containment, consumers across the nation will continue to suffer. The relentless increases in gasoline prices are not the result of natural supply issues. Rather, they are largely due to market manipulation by OPEC, a cartel of those controlling production and supply of oil from the Middle East. When the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary held its hearing on gas prices last year, experts from several fields, both in and out of government, confirmed for us what we already suspected: The higher prices are due to the OPEC cartel that sets production quotas for it members and prevents the free market from setting crude oil prices. The testimony at that hearing revealed that most of the gasoline price increase can be explained by OPEC's unfair production quotas. The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, not the least of whom are hardworking Vermont farmers. As USDA's Cooperative Extension Office in New Hampshire recently found, the increasing energy costs may add $5,000 or more to the total costs of operating a 100-head dairy operation in the Northeast. In addition, soaring prices have affected a variety of industries across the United States, and will likely force many Americans to make tough choices about family travel. Over the last year, I have expressed concern that gasoline prices would simply continue to rise. I have hardly been alone in that belief, and I am sorry to say that my prediction has borne fruit. Sadly, that fruit is bitter for those forced to pay ever higher prices to go about their daily lives. This week, the average price for regular gasoline reached $2.00 per gallon. Our economy, our farmers, and our families need relief now. They also need good policy. In the absence of White House leadership, Congress should provide law enforcement the tools needed to fight anticompetitive practices. If OPEC were simply a foreign business engaged in this type of behavior, it would already be subject to American antitrust law. It is wrong to let OPEC producers off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of the member nations. I urge the Senate to support this bill and to say ``No'' to OPEC.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the recent debacles at ChoicePoint and Bank of America remind us that we must vigilantly protect our personal information at all points of vulnerability. The bankruptcy process, which inherently involves the exchange of highly personal information, should be no different. This is a bipartisan amendment that balances the need to protect personal information with the needs of creditors, regulators and law enforcement to access critical information. The amendment is strongly supported by the non-partisan Judicial Conference, and also by the Center for Democracy and Technology. I am pleased that my colleagues Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell have agreed to cosponsor this amendment, and that Chairman Specter and Senator Grassley worked so closely with us to improve the amendment even further. They have all been leaders on privacy issues, and I appreciate their support. Our bipartisan amendment does two things. It enhances court discretion to balance the need to know against the need to protect personal information, and it requires truncation of social security numbers in publicly filed documents. This protection is particularly important in an electronic filing environment, where information once filed is immediately available to the public via the Internet. The amendment allows the court, for cause, to protect personal information. For example, the court can seal or redact information, such as the home or employment address of a debtor, because of a personal security risk, including fear of injury by a former spouse or stalker. The amendment would also give the court the leeway to protect other information normally considered private, such as personal medical records. Our bipartisan amendment still protects law enforcement and creditors where necessary. A law enforcement provision ensures that police and regulators can get needed information directly from the bankruptcy court, and a creditor protection provision specifies that creditors, including the IRS, receive the full Social Security number of a debtor in the initial notice of the case. Finally, we also clarify that these protections should not limit the access of the trustees, administrators and auditors to necessary information. We must be careful that our efforts to require documentation for accuracy and accountability do not inadvertently create problems for privacy and security. As modified, the amendment properly balances these concerns, and protects the needs of those who need to know. This has been a cooperative, bi-partisan effort, I extend special thanks to Senator Snowe, Chairman Specter, and Senator Grassley for all their hard-work in reaching an agreement, and I am pleased to submit this modification.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the reason for this amendment--and I realize we will not vote on it today and we may vote on it tomorrow, although it may well be accepted--is one of the facts we have today. The bankruptcy process requires the submission of many documents containing highly personal information. But we must be careful that our efforts to require documentation for accuracy and accountability do not inadvertently create problems for privacy and security. We are in an age where personal information can be easily digitized and shared, and when it falls into the wrong hands, easily abused. Identity theft is one danger. We have only to look to the recent debacle of Choicepoint selling the personal data of 145,000 individuals to scam artists. Many of these individuals have already become victims of identity theft, and they are not alone. Last year alone, 9.3 million people were victimized by identity theft. Another danger is tracking or harassing a former battered spouse. We need to minimize these possibilities, while still allowing for accountability. We took an important first step by ensuring privacy protections for databases of personal information that become assets in bankruptcy. I was pleased to work closely with my colleagues in providing this protection. But our responsibilities didn't end there. We also need to ensure reasonable privacy protection for personal information that is submitted by the debtors. I am submitting an amendment that will do just that by enhancing the court's discretion to protect personal information, and by requiring truncation of social security numbers in publicly filed documents. The Judicial Conference supports this amendment and I will ask unanimous consent that the Judicial Conference letter supporting the amendment be printed in the Record. I am pleased that my colleagues Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell have agreed to co-sponsor this amendment. They have been leaders on privacy issues, and I appreciate their support. First, the amendment addresses court discretion in several ways. It allows the court, for cause, to protect personal identifiers, including the debtor's or other person's name, social security account number, date of birth, driver's license number, passport number, employee or taxpayer identification number, and unique biometric data. The personal identifiers protected under this provision are the same ones defined as ``means of identification'' under the Identity Theft Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. This definition is codified as Section 1028(d) of Title 18 of the criminal code. The amendment also allows the court, for cause, to seal or redact ``information that could cause undue annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or risk of injury to person or property.'' This standard is drawn from the current civil procedure discovery rules--Fed. Rule of Civ. Procedure 26--and would replace the existing standard in bankruptcy court, which only protects individuals against ``scandalous or defamatory matter.'' This change would allow the court to protect information, such as the home or employment address of a debtor, because of a personal security risk, including fear of injury by a former spouse or stalker. It would also allow the court to protect other information normally considered private, such as medical information. The amendment would also provide persons the opportunity to request protection of sensitive information not only after it is filed with the court, but prior to filing as well. This protection is particularly important in an electronic filing environment, where information once filed is immediately available to the public. In addition to enhancing court discretion, the amendment also protects social security numbers. Currently, the bankruptcy code requires debtors to include their tax payer identification numbers, which for individuals is almost uniformly his or her social security number, on any notice the debtor gives to creditors. Because these notices are also filed with the court, the court's files routinely include unredacted social security numbers, creating the potential for abuse by those accessing public court records. The amendment would simply allow debtors to limit disclosure to only a part of his or her social security number in notices that it files with the court. Specifically the notice to the court would include only the last four digits. 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. The 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. Under that law, only the last 5 digits of credit card and debit card numbers can be printed. Requiring truncation for social security numbers is similarly reasonable. It provides protection against abuse, but still allows for important information sharing to take place. The bankruptcy process requires submission of many documents containing highly personal information. I spoke about this on the floor yesterday. We must be careful that our efforts to require documentation for accuracy and accountability do not inadvertently create problems for privacy and security. We are in an age where personal information can be easily digitized and shared, and when it falls into the wrong hands, easily abused. We know what happens with identity theft. Look at the totally irresponsible, outrageous, unbelievable debacle of Choicepoint, selling the personal data of 145,000 individuals to scam artists. It is hard to think of anything being done more irresponsibly than the executives at Choicepoint, unless it is the executives of Bank of America, who ship the data of their customers by commercial airplane--the same kind of flight we have all taken, and all of us have lost luggage. I said yesterday maybe their executives fly by private planes and they don't know what it is like to fly commercial. The point is their irresponsibility. Many of the individuals who have had data stolen become victims of identity theft. There were 145,000 individuals whose data was compromised with Choicepoint that we know of now. Some have already become victims of identity theft. Last year alone, 9.3 million people were victimized by identity theft. Another danger is tracking or harassing a former battered spouse. I want to make sure we keep accurate information and that people have to say who they are, but we don't want to allow somebody to go into electronic court files and get Social Security numbers and names and addresses and everything else, and then use that information for identity theft or worse. We need to minimize these possibilities, while still allowing for accountability. We took an important first step by ensuring privacy protections for databases of personal information that become assets in bankruptcy. I was please to work with my colleagues in providing this protection. But our responsibilities did not end there. We also need to ensure reasonable privacy protection for personal information submitted by the debtors. This amendment will do that by enhancing the court's discretion to protect personal information, and by requiring truncation of social security numbers in publicly filed documents. I have a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States, Chief Justice Rehnquist presiding, in which they support this amendment. They strongly support this amendment. These are the courts that are going to have to enforce this. I ask unanimous consent that the Judicial Conference letter supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and my colleague from Washington State, Senator Cantwell, have agreed to cosponsor this amendment. They both have been leaders of privacy issues. I appreciate their support. Here is what the amendment does: It addresses court discretion in several ways. It allows the court for cause to protect personal identifiers, including the debtor's or other person's name, Social Security account number, date of birth, driver's license number, passport number, employee or tax identification number, and unique biometric data. The personal identifiers protected under this provision are the same ones defined as ``means of identification'' under the Identity Theft Deterrence Act of 1998. This definition is codified in Section 1028(d) of Title 18 of the criminal code. The amendment also allows the court, for cause, to seal or redact ``information that could cause undue annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or risk of injury to person or property.'' This standard is drawn from the current civil procedure discovery rules. This change would allow the court to protect information, such as the home or employment address of a debtor because of a personal security risk. Unfortunately, many times that risk is from a former spouse or a stalker. It would also allow the court to protect other information normally considered private, such as medical information. The amendment would provide persons the opportunity to request protection of sensitive information not only after it is filed with the court, but prior to filing as well. This protection is particularly important in an electronic filing environment, where information once filed is immediately available to the public. In addition to enhancing court discretion, the amendment also protects Social Security numbers. Currently, the bankruptcy code requires debtors to include their tax payer identification numbers (which for individuals is almost uniformly his or her social security number) on any notice the debtor gives to creditors. Because these notices are also filed with the court, the court's files routinely include unredacted social security numbers, creating the potential for abuse by those accessing public court records. This amendment would simply allow debtors to limit disclosure to only a part of his or her social security number in notices filed with the court. Specifically the notice to the court would include only the last four digits. This 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. What it means is somebody cannot get on line, get all this information, sell it, or do whatever they want to. The idea of truncation isn't new. Just last year, we passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, and the Act required truncation of credit card and debit card numbers on receipts given to cardholders. Under that law, only the last 5 digits of credit card and debit card numbers can be printed. Requiring truncation for social security numbers is similarly reasonable. It provides protection against abuse, but still allows for important information sharing to take place. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Alabama for their usual courtesies. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to set aside, under our understanding, the pending amendment so I might introduce an appropriately referred amendment for myself, Senator Snowe, and Senator Cantwell.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I stand to voice my support for the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin, which will protect our military servicemembers from attempts to penalize them by making it tougher for them to file for bankruptcy, even when the reason they lost all their income is because they answered the call of duty to serve America. I am proud to join my colleague as a cosponsor of this amendment. We cannot have a thorough debate on bankruptcy reform without considering the economic hardships faced by servicemembers and their families. Calls to serve their country in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere can cause loss of family income, the closing of a family business, or unexpected expenses. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for servicemembers and their families to be forced into filing for bankruptcy relief. We need to protect those who are fighting for us. I support Senator Durbin's efforts to protect our soldiers, particularly young recruits and junior officers, from sales of inappropriate insurance and investment products on military bases. It is crucial that servicemen and women who sacrifice for their country not be exploited or taken advantage of through dishonest business practices. It is our duty to ensure that America's military personnel are offered first-rate financial products so they can provide for their families and invest in their futures. I commend Senator Durbin for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to accept his amendment so we can remedy the financial hardships faced by servicemembers who serve our nation and their families. Amendment No. 23

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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.