Robert Torricelli

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, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Study Commission Act of 1999 with my colleague, Senator Kohl. This legislation creates a Commission to comprehensively examine privacy concerns. This Commission will provide Congress with information to facilitate our decision making regarding how to best address individual privacy protections. The rise in the use of information technology--particularly the Internet, has led to concerns regarding the security of personal information. As many as 40 million people around the world have the ability to access the Internet. The use of computers for personal and business transactions has resulted in the availability of vast amounts of financial, medical and other information in the public domain. Information about online users is also collected by Web sites through technology which tracks an individual's every interaction with the Internet. Despite the ease of availability of personal information, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that does not have comprehensive legal protection for personal information. This is in part due to differences in opinion regarding the best way to address the problem. While some argue that the Internet's size and constantly changing technology demands government and industry self-regulation, others advocate for strong legislative and regulatory protections. And, still others note that such protections, although necessary, could lead to unconstitutional consequences if drafted without a comprehensive understanding of the issue. As a result, congressional efforts to address privacy concerns have been patchwork in nature. This is why Senator Kohl and I are proposing the creation of a Commission with the purpose of thoughtfully considering the range of issues involved in the privacy debate and the implications of self- regulation, legislation, and federal regulation. The Commission will be comprised of experts in the fields of law, civil rights, business, and government. After 18 months, the Commission will deliver a report to Congress recommending the necessary legislative protections are needed. The Commission will have the authority to gather the necessary information to reach conclusions that are balanced and fair. Americans are genuinely concerned about individual privacy. The Privacy Commission proposed by Senator Kohl and myself will enable Congress and the public to evaluate the extent to which we should be concerned and the proper way to address those concerns. The privacy debate is multifaceted and I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Kohl and myself in our efforts to gain a better understanding of it. Senator Kohl and I look forward to working with all those interested in furthering this debate and giving Americans a greater sense of confidence in the security of their personal information.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Study Commission Act of 1999 with my colleague, Senator Kohl. This legislation creates a Commission to comprehensively examine privacy concerns. This Commission will provide Congress with information to facilitate our decision making regarding how to best address individual privacy protections. The rise in the use of information technology--particularly the Internet, has led to concerns regarding the security of personal information. As many as 40 million people around the world have the ability to access the Internet. The use of computers for personal and business transactions has resulted in the availability of vast amounts of financial, medical and other information in the public domain. Information about online users is also collected by Web sites through technology which tracks an individual's every interaction with the Internet. Despite the ease of availability of personal information, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that does not have comprehensive legal protection for personal information. This is in part due to differences in opinion regarding the best way to address the problem. While some argue that the Internet's size and constantly changing technology demands government and industry self-regulation, others advocate for strong legislative and regulatory protections. And, still others note that such protections, although necessary, could lead to unconstitutional consequences if drafted without a comprehensive understanding of the issue. As a result, congressional efforts to address privacy concerns have been patchwork in nature. This is why Senator Kohl and I are proposing the creation of a Commission with the purpose of thoughtfully considering the range of issues involved in the privacy debate and the implications of self- regulation, legislation, and federal regulation. The Commission will be comprised of experts in the fields of law, civil rights, business, and government. After 18 months, the Commission will deliver a report to Congress recommending the necessary legislative protections are needed. The Commission will have the authority to gather the necessary information to reach conclusions that are balanced and fair. Americans are genuinely concerned about individual privacy. The Privacy Commission proposed by Senator Kohl and myself will enable Congress and the public to evaluate the extent to which we should be concerned and the proper way to address those concerns. The privacy debate is multifaceted and I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Kohl and myself in our efforts to gain a better understanding of it. Senator Kohl and I look forward to working with all those interested in furthering this debate and giving Americans a greater sense of confidence in the security of their personal information.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, there are few matters of more importance to the nation than the safeguarding of our security. Every day, tens of thousands of men and women wear the American uniform proudly in all the world's time zones while guarding against threats to American citizens and our interests. Perhaps there is no more perilous environment in which our servicemen and women operate than beneath the oceans. Because of the secrecy demanded by the myriad missions, Navy submariners have come to be known as the silent service. Often reluctant to speak on their own behalf, I commend to my colleagues attention the following article which is of great importance, not only to our nation's undersea warriors, but to the nation's security. The commentary in Defense News touches upon an important opportunity. It is the chance to secure more useful life from four Ohio-class submarines slated for retirement. The article suggests the possibility of converting them from their strategic nuclear duties into tactical Tomahawk shooters able to provide our overseas warfighting commanders additional striking capability. I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to address a potential crisis in our nation's system of organ donation. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations that would have had devastating effects on community-based transplant programs by prohibiting states from offering organs to their own sickest residents before making them available nationwide. In response to the overwhelming concerns of patients and health care professionals nationwide, Congress delayed the implementation of the regulations and commissioned a study by the Institute of Medicine to examine the impact of the regulations on the nation's current system. The study drew several conclusions which demonstrate how the current system is effective and why the proposed regulations are misguided. For example, the study found that the current system of organ transplantation is reasonably equitable and effective for the sickest patients. It also found that the proposed regulations would increase the overall cost of transplantation in the U.S. Perhaps most important, the study found that the current system does not discriminate because of race or any other factors and that the waiting list for an organ transplant are treated fairly. These conclusions support the long-held concerns of the organ transplant community that the regulations, which would direct the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) to develop a system which removes geography as a factor in organ donation, may actually increase waiting times in states, like New Jersey, with efficient systems. These unintended consequences will be felt most greatly among patients with disadvantaged backgrounds. In New Jersey, we are extremely fortunate to have a system that is fair and efficient. New Jersey's unique system of certificate of need and charity care ensures that the most critical patients get organs first regardless of insurance. A national organ donation system will force the smaller transplant centers that serve the uninsured and underinsured to close as the vast majority of organs go to the handful of the nation's largest transplant centers with the longest waiting lists. Without access to smaller programs, many patients will be faced with the hardship of registering with out-of-state programs that may turn them away due to lack of insurance. Those who are accepted will be forced to travel out of state at great medical risk and financial hardship. In light of these concerns, the conferees of the FY 2000 Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education bill included language extending the moratorium on the regulations for a period of three months. While this is a very positive step, I am concerned that this moratorium would not provide sufficient time for Congress to consider this issue as part of the debate on the reauthorization of the National Organ Transplant Act. I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Sessions, Hutchinson, Warner, Mack, Shelby, Nickles, Inhofe, Thurmond, Ashcroft, McConnell, Roberts, Kohl, Feingold, Cleland, Hollings, Breaux, Graham, Collins, Grams, Lautenberg, Enzi, Murskowski, Gorton, Landrieu, Robb, and Lincoln to introduce the Organ Donation Regulatory Relief Act of 1999. This bipartisan legislation will delay the Secretary's ability to issue regulations regarding the nation's organ donation system until Congress considers the complex issues surrounding organ procurement and allocation as part of the reauthorization of the National Organ Transplant Act. For the past 15 years, the national organ procurement and allocation system has existed without federal regulation. During this time, each State has developed a unique system to meet their individual needs. Many states, such as New Jersey, have focused on serving uninsured and underprivileged populations. Clearly improvements can be made to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of organ donation nationwide. The legislation will ensure Congress has ample time to consider these important issues prior to allowing the implementation of far-reaching regulations that will revamp the system.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to Senator Hatch for the drafting of the Hatch-Torricelli amendment that is before the Senate. Senator Hatch has reinforced his reputation by a commitment to American families and American children that is almost without peer. This is an extremely important amendment, and it strengthens the provisions of the bankruptcy reform legislation as they deal with families. In drafting bankruptcy reform, Senator Grassley and I were aware that many people were concerned that changes in the bankruptcy laws would have the unintended consequences of making spouses or children more vulnerable as people sought protection from their family obligations. Any change in the bankruptcy code obviously and importantly raises questions about family protection because, indeed, one-third of bankruptcies involve spousal and child support orders. In half those cases, women are creditors trying to collect court-ordered support from their husbands. Therefore, the sensitivity that Senator Grassley and I in the general legislation and Senator Hatch and I now offer in this amendment is extremely important for Members of the Senate to have confidence in this bankruptcy reform. It should be remembered by the Senate that these support orders for support of children and spouses are lifelines for thousands of families struggling to maintain self-sufficiency and remain off public assistance. Forty-four percent of single-parent families with children under the age of 18 have incomes below the poverty line. With child support amounting to an average of nearly $3,000 a year, it is too often the only thing keeping families out of poverty and desperation. With these facts in mind, Senator Grassley and I drafted legislation in the managers' amendment that has a very important provision insisting that child support be elevated to first, rather than seventh, in the list of debts to repay by a debtor in bankruptcy. Addressing the Senate this morning, I wanted to bring attention to this provision more than any other. Under current law, a child or a spouse is seventh in the list of debts to be repaid. Under our legislation, it will now be first, where it belongs. The amendment Senator Hatch and I are now offering goes even further. With the help of women's groups and Government enforcement agencies, we have now been able to make several important new additions to this legislation. Hatch-Torricelli, first, prevents civil cases regarding child custody, visitation, and divorce from being held up by an automatic stay. The automatic stay is designed to protect the debtor from coercion by creditors, not to provide the debtor a tactic for delay in dealing with support issues regarding their own children. Our amendment will ensure that child custody and visitation issues are not held hostage by the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Bankruptcy petitions are not designed to interfere with or delay child support or other related issues in family disputes regarding children and spouses. We will not permit that to happen. Hatch-Torricelli reinforces the strength of that provision. Second, the Hatch-Torricelli amendment cracks down on those who seek to avoid payment of child support obligations by requiring the trustee to give the person to whom support is owed and State collection organizations information on the debtor's whereabouts. By this provision, not only are we ensuring that bankruptcy reform not interfere with child support, we are making bankruptcy reform a strengthening provision in finding the whereabouts of those who are seeking to avoid family and child support. It is a reflection of the reality that many people avoid child support by changing jurisdictions, by hiding from law enforcement. We will use the information in bankruptcy to find those who are responsible in avoiding obligations to their children. Third, the Hatch-Torricelli amendment requires the debtor to pay all child support arrears before the conclusion of a bankruptcy plan unless the spouse agrees otherwise. Not only will bankruptcy reform not be used to complicate child support, people will meet that support, they will deal with their arrears before their bankruptcy petition is acted upon and completed. This will ensure the child support is paid, and paid in full, before the debtor is released from the bankruptcy system. Importantly, however, we do have a safety valve. If the offended spouse believes this is not in their interest, they can indeed waive this provision. For example, if more money may be available for payment of support obligations after confirmation of the bankruptcy plan because other debts are discharged, then there can be a waiver. I believe, though we already have good legislation that Senator Grassley and I have offered which would further protect children and spouses, it is now enhanced by the provisions offered by Senator Hatch. I am very proud to be his cosponsor on this important amendment. I believe we have a better bill because of it. I believe American children and families will be strengthened in the bankruptcy proceedings because of it. I am proud to offer it, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Grassley on offering the amendment. I am proud to offer it with him. We could not do comprehensive bankruptcy reform without dealing with the crisis in the health care industry. Last year, bankruptcies by health care providers were up 15 percent. One nursing home company alone, which has 300 nursing homes, left an estimated 37,000 people without beds when it filed for bankruptcy. One, the Doctors Network in California, when it went into bankruptcy, left 1.3 million people without health care. As the Senator pointed out in his remarks, the bankruptcy laws are designed for creditors and they are designed for people who are debtors, but the customers, in this case the patients, are not provided for. One of the worst cases in the country was when the HIP health care plan in New Jersey went bankrupt leaving 194,000 subscribers without clear health care provisions. Indeed, it has left New Jersey hospitals, almost all of them, in the red this year because their bills were not being paid. I am very grateful we have been able to join together in offering this amendment to ensure there is an ombudsman; that there is help in getting people into new plans; that their records are protected in privacy. I believe we made a real contribution to helping in these difficult moments in the health care industry, and we will have a better bankruptcy reform bill because of it. I am very happy to work with Senator Grassley and grateful for his leadership.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for what has been a valuable partnership in crafting what I believe to be extremely important legislation. It would be fair to conclude that without the tenacity of Senator Grassley, this Senate would not be considering bankruptcy legislation. Without his reasonableness in reaching some of these provisions, it would not be the kind of progressive legislation that I believe is before us today. I also note that I am a successor to Senator Durbin who, like Senator Grassley, has invested not months but more than a year in crafting this legislation. Senator Durbin's contributions are on virtually every page. Working with Senator Durbin and, indeed, with Senator Grassley has not only been a pleasure; it has been a productive exercise. For that, I am very grateful. These are unusual times in our country, such an extraordinary combination of economic circumstances. Unemployment is low, home ownership is at record levels, and, for the first time in years, the Federal Government is operating with a surplus. This would lead many to believe these are not only good economic times but perfect economic times. This, of course does bear closer scrutiny. There are several troubling aspects with the modern American economy. They are not unrelated. One is a rapidly declining rate of personal savings--indeed, in the last quarter, the lowest savings rate by American families in our history. The second is the rapid, almost inexplicable rise in consumer bankruptcies. In 1998 alone, 1.4 million Americans sought bankruptcy protection. This represented a 20-percent increase since 1996 and a staggering 350-percent increase since 1980. We can differ on the reasons. We can have our own theories. But something is wrong. That ``something'' is not only jeopardizing the economic security of American families, it is providing a staggering financial burden on small businesses and American financial institutions. It is estimated 70 percent of the these bankruptcy situations were filed in chapter 7, which provides relief for most unsecured debt. Just 30 percent of these petitions were filed under chapter 13, which requires a repayment plan. There are, obviously, disagreements about what has caused this dramatic increase. It is probable there is no one reason but a confluence of problems. Some suggest that culturally the stigma of bankruptcy has been removed and people no longer feel any inhibition in admitting their financial circumstances and seeking total relief from personal obligations. Others believe it is simply abuse of a system in which it is too simple to avoid responsibility. Others argue that a reliance on debt and a decrease in personal savings has left record numbers of Americans vulnerable to this change and leading to these extraordinary levels of bankruptcy. Obviously, in the complexities of modern life--with low savings rates, high levels of debt, attentions of our current culture, unexpected events, divorce, a health crisis, given the enormous cost of health care in the Nation, the loss of a job or the loss of job skills because of changes of technology--any one of them, no less a combination of them, can take an American family who believes it is living with financial security and force them under a crushing debt into bankruptcy. The reality, of course, is a majority of these bankruptcies are hard- working American people, low- or middle-class families, who largely, through no fault of their own, sometimes due to these circumstances that I have outlined, find themselves with overwhelming financial problems and they simply cannot deal with the crushing blow. For all the abuses, the fact remains that accounts for most of these bankruptcies. At the same time, in a recent study the Department of Justice has found that 13 percent of all those debtors filing under chapter 7, or an incredible 182,000 people, can afford to repay a significant amount of this debt. This would mean to creditors, family-owned businesses, small retailers, and important financial institutions, an incredible $4 billion that could be returned to creditors but is avoided through what I perceive to be a misuse of the bankruptcy system. These are the factors, the statistics, and the concerns that led Senator Grassley and I to offer this comprehensive bankruptcy reform. The bill before the Senate strikes a balance making it more difficult for the unscrupulous to abuse the system, while ensuring that bankruptcy protection for families who need it will find it available. These abuses which result in this $4 billion loss to creditors is not paid by some distant institution off our shores separated from the realities of American life or our economy. This is money avoided through the unscrupulous use of the bankruptcy system that is added onto every piece of clothing you buy in the store, every automobile you purchase from a show room, every credit card you use, and every bank loan that you take. Those hard-working Americans who pay their bills are forced, through bankruptcy, through no fault of their own, to share these costs. That is what brings us here today. At its core, the Grassley-Torricelli bill is designed to assure that those with the ability to repay a portion of their debts do so by establishing clear and reasonable criteria to determine repayment obligations. It provides judicial discretion to ensure that no one genuinely in need of debt cancellation will be prevented from receiving a fresh start. Recognizing that a fresh start and an ability to have a new life have been at the core in this country, that has been the reason for bankruptcy protection since the establishment of the Republic. We believe in second chances in life. We also don't believe in people escaping obligations they can meet or misusing the legal system. It is because, however, of our concern that vulnerable people who genuinely use the system for a new start in life would have their position jeopardized by our legitimate efforts to find those who are abusing the system that we have designed a flexible means testing system in the bankruptcy bill for the first time. Under current law, virtually anyone who files for complete debt relief under chapter 7 will receive it. The Grassley-Torricelli bill creates a needs-based system by establishing a presumption that a chapter 7 filing should be either dismissed or converted to a chapter 13 when the debtor has sufficient income to repay at least $15,000, or 25 percent of their outstanding debt. That is the essence of the needs-based system. It is a simple presumption. You can pay $15,000, or 25 percent. It is not closed to you. There is no prohibition. But there is a presumption that you can pay. You need to meet that presumption only for those individuals. I believe this is a flexible yet very efficient screen to move debtors to the ability to repay a portion of their debt into a repayment plan, while at the same time ensuring judicial discretion and a fair review given the debtor's individual circumstances. In addition, the bill contains several important consumer safeguards to prevent unfair harassment by creditors. It requires the Attorney General and the FBI Director to designate one prosecutor and one agent in every district to investigate reaffirmation practices that violate Federal law. This is an important element of this bill to ensure that individual creditors do not seek their own remedy outside of the law, forcing people who cannot repay or should not be repaying, given their individual circumstances and income, to do so. It penalizes creditors who refuse to negotiate reasonable repayment schedules prior to bankruptcy. The emphasis remains on settlement through negotiations--not litigation and conflict. Importantly, the bill also does everything possible to guarantee that child support payments in bankruptcy are not jeopardized, are a priority, and continue. This was the priority in the Judiciary Committee--that we would reform this system, we would provide new opportunities for debtors to collect, new safeguards for people in bankruptcy, but that child support payments and family obligations will remain paramount. I believe in the balance that is achieved in this legislation, and that Senator Grassley and I have met that objective. It was critical to do so because more than one-third of bankruptcies in the United States involve spousal or child support orders. This bill will not be a vehicle for people escaping their family obligations. In half of these cases, women are creditors trying to collect court- ordered support from their former husbands. These support orders are a lifeline for these families. I believe this legislation has protected it, recognizing the vulnerability of these families, and why this was a priority in the legislation. Mr. President, 44 percent of single parent families with children under the age of 18 had incomes below the poverty line in recent years. The child support amounting to an average of nearly $3,000 is often the only thing that keeps a single parent and a dependent child off public assistance. Senator Grassley and I have achieved this protection and I believe this fair provision of protecting these families by elevating child support from its current place as seventh on the repayment priority list to first place. This is critical for Members of the Senate to understand. Currently, these child support payments are seventh on the list of priorities. Under the Grassley-Torricelli legislation, it will now be first priority. No bank, no insurance company, no credit card company, no retailer--no one--will have higher priority than the children or the spouses involved in these cases. There were other concerns in the Judiciary Committee which needed to be addressed, other balances that have been achieved that the Senate should recognize. First, the managers' amendment that will be offered incorporates the language offered by Senator Feingold to remedy a provision in the bill carried over from the legislation of a previous year which would have made debtors' attorneys responsible for costs and fees. That provision would have made it impossible for many middle-income people, people of modest means, to ever get an attorney. In cases where there is any judgment to be reached, any questions on the merits, it would have been impossible to get an attorney, disenfranchising many Americans from the entire bankruptcy system. A motion brought by the trustee to move the debtor from chapter 7 into chapter 13 and the original filing was, we found, not substantially justified. Those costs would have been incurred by the attorney. The managers' amendment will protect against this provision. Second, the managers' amendment will include a safe harbor, exempting every debtor with income below the median income from the means test. This provision will ensure low-income people with no hope of prepaying their debts are not swept into the means test. A final point I raised that is resolved by the managers' amendment is the use of IRS standards in the bill. Currently, the bill uses living expense standards formulated by the IRS in determining what portion of their debts an individual has the ability to repay. These standards were not formulated with bankruptcy in mind and provide virtually no flexibility to account for the debtor's actual expenses. They were, therefore, not appropriate. The managers' amendment will clarify the Justice Department and Treasury have the authority to draft bankruptcy appropriate standards and not use the IRS standards previously used. For each of these provisions and their incorporation in this legislation, we are very indebted to members of the Judiciary Committee: Senator Feingold, for his efforts in recognizing the possible abuses of putting these costs on to bankruptcy attorneys if the cases were lost; and Senator Durbin, at his insistence and my own, we provided for an appropriate means test; and for the Department of Justice coming up with its own means test standards. Senator Durbin, in particular, was very helpful with these provisions. Senator Grassley, recognizing their merits, has brought them into the legislation. It is, therefore, far better legislation because of each of these provisions. There is, however, one final area which also must be addressed to ensure the bill is both balanced and bipartisan. It is critical the bill not only address the debtor's abuse of bankruptcy but also overreaching and sometimes abusive practices of the credit industry. Any American who gets their own mail understands some change is taking place in the American economy--the extraordinary solicitation of customers, by the 3.5 billion individual efforts by the credit card industry to get new customers. This represents 41 mailings for every American household every year; 14 for every man, woman, and child in the Nation. No one disputes both the right and the advisability of the credit card industry seeking solicitation of new customers who are creditworthy, have incomes and the need for available consumer credit. It is right and an important part of our economy. That is not the objective of this legislation. Our concern in balancing provisions dealing with consumer abuse of the bankruptcy laws with credit industry abuse of consumers focuses instead on people of modest incomes who are offered credit they could never afford, debt they will incur that they can never deal with, young people and the elderly, in credit obligations they do not even understand. The situation, indeed, has become so serious with students that 450 colleges nationwide have banned the marketing of credit cards on their campuses. Low-income families are being targeted with the same frequency as students--the endless solicitation of debt they cannot meet and should not incur. Since this decade began, Americans with incomes below the poverty line have doubled their credit usage. The result is entirely predictable. Mr. President, 27 percent of families earning less than $10,000 have consumer debt that is more than 40 percent of their income. Modest-income families, sometimes high school students, often people on public assistance, receiving hundreds if not thousands of credit solicitations by companies that should recognize with any due diligence that is fully available to the industry that these debts can never be paid. I have granted to the industry that unfortunate changes in our culture, abuses of the bankruptcy laws, and a host of other reasons have led to needed changes in the bankruptcy laws to avoid these abuses. No one can credibly argue there is not some need of the industry to do so as well. In this legislation we offer the consumers must be given information about the consequences of their debt: fair disclosure if only the minimum debt is paid as required by the credit card company or the bank; how long will it take for repayment to be made; and what will it cost, information that should be made available to every consumer, people believing if they make the minimum payments they will actually ever be out of debt. We want them to recognize the years and the enormous costs of doing so. Senator Grassley, working with Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, and others, has reached an accommodation that I think is fair to the industry but will provide real consumer protection through disclosure. The adoption of that amendment is as vital to a balanced bill as the protection of child support, the moving of people into repayment schedules, and a means test. This is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is a challenge to all those who believe this Senate cannot operate on a bipartisan basis. There will be opposition to bankruptcy reform. It may be 5, 10, 15 or 20 votes, but it will be a small minority. This is genuinely bipartisan legislation. It can be adopted without rancor after months, if not years, of effort by Senators from both sides of the aisle. It is fair; it is balanced for the credit card industry and consumers. I end as I began, expressing my gratitude to Senator Grassley and members of the Judiciary Committee, and I compliment the Senate on what I believe will be a worthwhile and informative debate as we adopt this comprehensive bankruptcy reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sorrow at last week's tragedy in the Armenian National Parliament. Prime Minister Sarkissian, Speaker Demirchian, and six other legislators were killed. While we may never know what motivated the gunmen to storm the building, we do know that a single act of terror was directed against individuals who were attempting to build and strengthen Armenia's democratic institutions. Armenia has made positive movement toward widespread democracy and free markets, and the leaders who lost their lives had played important roles in these reforms. As a result, this tragedy is truly a great loss for the Armenian people. For this reason, I have joined Senator Abraham in introducing a resolution condemning the incident. After months of progress on a range of issues, from the rule of law, to Nagorno-Karabakh, to fighting corruption, Armenia is faced with a huge obstacle to overcome. Just this past week, Armenia held local elections nation-wide that were deemed free and fair by independent observers. These elections were not without minor irregularities, but the overall impact has been to reaffirm and further strengthen the commitment of the Armenian people to an open election process. On the complex issue of peace in Nagorno-Karabakh, significant progress has been made recently. Bilateral meetings between President Kocharian and President Aliyev have been frequent and intensive in response to our encouragement for greater results. Just hours before the attack, Prime Minister Sarkissian had met with President Kocharian and Deputy Secretary of State Talbott to discuss the peace process. Clearly, it will be difficult for Armenia to move forward without Sarkissian's presence--difficult, but not impossible. Given the tremendous amount of progress Armenia has made since declaring independence from the Soviet Union, I am confident that the Armenian people will move past this tragic event and continue to build upon their successes. But the key to doing so is ongoing support from the United States. Together, our two countries have built strong ties, focusing upon a prosperous, secure and democratic future. It is critical that, in the midst of such overpowering grief, we renew our support for the people of Armenia and their leaders. As they continue to build upon the principles that the victims had worked to fulfill, the people of Armenia should know that the United States supports their efforts. I hope my colleagues will join me in sending this message to the Armenian people.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in observance of ``National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week'' to highlight the problem of childhood lead poisoning and the deficiencies within the current system of detection and prevention. Lead poisoning is the number one environmental health hazard to our children, despite a ban on the manufacture of lead paint and efforts to remove lead from gasoline and dietary sources. It is estimated that 800,000 children today suffer from elevated lead levels. Lead poisoning attacks a child's nervous system, impairing physical, mental, and behavioral development. Extreme exposure can cause seizures, brain damage, comas, and even death. And, inadequate diet and exposure to environmental hazards such as old housing make the threat greatest for those who possess the fewest resources to confront it--our nation's poor children. This is why in 1992 Congress required states to test every Medicaid recipient under age two for lead poisoning. Mandatory screening would enable the highest-risk children to be tested and treated before lead poisoning impairs their development. However, many Medicaid providers are not conducting the required screening. A recent GAO study found that two-thirds of the children on Medicaid have never been screened for lead. In New Jersey, only 39% of children covered by Medicaid are tested. A report issued this past summer from the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning and the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing provides new information regarding the extent of this problem. This report, a state-by-state analysis of follow-up care provided to lead-poisoned children, found that only 29 states have standards for how to care for lead-poisoned children. The report also found that only 35 states have developed specific strategies for investigating lead hazards in poisoned children's homes. And, 22 states reported that they lack the necessary funding to make a home safe for a lead-poisoned child. This report presents compelling evidence in support of legislation, S.1120, the Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999, introduced by Senator Reed and myself to strengthen lead screening policy. This legislation would ensure that every federal program which serves at risk kids is involved in the lead screening process. Our bill would require WIC and Head Start centers to determine if a child has been tested and ensure testing for those children who have not. As 75% of at-risk children are enrolled in federal health care programs, this would ensure that no child is overlooked. Secondly, the Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999 would guarantee that Medicaid contracts explicitly require health care providers to adhere to federal rules for screening and treatment. Currently, many states are having Medicaid services provided by health maintenance organizations (HMO's). These HMO's, however, either are not conducting the required lead screening tests or are only conducting one of two required tests. This legislation would effectively stop this corner cutting. Our bill would also ensure that states and federal agencies have the resources and incentives to complete mandatory screening by requiring Medicaid to reimburse WIC and Head Start for screening costs. We must create a bonus program that rewards states who screen more than 65% of their Medicaid population. But additional testing is only a first step. Our legislation would also focus on prevention by reducing the sources of poisoning and provide for follow-up care for those children identified as at-risk. This includes expanding Medicaid coverage to include treatment for lead poisoning and for environmental investigations to determine its sources. I am extremely pleased to tell my colleagues that in response to the efforts of the Senator from Rhode Island and myself, the Department of Health and Human Services has initiated some important steps to address the problem. Their efforts include ensuring that state Medicaid agencies comply with existing Medicaid policies requiring lead screening and requiring states to report the number of children under age six screened for lead poisoning. These measures will help us to better understand the problem and how to respond to it. However, enhancing screening and identifying children exposed to lead is only the first step. Identification must be followed with treatment and abatement, including controlling the source of lead poisoning. For example, my own state of New Jersey has made great efforts in the area of abatement. Specifically, New Jersey requires the renovation and maintenance of older housing as well as mandating landlords to periodically test for lead. New Jersey has also initiated statewide programs to educate families on how to find and eliminate lead sources from their homes. Similarly, on the federal level, the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides grants to states and local governments to reduce lead hazards in housing. Yet, for every application, there are nine that go unfunded. This year, the House tried to cut funding for this program by $10 million. Although conferees ultimately restored funding equal to the President's request, this attempt demonstrates the need to provide greater awareness of the need for lead prevention efforts. As the Alliance report suggests, there is more every state must do and there is clearly more the federal government can do to protect lead-poisoned children. I encourage my colleagues to examine the Alliance report and learn about what can be done in your states to improve lead poisoning treatment and prevention efforts. Finally, I would encourage Senator Roth and Senator Jeffords to begin hearings not only on our legislation but also on this issue. In 1992, Congress made a commitment to improving our children's health by reducing the prevalence of childhood lead poisoning and improving treatment. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Reed and myself in fulfilling this commitment.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mayor Ronald Dobies of Middlesex Borough on his induction into the New Jersey Elected Officials Hall of Fame. After nearly 30 years in public service Mayor Dobies was inducted last January. He was first elected Mayor in 1979, and he has been re-elected four times since. Prior to this service, Mayor Dobies was a member of the school board for six years, as well as a four-year member of the Borough Council. Through these years, Mayor Dobies' administrations have grappled with some basic suburban dilemmas, such as preserving open space while attracting development and keeping municipal services up and taxes down. Among his accomplishments, Mayor Dobies has secured flood-control measures and ongoing road projects, increased park and recreation areas, and overseen the construction of the borough's Senior Citizen Housing complex. Mayor Dobies is originally from Scranton, Pennsylvania, and attended the University of Scranton. He graduated with a degree in chemistry and philosophy, and ultimately joined basic training at Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia. After serving in the military police corps overseas, Ronald and his wife Blanche returned to the United States. Mayor Dobies has added to his impressive record of community service by demonstrating his abilities in the business world as well. He is currently the Director of Analytical Research for Wyeth-Ayerst Research in Pearl River, New York. While this job is a full-time one, he still finds the time to devote between 30 and 40 hours each week to his responsibilities as Mayor. Each Friday night, Mayor Dobies hosts meetings with his constituents, a tradition he began during his first term. Mayor Dobies has won the respect of both Republicans and Democrats in his borough, and his non-contentious style has promoted a successful bipartisan spirit at all levels of government in Middlesex Borough. This December, Mayor Dobies will conclude his fifth term, and he hopes to return for a sixth next year. I look forward to his continued service in this office, and I extend my congratulations to him on his honor by the New Jersey Elected Officials Hall of Fame.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the efforts of my constituent, Mr. Ramon de la Cruz, who serves as President of the Hispanic Bar Association, HBA, of New Jersey. Mr. de la Cruz is being honored on November 6, 1999 at the Annual Scholarship Gala of the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, and I am proud to congratulate him on a job well done. Recently, we celebrated National Hispanic Heritage Month. I am proud today to recognize the efforts of a man and organization who illustrate so well the strong work ethic, deep affinity to service and commitment to our nation of the Hispanic American community. For countless years, Hispanic Americans have played an integral role in our legal system, and I am proud to represent a state with a large concentration of Hispanic Americans. Their commitment to this country has not gone unnoticed. Ramon de la Cruz has been active with the HBA for the past ten years and has served with distinction. He has lent his support to countless causes, including the promotion of qualified Hispanic lawyers for state and federal judgeships, creating scholarship opportunities for law students, and initiating professional exchange opportunities in conjunction with other bar associations. Additionally, Ramon has served as editor of ABOGADO, the official publication of the HBA, for four years. Furthermore, when it came time to consider candidates for the federal bench, Ramon was one of the people I turned to for assistance. I was proud to submit to the White House the nomination of Judge Julio Fuentes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and Ramon worked extensively with my staff to bring this to fruition. Ramon has been vital to the success of the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey. Through his efforts, membership has grown to approximately three times that of previous years. Mr. de la Cruz is a resident of Guttenberg in the diverse County of Hudson, which is home to countless Hispanic Americans that I have the privilege of representing. Since its inception and through Ramon's leadership, the HBA has been dedicated to making a real difference in our state, and indeed the nation. Ramon has brought vision and new energy to this organization. The judicial branch plays such a critical role in the life of our democratic institutions, and the industry is well served by true professionals like Ramon de la Cruz. His credentials and background are indeed impressive. The HBA's positive impact on the Hispanic community has spread to other communities in a manner that transcends racial and ethnic differences. Mr. President, activism is important to creating a sense of personal responsibility for one's community. The HBA embodies this concept, and should be celebrated for successfully instilling it in others. I take pride in recognizing distinguished individuals in the great State of New Jersey like Ramon de la Cruz.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the St. Paul Baptist Church on the occasion of its centennial celebration. Over the past year, the church has been celebrating its more than one hundred years of service. I am honored to have the opportunity to join with them in their celebration of this tremendous milestone. For over one hundred years, the St. Paul Baptist Church has provided the African-American community with a strong sense of unity as the only black Baptist church in Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey. The church has experienced tremendous growth since it was founded by the Reverend M.R. Rosco in 1899. Today, it can boast not only of being a house of faith and worship, but also of its daily contributions to the community of Atlantic Highlands through its Educational Center and the Vassie L. Peek, Sr. Educational Annex. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of St. Paul's pastor, the Reverend Doctor Henry P. Davis, Jr., to New Jersey's Baptist community. Over the years, Reverend Davis has been a shining example of devotion to his church. In addition to his commitment to his parish, the Reverend has served as Treasurer of the General Baptist State Convention of New Jersey, Moderator of the Seacoast Missionary Baptists Association of New Jersey, an Executive Board member of the New Jersey Council of Churches, and Secretary of the Moderator's Auxiliary of the National Baptist Convention, USA. Once again, I would like to extend my congratulations and warmest wishes to Reverend Davis and his congregation on the occasion of the centennial celebration of St. Paul Baptist Church. The church's contributions to the residents of Atlantic Highlands is unmatched. I can only hope that the next one hundred years will be as rewarding as the first.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, that is not atypical. Health care in this country has been undermined by advocacy of insurance companies whose principal interest is not the delivery of quality health care to people who are currently uninsured, but they stand behind these blind advertising campaigns where no one knows where the money comes from. Just as in the campaign of my colleague from Nevada, we have polluters who are running ads on environmental protection; we have people on consumer safety who are representing groups that are damaging to individual consumers. That is because none of these groups is disclosable and none is accountable. In the current system, bad as it is, while these groups can run these advertising campaigns, the political parties are also raising soft money and there is a chance to answer them. Now the political parties will no longer be able to raise these funds, but these advocacy groups will continue in an upward spiral of spending. Senator Daschle's point is, let's eliminate this gross fundraising and these soft money expenditures across the board within 60 days of an election by putting everybody under the FEC rules. Senator McCain has said, ``But that will not pass.'' It may not. But it passed in the House of Representatives, and 60 Republicans came to join with the Democratic majority in passing it. We are not 20 or 30 or 40 votes from passing it in the Senate, we are 7 or 8. I would come back here every week of every month of every year until we restored the integrity of this Government and got comprehensive campaign finance reform. But the answer is not to lower our ambitions for campaign finance reform, to have a new, distorted system to make American politics fought by surrogates over the heads of candidates. The answer is to remain committed to this reform, reveal to the American people who is voting against it, who is stopping it, and let the American people decide.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I want to ask the Senator from Wisconsin one more question. A group of unaffiliated citizens decides they are going to rent a building next to DNC headquarters. In that building, they are going to call themselves Democrats for a Better America. Democrats for a Better America is going to file as a charitable organization along with the Red Cross and the Boy Scouts. No one in the current DNC leadership is going to be on their board of directors, but they are right next door. They are going to have the same seal as the DNC except they are going to take one toe off the eagle and they are going to change the color tone a little bit, but they are going to be right next door. They are going to take $200,000 contributions, million-dollar contributions. And unlike the Democratic Party, they are not going to disclose them. No one is going to know where the money is going to come from. Can the Senator tell me how legally we are going to restrict American citizens from doing this constitutionally under your provision, unless we had Shays-Meehan, which applied these soft money bans to everybody's efforts?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I note the problems of which I speak are not theoretical. Groups are already adjusting to the possibility that there will be a soft money ban in the political parties but no Shays-Meehan reform. They therefore are adjusting to this new reality. Let me give an example. Congressman DeLay has now formed a group, Citizens For A Republican Congress. He has gone to the wealthiest donors in the Nation, promising them a safe haven for anonymous and limitless contributions to the 2000 elections. He is reportedly planning on spending $25 to $30 million in 30 competitive House races in soft money. So Congressman DeLay will now, if this happens in the Democratic and Republican Parties, personally be directing a larger advertising campaign than the Democratic or Republican Parties in either House of Congress. The former advisers to Congressman DeLay are also forming a Republican issues majority committee, which is planning on spending $25 million. Already in a previous cycle, in the 1996 cycle, Americans for Tax Reform received $4.6 million from the Republican National Committee that they were able to spend on issue advocacy. United Seniors Association spent $3 million in direct mail in seven States in the 1996 election. They are an IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, spent $1.8 million in 1996; Americans for Limited Terms, $1.8 million in seven States; American Renewal, $400,000, a 501(c)(3). These are charitable organizations. The Tax Code has these provisions for people who want to help churches, synagogues, and Americans who are hurt and damaged, and to help build communities. They are being used as a cover for political advertising and no longer simply a force on the fringes of American politics. Look at the chart I have on my left: 1998 elections. Nonparty advocacy groups are two-thirds of all the issue ads in U.S. politics. The political parties, Democratic and Republican Parties, are one- third. If the sum total of the legislation offered by Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold is that we will largely eliminate this third, when a Senator stands here a year from now going over this same problem, this entire pie chart will be advocacy groups, many of them tax-free organizations that are hiding who is contributing to them, who is running them, where their money is coming from, often using disguised names and running surrogate campaigns over the heads of political candidates.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Nor, by the way, if I may continue, is this a theoretical problem. I do not cast aspersions, but entirely legally in the 1996 cycle, when the restrictions were out on the coordination of issue advertising, Senator D'Amato set up a separate division and did issue advertising. It is entirely appropriate, entirely appropriate. This August, Grover Norquist had $4.5 million worth of advertising for his Americans for Tax Justice. In some of those advertisements, they used the same film footage as Republican candidates were using--on the same issues. That technically is not advisable, but it is happening. We have some responsibility here in the Senate to deal with the reality of how this process is going to evolve.

Mr. TORRICELLI. There would be no reason to do so. They are no longer raising soft money, so why would they need to transfer?

Mr. TORRICELLI. My argument is, I believe, the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona are making a premature retreat. I concede there may not be 60 votes in the Senate today for comprehensive campaign finance reform, but I do believe there is mounting public pressure. I believe Senators who vote against comprehensive campaign finance reform, who will vote against us on cloture on the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, are accountable to the people in their States. In the House of Representatives 2 years ago, the passage of comprehensive campaign finance reform was equally unlikely. Sixty Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats for real reform. These numbers are untenable. You cannot explain to the American people that you allow this charade to continue of people hiding behind these groups and spending $1 million, $100,000 contributions that are not accountable. I respect the Senator's work, but I believe we would do better to remain on this. I believe, in the alternative, you are going to establish a system where these groups dominate American politics as you silence the political parties.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it. And I believe it will be proven to be entirely ineffective.

Mr. TORRICELLI. That route will be blocked. Instead, the environment we create would be this. Is the Senator from Wisconsin, with his familiarity with American politics and American fundraising, generally of the belief that people who are now contributing $100,000 or $250,000 contributions, because they are advocating some perspective in American politics, when you pass this law, you are going to sit at home and say: You know, I guess I'm just not going to be heard; I'm going to remove myself from the process because that's the right thing to do? I think the Senator from Wisconsin must at least be suspicious that that money, that same check, is going to work itself into Americans for Tax Justice or one of these other 70 organizations that are engaged in this political advertising. It may not happen, as the Senator has appropriately written the bill, that a Member of Congress or a political party leader calls one of these contributors and says: Send your check to so-and-so. But certainly the Senator is aware it will not be very hard for political leaders to divert this money by a wink or a nod or some smile in the right direction, and we are going to end up, instead, having these surrogate organizations running these campaigns.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I don't dispute that, although, indeed, if we were really doing comprehensive reform, which seems to be lost in the Senate, frankly, I would be going to that question on disclosability and tax deductibility and people remaining in tax-free status to do so. That would be comprehensive reform. But for the purpose of the argument, I will concede the point.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Probably not the groups the Senator has cited, but I do believe they end up in an organization.