Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues Senator Jeffords, Senator Landrieu, Senator Murray, and Senator Kerry to introduce ``The Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victim's Housing Act of 2000.'' This legislation provides funding for shelter assistance to women and children fleeing domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. Due to the fact that domestic violence victims often have no safe place to go and financial obstacles make it difficult to rebuild lives, this funding is needed to help support a continuum between emergency shelter and independent living. In my home state of New Jersey, one act of domestic violence occurs approximately every six minutes and thirty-seven seconds. Nationally, it is estimated that a woman is beaten every fifteen seconds. Yet, many individuals and families fleeing domestic violence are forced to return to their abusers because of inadequate shelter or lack of money. Half of all homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence. Even if they leave their abusers to go to a shelter, they often return home because the isolation from familiar surroundings, friends, and neighborhood resources makes them feel even more vulnerable. Shelters and transitional facilities are often located far from a victim's neighborhood. And, if emergency shelter is available, a supply of affordable housing and services are needed to keep women from having to return to a violent home. The issue of homelessness for battered women goes beyond the ability to find a space in a domestic violence shelter. Because women escaping abusers often leave suddenly, they often have no money saved for a security deposit and first month's rent. This is especially problematic in New Jersey as rents are so expensive. New Jersey is the second most expensive state in the nation to rent a two-bedroom apartment and 45 percent of all New Jersey renters cannot afford the State's average rent for a two-bedroom apartment. And, many battered women may have to leave their jobs because of workplace stalking by their abusers. Women who leave violent situations often incur additional expenses as they must purchase clothing, cookware, and furniture. The lack of financial security hinders their ability to secure safe, decent, and affordable housing for themselves and their families. This is why Senator's Jeffords, Landrieu, Murray, Kerry and I are introducing ``The Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victim's Housing Act of 2000.'' Under current law, domestic violence shelters must apply for federal homeless assistance along with other organizations assisting the general homeless population. This legislation creates a specific grant targeted towards shelters providing assistance to individuals and families fleeing domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault only. Funding is authorized through the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act for five years beginning at $50 million for fiscal year 2001. Non-profit, community- based housing organizations receive the funds through a competitive grant process administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Groups would use the grant to provide emergency and transitional housing or direct financial assistance for rent, security deposit, and first month's rent. In addition, the legislation also requires organizations to provide a 25% match in funds for services such as child care, employment assistance, and healthcare. This assistance helps provide a stable home base so that those fleeing domestic violence learn new job skills, work full-time jobs, or search for adequate child care. The Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victim's Housing Act of 2000 is supported by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Senators Jeffords, Landrieu, Murray, Kerry and I look forward to working with them and all others interested in helping us address the continuing national epidemic of domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to join us in our efforts to prevent victims of domestic violence from having to choose between violence and homelessness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues Senator Jeffords, Senator Landrieu, Senator Murray, and Senator Kerry to introduce ``The Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victim's Housing Act of 2000.'' This legislation provides funding for shelter assistance to women and children fleeing domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. Due to the fact that domestic violence victims often have no safe place to go and financial obstacles make it difficult to rebuild lives, this funding is needed to help support a continuum between emergency shelter and independent living. In my home state of New Jersey, one act of domestic violence occurs approximately every six minutes and thirty-seven seconds. Nationally, it is estimated that a woman is beaten every fifteen seconds. Yet, many individuals and families fleeing domestic violence are forced to return to their abusers because of inadequate shelter or lack of money. Half of all homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence. Even if they leave their abusers to go to a shelter, they often return home because the isolation from familiar surroundings, friends, and neighborhood resources makes them feel even more vulnerable. Shelters and transitional facilities are often located far from a victim's neighborhood. And, if emergency shelter is available, a supply of affordable housing and services are needed to keep women from having to return to a violent home. The issue of homelessness for battered women goes beyond the ability to find a space in a domestic violence shelter. Because women escaping abusers often leave suddenly, they often have no money saved for a security deposit and first month's rent. This is especially problematic in New Jersey as rents are so expensive. New Jersey is the second most expensive state in the nation to rent a two-bedroom apartment and 45 percent of all New Jersey renters cannot afford the State's average rent for a two-bedroom apartment. And, many battered women may have to leave their jobs because of workplace stalking by their abusers. Women who leave violent situations often incur additional expenses as they must purchase clothing, cookware, and furniture. The lack of financial security hinders their ability to secure safe, decent, and affordable housing for themselves and their families. This is why Senator's Jeffords, Landrieu, Murray, Kerry and I are introducing ``The Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victim's Housing Act of 2000.'' Under current law, domestic violence shelters must apply for federal homeless assistance along with other organizations assisting the general homeless population. This legislation creates a specific grant targeted towards shelters providing assistance to individuals and families fleeing domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault only. Funding is authorized through the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act for five years beginning at $50 million for fiscal year 2001. Non-profit, community- based housing organizations receive the funds through a competitive grant process administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Groups would use the grant to provide emergency and transitional housing or direct financial assistance for rent, security deposit, and first month's rent. In addition, the legislation also requires organizations to provide a 25% match in funds for services such as child care, employment assistance, and healthcare. This assistance helps provide a stable home base so that those fleeing domestic violence learn new job skills, work full-time jobs, or search for adequate child care. The Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victim's Housing Act of 2000 is supported by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Senators Jeffords, Landrieu, Murray, Kerry and I look forward to working with them and all others interested in helping us address the continuing national epidemic of domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to join us in our efforts to prevent victims of domestic violence from having to choose between violence and homelessness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter for yielding time to me. I also thank him for his perseverance and diligence in working on this issue over the course of the last several months. I also express particular thanks to Senator Biden who in reviewing this legislation made very important additions and allowed us to proceed on a bipartisan basis for what I think is an important and worthwhile change in the laws dealing with foreign intelligence surveillance. The origins of this legislation--part of the Judiciary Committee's oversight--is the question of how the Department of Justice handled allegations of Chinese espionage at our most important National Laboratories. The focus of this review, of course, had to do with the case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a scientist who was charged in December with 59 counts of illegally removing secrets from computer information at the Los Alamos Laboratory. It appears that Dr. Lee was the subject of interest or investigations for espionage for over 17 years. He was dealing with the most important weapons secrets possessed by his government critical to the security of the United States. It would be difficult for anyone in this Government to explain to the American people why, despite 17 years of investigation and some reasons for considerable doubt all during this time, he was permitted to continue with his job and retain access to highly classified information. Much is still to be learned about this case. A criminal case is proceeding and an investigation. That is for, in some instances, others to deal with. That does not mean we do not already know some things that can change the conduct in this Government and the laws under which we govern ourselves. We have learned through this investigation that this was all made possible by a series of procedural and investigative errors that gave Dr. Lee this opportunity to download this highly classified material to an unsecured computer. In truth, we do not yet know whether or not, when this unguarded material was in an unsecured computer, in fact it got to foreign agents or other interested parties other than people with proper clearance in the U.S. Government. We do not know. We may never know. But we do know this after interviewing many witnesses and thousands of documents: There was a startling, almost unbelievable failure of coordination and communication between the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Energy in dealing with this matter, and only through that lack of coordination was an allegation of possible espionage able to lead to 17 years of continued access and the possibility that this information was compromised. As early as 1982, the FBI was aware that Dr. Lee was engaged in suspicious activities. Yet both at that time and in the years that followed there was no action taken to limit access to classified material. The Department of Energy detected Dr. Lee transferring an inordinate number of systems from a secured system to an unsecured system in 1993 and 1994. Personnel responsible for reporting that information failed to do so. In 1997, the FBI had an opportunity to stop Dr. Lee, but they were stymied by the denial of the Department of Justice of a request submitted by the FBI for a warrant to further investigate Dr. Lee. It is this failure that brings us here today. The evidence supporting a FISA request for their warrant was overwhelming. It had been building for years. No single piece of evidence may have been sufficient to warrant a criminal case, but they were more than sufficient to raise a proper level of suspicion to support the issuing of a warrant. Now we know that the request for this warrant, a FISA application, was never even considered by the Attorney General of the United States. When the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Freeh, sent a personal representative to meet with the Attorney General to express his concern about the warrant application, which he was right and proper to do, the Attorney General delegated the matter to a subordinate who was unfamiliar with the matter and who had never processed a similar request--no experience, no knowledge, no involvement--and the final disposition of the matter, therefore, was predictable. The request was denied. The warrant was not issued, and an opportunity potentially to either apprehend someone committing a criminal act or to have prevented further damage, if any occurred, was lost. Unfortunately, this problem was compounded in that when the FBI was denied this warrant, in my judgment, the matter should have been appealed but it was allowed to languish, and then further hampered by the Department of Energy which conducted a polygraph of Dr. Lee, and then, incredibly, unbelievably incorrectly concluded that he had passed the test. It is a series of compounded errors of procedure and judgment. It is difficult for the Congress to legislate good judgment for the proper execution of responsibilities. If we cannot do so, we can at least design the laws to provide for greater accountability. That is, indeed, what is being done by my colleagues. Under the legislation we are now introducing, Senator Specter and I have written amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide that upon the personal request of the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General must personally review the FISA requests--no subordinate, no uninformed associate. This is a matter of national security. The Attorney General has no greater responsibility than protecting the secrets of the U.S. Government. This matter belongs on the Attorney General's desk, and under this legislation that is where it will rest. There are those who may argue that making the Attorney General directly responsible will somehow provide an avalanche of work, that they will not be able to deal with all of these matters. Appropriately, the legislation has been designed so this provision is triggered only by the personal request from the Director of the FBI--no subordinate, no associate, no one else in the Government. So the number of cases will be extremely limited. But when asked by the Director of the FBI, one person, and one person in this Government alone, will have direct responsibility. Second, the legislation requires that if the Attorney General decides not to forward a FISA application to the court, that decision must be communicated in writing to the FBI Director along with specific recommendations as to what investigative steps should be undertaken to meet the probable cause requirements. Matters of national security on this level cannot fall in departmental cracks--not get lost somewhere between Justice and the FBI. This will ensure that in those cases when the Attorney General has personally rejected this request the reasons will be stated, the FBI will be told why and then given a chance to return having met the appropriate probable cause standard. Third, the legislation requires that the FBI Director must personally supervise the implementation of the Attorney General's recommendations to ensure once again that in the highest levels of the U.S. Government these unusual but critical cases of national security dealing with foreign espionage are dealt with not by subordinates, but that this Congress can hold people for which it has responsibility, oversight, and votes to confirm--such as the Attorney General and the FBI Director--directly accountable. I believe these are appropriate responses to what we have learned to date out of this investigation. But I conclude by saying both what this legislation is and what it is not. This legislation is not an attempt to lower the probable cause standard for what is required for a warrant and a FISA application. Probable cause is a standard of law. It should be taken seriously. The rights of no citizen should be violated by an intrusive or curious government. The standard remains. What is being changed here is accountability, not a lessening of civil liberties. We simply want to know that the standard which has always existed of probable cause will be used, that procedures will be followed, that people will be held accountable, not that the Government is any more or any less intrusive. The probable cause standard remains the cornerstone of American liberties to ensure that the Government has reason and merit as a matter of law to involve itself in the privacy of our citizens. I proudly offer this legislation with Senator Specter. I believe it is a good and appropriate response. I thank the Senator for his patience in the drafting. I listened to my colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle, with relatively modest changes we have recommended, all of which the Senator has incorporated. I look forward to the committee and then the Senate enacting this legislation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, if Americans knew that every time they walked through their local shopping mall or wandered through the shopping district of their hometown their movements were being tracked, every purchase was being recorded, and every conversation was being monitored, they would be outraged. Americans would consider this level of surveillance a violation of their most basic constitutional right. Yet that very expectation of privacy we expect in our traditional shopping in the local mall, or our visiting with friends, or searching for information in our hometown is exactly what is not happening in the shopping center of the 21st century in cyberspace. Whenever a citizen ventures online to pay a bill, seeks medical advice, purchases a product, checks the latest news, or engages in a conversation on the Internet, there is a chance that someone is gathering information about us, recording their information, and then selling it, or giving it to others. It is a very disturbing new look at a very exciting new technology. Indeed, there are companies now being formed for the specific purpose of monitoring our travels through cyberspace and recording this very information. The situation, while unsettling, does not need to necessarily be menacing. Marketing both online and offline is very common in our daily lives. By collecting some of this information, businesses, indeed, can benefit, if they know the kind of products we want, what our tastes might be, our sizes, and our preferences in what we want to read and want to purchase. The question is whether consumers can control that information because, indeed, companies having access to this information can be more efficient and allow our time to be used more efficiently. I may want a retailer of clothing to know the kind of clothes I want to buy so that I receive the proper advertising. I may want a book company to know the things that I like to read and my areas of study so I can receive products more properly. That is having information used at its best. One can only imagine how it can be used at its worst. This information about what I want to read in the wrong hands can reveal my most private political thoughts that I would rather have others not know. It could reveal sexual orientation or party affiliation. Indeed, if I seek medical advice online for psychiatric care or for a disease for myself or a child or a mate, it very well probably would be information I wouldn't want generally available to other people for commercial purposes, political purposes, or worse. Too often web sites underinform or misinform the public about how they intend to use this information or have presented work to be used improperly or where it can be misused. The fact is that over 90 percent of our most popular web sites do not reveal that they gather and share consumer information with other businesses. And if the public knew that 90 percent of these sites were sharing this information, we as consumers and citizens would be more careful about what we reveal or what we purchase. A 1999 Georgetown survey also concluded that only 36 percent of leading web sites that admit to gathering information fully explain how they intend to utilize it. So the consumer, the citizens, are not able to make an informed decision about what information they are providing and what risks they might be taking. Many consumers are now being informed through the popular media that without our consent or knowledge, programs known as ``cookies'' monitor and collect information regarding our web site browsing habits. Personal data is also routinely extracted directly by web sites whenever we transmit the information required to purchase a product or surf the net for a specific topic. In both cases, our actions are monitored and our information will be shared unless we specifically request that a company do not do so, a process known as opting out. Opting out requires that a user directly contact a site to decline disclosure. The problem with opting out is that the location on web sites where one clicks to opt out, to take your information out of circulation, is often not prominently displayed and therefore is not known by the consumer. One leading marketing company that tracks 80 million online consumer profiles has revealed it receives an average of only 12 opt out requests per day; 80 million customers, 12 opt out per day. It is unlikely that only 12 people are concerned about privacy of their purchases or other vital personal information. I suggest to the Senate it is much more likely that the opt out location on the web page is obscured or in some form inadequate. Privacy policies meant to inform users of both the scope and scale of this information are very often inaccessible. A recent California Healthcare survey of 21 popular health care sites reveals many sites have secretly shared personal health information with marketers despite the fact that privacy policies were posted. Often the opt out sites are not adequately displayed. They often are misleading. Sometimes, as this study by California Healthcare indicates, they are just plain dishonest. There are, however, solutions. I believe these solutions are important to protect privacy. I remind those who are now marketing on the Internet and share my enthusiasm for the potential of the Internet for economic purposes that we have a common interest. If consumers do not believe their interests are protected regarding safeguarding their most vital personal information, the Internet will never reach its true economic potential. This point bears repeating. This is vital for privacy in our society and personal confidence in the Internet, but it is equally vital for the Internet in meeting its economic potential. Great segments of this society are going to be reluctant to purchase books, health care products, seek information, and exchange ideas if they do not know whether the information is safeguarded. It is no different than citizens using the telephone to convey information, exchange political ideas, or purchase products, if citizens did not have some idea that their every phone conversation wasn't being monitored. It wouldn't be any different than citizens visiting the local shopping mall, meeting friends, engaging in conversations, going to restaurants, or purchasing products, if they knew that over their shoulder someone was recording everything they did and everywhere they went. This is vital economically as well for the privacy of our citizens if this new, wonderful technology is to meet its economic potential. To deal with this problem, I have introduced S. 2063, the Secure Online Communication Enforcement Act of 2000. This legislation is not a final product, I stress to privacy advocates and to the Internet industries and online companies. It is not a final product. It is establishing, I hope, a national dialog first to educate ourselves about the privacy problem in cyberspace. It is a beginning document to which I invite comment and amendment. Its purpose is simply to begin collecting ideas of how to enhance privacy. But it is built on the concept of opting in versus opting out; that is, that the consumer, the citizen, must make a choice about whether they want this information shared. So the consumer, the individual, holds the power. If I believe a company can better market to me--and, indeed, I believe a company can better market to me if they know my taste in music, my taste in reading, my taste in clothing or automobiles--I can decide that I want that information shared, given to other companies, and come back to me with good information. However, if I don't want something shared--perhaps I have gone online with a health care company and I prefer my health information not be shared--I do not opt in, I do not give anybody the right to give that information. A second vital part of this bill: I strongly believe government oversight and regulation of the Internet should be kept to a minimum. That is one reason I have opposed steadfastly a sales tax on Internet purchases. This is one area of American life where the government should keep its presence to an absolute minimum in taxation and regulation. For that reason, this legislation is self-enforcing. No government bureaucracy will be calling if there is a violation. If, indeed, a company violates a citizen's privacy, the right of action is with the citizen, not the government. There is a legal right of action when sharing my personal information which I have said will not be shared. If I did not give anyone that right, then I as a citizen will hold them liable for doing so. Those twin pillars are: As a citizen, I decide whether to share my private service; second pillar, as a citizen, I and not the government have the right of action to enforce it. I have introduced this new legislation to begin this dialog, S. 2063, the Secure Online Communication and Enforcement Act of 2000. I hope it is helpful to my colleagues. I hope a good and worthwhile debate proceeds in the Senate, in our country, and, mostly, within this vital industry. If we can get this right, we not only do service to our people by protecting their privacy, as is our cultural and constitutional tradition, we also do a great deal to reinforce public confidence in the Internet, cyberspace, as a new arena of economic commerce and competition. We can bring the Internet to reach its true economic potential. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate, by a 95- 2 vote, has confirmed Joel Pisano as a district court judge for the District of New Jersey. Judge Pisano is an excellent choice to fill the district court seat created with the confirmation of Marion Trump Barry to the third Circuit Court of Appeals this past summer. He is extremely well- respected in New Jersey for his commitment to public service, as well as for his depth and breadth of knowledge of the law. A graduate of Lafayette College and later of Seton Hall University Law School, Judge Pisano has had a varied and distinguished legal career. He served for 4 years as a public defender in New Jersey, before moving into private practice as a partner with a well-respected New Jersey law firm for 14 years. In 1991, Judge Pisano was appointed to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Newark, New Jersey. In that capacity, he ably presided over a number of high profile cases, including that of a former Mexican deputy attorney general who was charged with laundering $9.9 million in drug payoffs. In a 1995 survey of attorneys who practice in New Jersey before Federal judges, Judge Pisano was praised for his skills in managing cases and his efficiency in moving a calendar quickly. His ``street- wise'' nature and prior experience as a trial attorney were said to serve him well on the bench. Judge Pisano's 8 years as a magistrate judge have prepared him for his promotion to the district court. He has an understanding of, and the training for, the responsibilities and challenges he will face as a district court judge. I am confident that he will serve us all well in his new role. In conclusion, I just want to say how pleased I am that Joel Pisano has been confirmed by the Senate as a district court judge for the District of New Jersey. I am sure that he will be a superb addition to the bench.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I ask unanimous consent that the order be postponed for 10 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank Senator Leahy for his very kind comments and leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor, as well as, certainly, Senator Grassley, who began this effort so long ago and worked so very hard. So many Senators have played an important role that I think it bears some analysis of how we came to this point. And there are some provisions of the bill that should be mentioned before we go to conference in order to set our clear agenda. I know there are those from the outset who doubted whether, indeed, real reform of bankruptcy law could be achieved in this Congress. There was some reason to be skeptical because there were some conflicting provisions. Some of us had some very real needs that had to be met before the beginning legislation could ever be enacted.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Most important of these objectives, in my mind, was dealing with the need for some consumer credit protection because, indeed, while there may be abuses in bankruptcy by debtors, to be certain, there are clearly problems in the credit industry. I believe several important amendments have achieved this goal. Most importantly, in my mind, was the adoption of the Grassley-Torricelli disclosure amendment. Other important amendments were additions by Senators Schumer and Sarbanes that will together provide real consumer protection. All three amendments are based on the belief that if consumers have knowledge, they will make rational choices. Simply providing information will avoid many credit problems from which the American people are currently suffering. These include--if you look at the Torricelli-Grassley, Schumer, and Sarbanes amendments--a combination of disclosing prominently on credit documents: The effects of only making minimum payments on your account every month; second, when late fees will be imposed; and, third, the date on which introductory or teaser rates will expire and what the permanent rate will be upon that expiration. Additionally, the Grassley-Torricelli amendment includes a provision authored by Senator Jack Reed prohibiting the canceling of an account because the consumer pays the balance in full every month. That was a growing problem where people with good credit and good bill-paying habits were being penalized unnecessarily. That provision is now in the bill. For all of these good additions that have made this better legislation, there are some problems which I hope and trust can be resolved in conference so that this can genuinely be bipartisan legislation, broadly accepted, and signed by the President. The principal obstacle between what we want to achieve and that reality is obviously the minimum wage provisions in this legislation. Mr. President, 12 million Americans continue to earn the minimum wage. Although they work all day, every day, throughout the year, they are in a daily struggle simply to survive. A mother of two working at the minimum wage earns only $10,712 per year, 22 percent below the poverty line, a wage at which it is impossible to provide housing and food and clothing for a child, no less two children--or even a person, no less a family. It is not a minimum wage; it is a poverty wage. In the last 15 years, inflation rose by 86 percent, but the minimum wage rose by only 37 percent. The fact remains that the United States is allowing a standard of living by working people below what those who stood in this institution only 15, 20, and 25 years ago were permitting by law. We in America are allowing the establishment of a near-permanent underclass of working people doomed to poverty and children who do not have a chance of breaking out of these circumstances, who are likely to enter life malnourished, poorly clothed, inadequately housed, knowing only poverty. We need to reach the same judgment that our grandparents and our parents have reached for 70 years: A working, fair minimum wage. With the proposed new minimum wage, a full-time worker will have an annual income of $12,700, an increase of $2,000 a year. The problem with our bill is that this change is brought over the course of 3 years rather than 2 years, as many of us have proposed. If it is the right thing to do, upon which most Senators seem to agree, it is the right thing to do now. Leaving millions of American children in poverty for this extra time makes no sense, and it is indefensible. Indeed, during that extra time it denies $1,200 to families who are struggling trying to work their way out of poverty. I can think of no better addition to legislation dealing with debts and the struggling realities of American economic life in this reform of bankruptcy legislation than including a real minimum wage. It is obviously my hope that when the bill returns from conference we will return to a 2-year increase in the minimum wage rather than the 3- year provisions in this legislation. The second area of concern--for all that we have achieved in this legislation--is the creation of a new school voucher program which was contained in a Republican antidrug amendment. I want to make clear that I voted against this amendment last fall. I did so not because of objections to the underlying amphetamine prevention legislation, which I voted for in the Judiciary Committee, but to the voucher program. When we considered this provision in the Judiciary Committee, it did not have this voucher provision. It actually was dealing with narcotics problems in schools with younger people. It was a good provision. It has now been changed on the floor to include this voucher program. It is a simple diversion of desperately needed public moneys in the public schools, which can only make the problem worse. Money that would go to children at risk to deal with many problems, including narcotics problems, would now be removed from the schools. This provision does not make sense. It should be removed. I believe if these objections are dealt with, we can return to this floor with a conference committee report of which we can all be proud. For all the divisions we might have faced when this legislation began, I think we all now understand there is a problem with bankruptcy abuse in the United States. In 1998, 1.4 million Americans sought bankruptcy protection. Something is wrong. There either are not adequate credit protections to ensure people under the circumstances when they borrow money, or the law does not properly deal with their filings for bankruptcy, or both and other factors. In my judgment, it is all of these things. Currently, 70 percent of bankruptcy petitions are filed in chapter 7, which provides relief from most unsecured debt. Just 30 percent of petitions were filed under chapter 13, which requires a repayment of debt. More than anything else, in addition to consumer protection, we will assure that people who can pay back part of these debts will do so. That is not simply a benefit to the financial industry; it is also a benefit to every mom-and-pop store, every small business in America that is being abused by these unnecessary filings for bankruptcy. Indeed, it is estimated by the Department of Justice that 182,000 people every year can afford to pay back some of the debts they are now escaping by inappropriate filings. This means $4 billion to creditors, financial institutions, to be sure, but also many small businesses that cannot afford losing these funds. I conclude, once again, by thanking Senator Grassley for his extraordinary leadership, Senator Leahy for his patience through this process, Senator Hatch in chairing our committee and bringing us to this point, and the very great contributions made by Senators Biden, Reid, Schumer, and Senator Durbin who worked on this legislation so tirelessly in the last Congress. This is good legislation. We can be proud of it. With modest adjustments, we can, indeed, make it something that both parties in both Chambers can bring to the President for his signature. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution submitted by Senator Specter designating March 25, 2000 as Greek Independence Day. The Greek-American community has made significant contributions to the United States. It is in honor of those achievements that we recognize Greek Independence Day. The ancient Greeks conceived the very notion of democracy when they placed the power to govern in the hands of the people. Our founding fathers relied on the political and philosophical experiences of ancient Greece to create the government we have today. As a result, America's close relationship with Greece is long and historic. I believe that James Monroe best expressed America's feelings toward Greece when he said, ``The mention of Greece fills the mind with the most exalted sentiments and arouses in our bosoms the best feeling of which our nature is susceptible.'' As Greece fought for its independence in the 1820s, the American Revolution became a driving ideal. In fact, Greek intellectuals translated our own Declaration of Independence to use as their statement of freedom. By the end of World War II, Greece was one of our most important allies in the region as it fought to stem the Communist tide across Europe. In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appropriately noted this effort when he said, ``. . . Greece asked no favor except the opportunity to stand for the rights which it believed, and it gave to the world an example of battle, a battle that thrilled the hearts of all free men and free women everywhere.'' Today, we know that Greece is one of only three nations in the world which has allied itself with the United States in every major international conflict this century. Through immigration, we have grown even closer. During the early 1900s, one out of every four Greek males between the ages of 15 and 45 emigrated to the United States. Greek- Americans have the highest median educational attainment among all American ethnic nationalities, and they are now a successful and integral part of this country. The relationship between Greece and America is a unique one which has survived the test of war and the looming threat of Communism. We owe a great deal to Greece, and to its people who have chosen to make America their home. Greek civilization touches our lives as Americans and enhances the cultural existence of this great nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing our gratitude to Greece and all Greek-Americans for the role they have played in building this country.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today behalf of Jack McKeon, a South Amboy native, who led the Cincinnati Reds to within one game of the 1999 National League Playoffs. It is a pleasure for me to be able to recognize his accomplishments. During his 50 years in Major League Baseball, Jack McKeon has been honored as both ``National League Manager of the Year'' and as ``Major League Manager of the Year.'' In his 26 years of major league managing he has won nearly 700 games with the Kansas City Royals, Oakland Athletics, San Diego Padres, and Cincinnati Reds. In addition, Jack McKeon has also served as General Manager, receiving the ``General Manager of the Year'' award. Before Jack began his distinguished career, he had already made an impact in New Jersey. As a member of the McKeon Boys Club, Jack played his first organized baseball and went on to become an all-county catcher as a student at St. Mary's High School. Jack's playing career spanned 10 years in the minor leagues. During that time he discovered his natural ability to lead. His first pro coaching assignment came at the young age of 24, in which he led his club to a 70-67 record. His later success as a rookie manager of the Kansas City Royals in 1973 brought the foundering team new respect in the American League with a 2nd place finish. His later managerial and executive positions led to greater renown as he approached the 1999 season. The strong finish of the Cincinnati Reds earned Jack the respect of his peers and the national press which named his Manager or the Year. So it gives me great pleasure to recognize a leader of great stature in New Jersey. His tremendous accomplishments in baseball, as a player, manager, and executive have made a significant contribution to the national pastime. I am pleased that one of New Jersey's native sons is now being honored, and I hope my colleagues join me in congratulating Jack on his success.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to William Sumas, a New Jersey resident and distinguished member of the business community, who will be inducted as Chairman of the New Jersey Food Council on January 27, 2000. Bill is a native of New Jersey, having grown up in South Orange. After attending Columbia High School, he continued his education at Fairleigh Dickinson University. Bill Sumas currently serves as a Vice President of the International Association of Corporate Real Estate Executives New Jersey Chapter, and as an Executive Vice President of Village Supermarkets, the 49th largest corporation in the State of New Jersey. Village Supermarkets was founded in 1937 by Bill's father and uncle, Perry and Nicholas Sumas. Since then, the company has grown to become one of New Jersey's most important food retailers. The New Jersey Food Council (NJFC) was formed to promote, foster, aid, advance and protect the mutual interests of the food retailers and their suppliers. The council represents the multi-billion dollar food industry, including over 1,200 retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, and service companies involved in every aspect of the industry. The NJFC is recognized nationally for its effective leadership and achievements in all aspects of public affairs, and has always maintained a reputation of excellence and integrity. It is my firm belief that William Sumas will continue this fine tradition, and serve with distinction as an advocate on behalf of the NJFC's members. He will clearly promote the short and long term goals of the food industry in a timely and prescient manner, and will enhance the image and standing in the community of the entire industry. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating William Sumas on his induction as Chairman of the New Jersey Food Council. Under his leadership I am confident that the industry will continue to grow, and I look forward to its successful future.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Disaster Victims Tax Relief Act. This legislation will help mitigate the losses that hundreds of thousands of Americans incur each year as a result of natural disasters, and helps clear the path towards full recovery. My home state of New Jersey is not known as a place which suffers tropical storms or hurricanes with great frequency. However, this past September, many of my constituent witnessed nature's fury first hand. Hurricane Floyd, one of the largest storms in recent history, battered much of New Jersey, along with the several other Eastern states, with winds in excess of 140 miles per hour and flash downpours which caused extensive flooding. To date, the flooding caused by this disaster has inflicted more than $500 million in damages in New Jersey alone, and it is estimated that this figure may exceed more than $1 billion when the final costs are calculated. In terms of economic damages, New Jersey was the second most heavily damaged state as a result of Floyd. Natural disasters, such as the one we recently witnessed, too often cause people to lose their homes and the businesses that were made successful through a lifetime of hard work. This pain is exacerbated by the fact that they are still required to meet a heavy tax burden for that year. It is unreasonable to expect these unfortunate Americans to meet their full tax responsibilities after suffering a cataclysmic disaster such as a hurricane such as a hurricane or flood. While our current tax code includes a provision that addresses this situation, qualification requirements ensure that the overwhelming majority of victims cannot utilize the provision to their benefit. Under current law, an individual may deduct uninsured damages or ``casualty losses'' incurred from a natural disaster so long as those losses exceed 10 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI). Unfortunately, many victims of disasters have found that this threshold is too high for them to qualify. Compounding this situation is the fact that only the small percentage of taxpayers who itemize their deductions are effectively eligible to claim their disaster losses as a deduction. This is troubling because 75 percent of taxpayers who do not itemize, comprised mostly of lower and middle class families who need this benefit most, cannot participate. The bill I introduce today is straight forward. First it would reduce the current AGI threshold from 10 percent to 5 percent. Second, it would make the deductions available an ``above the line'' deduction. These two provisions would enable the majority of American taxpayers, who do not itemize their returns, to benefit. Third, my bill would institute a 2-year ``carry back or forward'' provision which would allow people who incur casualty losses to claim the deductions on either the previous year's return, or they can defer and claim the losses either the following year or the year after. Finally this bill is narrowly tailored to provide relief to those people who need it most; those who live in a federally declared disaster area. This will help avoid abuse of the provision. Mr. President, people who have emerged from earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and floods are confronted with the daunting task of rebuilding their lives in the face of overwhelming economic loss and the emotional trauma of losing everything they own. Their tax burden should not be one of the obstacles that they must overcome in order to embark on the road to recovery. This bill will help ensure that this is not the case. I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to fully support this legislation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Disaster Victims Tax Relief Act. This legislation will help mitigate the losses that hundreds of thousands of Americans incur each year as a result of natural disasters, and helps clear the path towards full recovery. My home state of New Jersey is not known as a place which suffers tropical storms or hurricanes with great frequency. However, this past September, many of my constituent witnessed nature's fury first hand. Hurricane Floyd, one of the largest storms in recent history, battered much of New Jersey, along with the several other Eastern states, with winds in excess of 140 miles per hour and flash downpours which caused extensive flooding. To date, the flooding caused by this disaster has inflicted more than $500 million in damages in New Jersey alone, and it is estimated that this figure may exceed more than $1 billion when the final costs are calculated. In terms of economic damages, New Jersey was the second most heavily damaged state as a result of Floyd. Natural disasters, such as the one we recently witnessed, too often cause people to lose their homes and the businesses that were made successful through a lifetime of hard work. This pain is exacerbated by the fact that they are still required to meet a heavy tax burden for that year. It is unreasonable to expect these unfortunate Americans to meet their full tax responsibilities after suffering a cataclysmic disaster such as a hurricane such as a hurricane or flood. While our current tax code includes a provision that addresses this situation, qualification requirements ensure that the overwhelming majority of victims cannot utilize the provision to their benefit. Under current law, an individual may deduct uninsured damages or ``casualty losses'' incurred from a natural disaster so long as those losses exceed 10 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI). Unfortunately, many victims of disasters have found that this threshold is too high for them to qualify. Compounding this situation is the fact that only the small percentage of taxpayers who itemize their deductions are effectively eligible to claim their disaster losses as a deduction. This is troubling because 75 percent of taxpayers who do not itemize, comprised mostly of lower and middle class families who need this benefit most, cannot participate. The bill I introduce today is straight forward. First it would reduce the current AGI threshold from 10 percent to 5 percent. Second, it would make the deductions available an ``above the line'' deduction. These two provisions would enable the majority of American taxpayers, who do not itemize their returns, to benefit. Third, my bill would institute a 2-year ``carry back or forward'' provision which would allow people who incur casualty losses to claim the deductions on either the previous year's return, or they can defer and claim the losses either the following year or the year after. Finally this bill is narrowly tailored to provide relief to those people who need it most; those who live in a federally declared disaster area. This will help avoid abuse of the provision. Mr. President, people who have emerged from earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and floods are confronted with the daunting task of rebuilding their lives in the face of overwhelming economic loss and the emotional trauma of losing everything they own. Their tax burden should not be one of the obstacles that they must overcome in order to embark on the road to recovery. This bill will help ensure that this is not the case. I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to fully support this legislation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I express my deep appreciation and thanks to Senator Kyl for his diligent work to help resolve my concerns. This compromise is reflected in section 1085. This language is very important to permitting parimutuel wagering on horse racing to be exempted from the prohibition on Internet gambling that we are enacting. The new language makes explicit which was implicit and assures that every State has the right to establish requirements for Internet and phone wagering that will best serve the public and governmental interests of the State and to do so, if it wishes, before such wagering takes place. I believe this is so important because it ensures that a State will have its traditional authority to safeguard the interests of its consumers and racing industry through the regulatory and approval process of proposed phone or Internet wagering.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. My college is correct. The State Street decision may have unintended consequences for the financial services community. By explicitly holding that business methods are patentable, financial service companies are finding that the techniques and ideas, that were in wide use, are being patented by others. The Prior Inventor Defense of H.R. 1554 is an important step toward protecting the financial services industry. By protecting early developers and users of a business method, the defense allows U.S. companies to commit resources to the commercialization of their inventions with confidence that a subsequent patent holder will prevail in a patent-infringement suit. Without this defense, financial services companies face unfair patent-infringement suits over the use of techniques and ideas (methods) they developed and have used for years. While I support the Prior Inventor Defense, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I hope that we will revisit this issue next year. More must be done to address the boundaries of the State Street decision with the realities of the constantly changing and developing financial services industry. I look forward to working with Senator Schumer and my colleagues on the committee on this important issue.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. My colleague is correct. The State Street decision may have unintended consequences for the financial services community. By explicitly holding that business methods are patentable, financial service companies are finding that the techniques and ideas, that were in wide use, are being patented by others. The Prior Inventor Defense of H.R. 1554 is an important step towards protecting the financial services industry. By protecting early developers and users of a business method, the defense allows U.S. companies to commit resources to the commercialization of their inventions with confidence that a subsequent patent holder will prevail in a patent infringement suit. Without this defense, financial services companies face unfair patent-infringement suits over the use of techniques and ideas (methods) they developed and have used for years. While I support the Prior Inventor Defense, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I hope we will revisit this issue next year. More must be done to address the boundaries of the State Street decision with the realities of the constantly changing and developing financial services industry. I look forward to working with Senator Schumer and my colleagues on the committee on this important issue.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay homage to one of my constituents, the late John A. Sacci, who was a resident in my home county of Bergen. John Sacci served with distinction as a history teacher in the Hoboken Public Schools until his untimely death in 1997. The good citizens of Hoboken will dedicate a playground in the historic Columbus Park in honor of his memory, and I join his family, friends and colleagues in paying tribute to a man who inspired so many young people. John Sacci lived a short life, but it was not without ample achievements and success. Mr. Sacci helped to shape the minds of our children and did so with his unique brand of humor. His approach to teaching was filled with a refreshing attitude that won him the affection of countless students. Mr. President, above all, John Sacci was a committed and dedicated teacher and servant of the people. Mr. Sacci lent his support to countless causes, including the implementation of Advanced Placement courses and the International Bacculauralate programs at Hoboken High School, creating scholarship opportunities for students, and initiating professional learning opportunities like the Academic Bowl and Mock Trial providing for Hoboken's students to be among the brightest in Hudson County. Additionally, John served as the Girl's Softball Team Coach and helped to build young women's self-esteem through leadership and team work. When it came time to assist students with the college application process, John Sacci was the one hundreds of students turned to for assistance because they knew he cared. Indeed, John Sacci's efforts made it possible for hundreds of students to go on and become productive citizens. In fact, John Sacci helped and inspired a member of my own staff, George A. Ortiz, who serves as my press secretary. He was a vital asset to the success of Hoboken High School and his loss is profoundly felt. For all who ever crossed his path and benefitted from his intrinsic commitment to helping shape the future of America, we are all the better for it today. Mr. President, I have stood on the floor of this great chamber time and again to urge the imperative need for meaningful gun control. On February 17, 1997 the tragedies that have struck in places like Littleton, Jonesboro and Columbine were all too familiar to the small community of Hoboken, as John Sacci's life was tragically cut short by gun violence. To all of my constituents in New Jersey who have died from gun violence, like John Sacci, I commit to fighting so that their memories and untimely deaths are not forgotten. In conclusion, I want to express my personal condolences to John Sacci's family and friends. To his wife, Kathy, his children, Carla, Christi, Jenna and Elaina, though nothing I can say today will change the pain you feel, but take pride in your husband and father John Sacci. He was, indeed, a man of courage, inspiration and above all, he cared enough to want to make a difference. Mr. President, I would like the record to reflect that today, Tuesday, November 23, 1999, family, friends and countless students gathered together in the City of Hoboken, in Hudson County in my great state of New Jersey to dedicate a playground in the living memory of John A. Sacci, an accomplished teacher.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Captain James L. Cardoso, a native of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, as he receives the Silver Star for gallantry from the United States Air Force. Captain Cardoso's daring rescue of a downed F-117 ``Stealth Fighter'' pilot makes him more than worthy of this prestigious honor. It is a pleasure for me to be able to honor his accomplishments. On March 27, Captain Cardoso led his helicopter unit through Serbian air defenses within 25 miles of Belgrade. His extraordinary effort is even more remarkable considering the low visibility and the minimal air support his unit received in the rescue. He fearlessly led his formation, at great personal risk to himself and his crew, in penetrating an extremely formidable Serbian air defense system which knew of the rescue. In the process, Captain Cardoso successfully avoided Serbian ground forces located a mere 10 miles away. Despite these difficulties, Captain Cardoso's unit was able to rescue the downed pilot within 45 seconds of landing. He narrowly escaped encroaching Serbian forces. Having learned of Captain Cardoso's heroic leadership, I am pleased to recognize his efforts. Captain Cardoso's actions saved an American pilot from enemy hands at a critical time in the Kosovo campaign. By his gallantry and sense of duty, Captain Cardoso has proven a great credit to himself, the State of New Jersey and to the country. I wish him the best as he receives this tremendous honor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, included in these nominations is the United States attorney for New Jersey, Faith Hochberg, of the Federal district court, who has been nominated by the President. Mrs. Hochberg's quest for the Federal district court began with my predecessor, Senator Bradley, who nominated her. I, indeed, succeeded in that quest and am very pleased tonight she will be confirmed to the Federal district court. I thank Senator Leahy for his efforts in the course of the last week to bring the nomination forward and, of course, Senator Grassley for his efforts tonight. She succeeded in having been an extraordinarily successful United States attorney. We are very grateful for her service that now comes to an end and wish her well in the Federal district court. I have no objection.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is important not only to every American of Italian descent, but to any American citizen who values our Constitutional freedoms. This legislation draws attention to the plight of Italian Americans during World War II. Their story has received little attention until now, and I am pleased to be able to heighten public awareness about the injustices they suffered. Hours after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested 250 Italian Americans and shipped them to internment camps in Montana and Ellis Island. These men had done nothing wrong. Their only crime was their Italian heritage and the suspicion that they could be dangerous during war time. By 1942, all Italian immigrants, approximately 600,000 people, were labeled ``enemy aliens'' and given photo IDs which they had to carry at all times. They could travel no further than five miles from their homes and were required to turn in all cameras, flashlights and weapons. These violations did not discriminate against class or social status. In San Francisco, Joe DiMaggio's parents were forbidden to go further than five miles from their home without a permit. Even Enrico Fermi, a leading Italian physicist who was instrumental in America's development of the atomic bomb, could not travel freely along the East Coast. Yet, while these activities persisted in the United States, Italian Americans comprised the largest ethnic group in the Armed Forces. During the war, Italian Americans fought valiantly to defend the freedoms that their loved ones were being denied at home. These are the stories we know about and the facts which have come to light. Yet more than fifty years after the end of World War II, the American people still do not know the details of the Italian American internment, and the American government has yet to acknowledge that these events ever took place. Through this legislation, the Administration will be required to report on the extent to which civil liberties were violated. The Justice Department would conduct a comprehensive review of the Italian American internment, and report its findings, including the name of every person taken into custody, interned, or arrested. The specific injustices they suffered in camps and jail cells would also be detailed in the report. Moreover, federal agencies, from the Department of Education to the National Endowment for the Humanities, would be encouraged to support projects like ``Una Storia Segreta'' that draw attention to this episode of American history. The United States has rightfully admitted its error in interning Japanese Americans. However, Americans of Italian descent suffered equal hardships and this same recognition has been denied to them. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure passage of this legislation so that the United States government will begin to release the facts about this era. Only then can Italian Americans begin to come to terms with the treatment they received during World War II. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, at the outset of this debate for bankruptcy reform, I made clear my own feelings that, as important as I thought it was to reform the bankruptcy laws, in fairness, the legislation needed to be balanced by addressing some of the abuses in the credit industry. In recent days, Senators Durbin and Dodd have come to the floor with their own variations to protect consumers and the credit industry's own excesses. Those amendments have not been successful. I offer what I believe is a balanced and is clearly a bipartisan effort to include some consumer protection in this legislation. It is not based on a theory of government intervention or restriction on credit. It is based on the theory of giving consumers information to make their own judgments. I offer this amendment with Senator Grassley, who has been both accommodating and has offered leadership in fair consumer protection, with Senator Leahy and Senator Biden. As I outline the amendment, I think it will be clear we borrowed heavily from ideas offered by Senators Grassley, Biden, and Leahy but also consumer protection initiatives in part previously offered by Senator Schumer, Senator Reed, Senator Hatch, and Senator Gramm. That is why it is all inclusive and why it is balanced. There has been a great deal of attention on the rise of consumer bankruptcy in recent years. The numbers bear some repeating. Since 1980, there has been a 350-percent increase in bankruptcy filings. Indeed, there are many reasons for it. Part of the crushing debt forcing millions of Americans into bankruptcy clearly is the availability of credit. In the last 23 years, the debt burden by American families has quadrupled. Twenty percent of families earning less than $10,000 have consumer debt that is more than 40 percent of their income. As this chart indicates, consumer bankruptcies and consumer credit debt are nearly identically tracking each other. One cannot separate the rise in bankruptcies from the level of consumer debt. They are one and the same problem. Therefore, as certainly as we deal with other reasons for the abuse of bankruptcies, we must at least deal in part with this issue of availability of credit and whether consumers are fully informed. In 1975, total household debt was 24 percent of aggregate household income. Today, the number is more than 100 percent. That bears repeating: Household income and household debt have now matched each other in an extraordinary and dangerous statistic. Certainly, one of the factors that has led to this radical rise in household debt is the amount of solicitation of consumer credit card debt, which include both aggressive and dubious solicitation techniques. In 1998, the credit industry sent out more than 3.5 billion solicitations. That is 41 mailings for every American household; 14 credit solicitations for every man, woman, and child in America. This does not simply represent aggressive marketing for Americans with high incomes who can afford this increase in credit; it includes high school and college students, a situation so serious, as Senator Dodd pointed out yesterday on the floor of the Senate, that 450 colleges and universities have banned the marketing of credit cards on their campuses; so serious that credit card debt is a leading reason for college students dropping out of school. I recognize the problem. Our amendment does not restrict access to credit, as many Senators would not support that. There is no mandatory control. All we are doing is simply ensuring that before people with low income or students incur this debt, they at least know the consequences of the debt they are accepting. If this is true for students, it is equally true for low-income people. Just in this decade, Americans below the poverty line have doubled their credit usage. Indeed, that is one of the reasons credit card debt now accounts for 31 percent of all consumer debt, putting not only students but low- income people on a treadmill from which they will never, ever escape. Yet I recognize why many Senators would never accept restricting access to credit because the availability of credit to low-income people, even to students, in a free economy is part of how they make investments, make their own judgments. The answer is not to restrict credit to poor people or working people or students. The Senate has rejected that technique, and I do not offer it today. I offer full disclosure. Full disclosure means the 55 to 60 million households in America that carry a credit card balance on average, month to month, of $7,000, which incurs interest and fees of $1,000 a year, will understand the consequences of that debt before and during incurring that debt. Too few consumers understand making only the minimum payment means their balance will grow and they may never, in a reasonable amount of time, have that debt paid. Specifically, what are we asking under this amendment? First, we are requiring a warning as appears on this chart which, in my own office, has modestly been dubbed ``the Torricelli warning.'' It has provisions in it specifically that will warn that, with a balance of $1,000 and 17-percent interest, if the consumer pays only the minimum payment, it will take 88 months to pay off the balance. Here is that warning: Minimum payment warning: Making only the minimum payment will increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to repay your balance. For example, making only the typical 2- percent minimum monthly payment on a balance of $1,000 at an interest rate of 17 percent would take 88 months to repay the balance in full. For an estimate of the time it would take to repay your balance making only the minimum payments, call this toll-free number. First, in this Torricelli warning, we put a 1-800 number that is available for people to call to get the specifics of how long it will take to pay down your account. That is one. No. 2, we will require creditors to disclose that interest on loans secured by a dwelling is tax deductible only to the value of the property because too many consumers are being told if they secure their debt with their real estate, it is tax deductible, only then to find if they have a debt beyond the value of the property, it is not tax deductible. We want full disclosure of this fact. This is based on an amendment previously offered by Senator Reed. It has great merit. I have included it in this amendment that I offer with Senator Grassley and others of my colleagues. No. 3, we require that with credit solicitations containing an introductory or teaser rate, which is so popular, the date at which the introductory rate will expire must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, so people understand these low interest rates will expire and when they expire, so they can make an informed judgment as consumers. This is based on legislation previously offered by Senator Schumer. I think it is invaluable. No. 4, we require that disclosure of the standard truth-in-lending information now required for paper solicitations also be required for Internet solicitations. What we are already requiring on paper solicitations we simply apply to the Internet. This is also based on an amendment offered in committee by Senator Schumer. I think it is extremely valuable. No. 5, we require prominent disclosure of the date on which a late fee will be charged and the amount of the fee. If people are subjecting themselves to late fees, that fact and what the fee would be must be disclosed in the amendment Senator Grassley and I are offering. This, as well, is based on something Senator Schumer has done in the past, and we are very grateful for his valuable contribution to it. No. 6, finally, we prohibit a creditor from terminating an account prior to its expiration date because a consumer has not incurred finance charges. To me, this is the most outrageous of the abuses of the credit industry. A person uses their credit card, they pay off the balance in full, therefore not availing themselves of the credit that could be used, and there is no interest rate because they are paying off their balance, and they are getting their credit card taken from them. We would prohibit that. Good consumers who use their credit card and do not incur any debt do not have to pay, and should not be penalized, for being responsible consumers. We prohibit that practice. I believe, therefore, what we have done with Senator Leahy and Senator Biden, under the leadership of Senator Grassley, is balanced, it is fair, it is at this point the only chance in the bankruptcy bill to have real consumer protection. It is the only amendment being offered on a bipartisan basis. It is based on the very good work of Senator Reed and Senator Biden, Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, and Senator Durbin. I hope, based on that work, this amendment can be adopted. I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their contributions to this amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator will yield, what is the time agreement already?

Mr. TORRICELLI. That seems more than adequate to me.