[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9785-S9789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1202. A bill providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, 
and Ana Lozano; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       PRIVATE RELIEF LEGISLATION

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that 
provides permanent resident status to three children, Sergio, 17 years 
old; Fauricio 15 years old; and Ana Lozano, 14 years old; who were 
granted immigrant visas to come to the United States with their mother 
earlier this year. Now they have lost their mother

[[Page S9786]]

and could be deported because they were recently orphaned.
  The children have lived with their mother, Ana Ruth Lozano, until her 
death in February of this year due to complications from typhoid fever. 
Since their mother's death, the children have been living with their 
closest relative, their U.S.-citizen grandmother who lives in Los 
Angeles.
  Without their mother, the children do not have the legal right to 
remain in the United States. The Lozano children can be deported 
because the immigration law prohibits permanent legal residency to 
minor children without their parents.
  Without their mother, these children can be deported by the INS 
despite the fact the children have no family who will take care of them 
in El Salvador except their estranged father who, INS reports show, was 
abusive to the mother and the children.
  Without this bill, the children will most likely be sent to an 
orphanage in El Salvador. Here in the United States, the childern have 
their U.S.-citizen grandmother and uncles who will give them a loving 
home.
  I have previously sought administrative relief for the Lozano 
children by asking the INS district office in Los Angeles and 
Commissioner Meissner if any humanitarian exemptions could be made in 
their case. INS has told my staff that there is nothing further they 
can do administratively and a private relief bill may be the only way 
to protect the children from deportation.
  I hope you will support this bill so that we can help the Lozano 
children begin to rebuild their lives in the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the attached news 
article and the bill be entered into the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1202

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano and Ana Lozano, shall be held 
     and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United 
     States for permanent residence as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fees.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, May 29, 1997]

              Youth's Visas in Doubt After Mother's Death

                       (By Patrick J. McDonnell)

       Three El Salvadoran teenagers who were granted U.S. 
     government permission to move to Los Angeles with their 
     mother earlier this year now face deportation because their 
     mother's death has left them without a legal right to be in 
     the United States.
       Ana Ruth Lozano a single mother who worked in a garment 
     factory in El Salvador, had long dreamed that she and her 
     children would be able to join relatives in Los Angeles, a 
     glittering place with promise beyond the postwar tumult of 
     Central America.
       She died in El Salvador in February at the age of 33, 
     apparently of complications from typhoid fever, three weeks 
     after her family received visas to emigrate to the United 
     States following an eight-year wait.
       Ironically, relatives say; Lozano took ill on the day she 
     was informed by officials in the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador 
     that authorities were approving the family's long-delayed 
     application.
       ``My mother always said we'd go to the United States and 
     have a real chance to succeed,'' said Sergio Lozano, 17, who 
     finally arrived here last month with his siblings, Fauricio, 
     15, and Ana, 14.
       With the shock of her unexpected death still raw, the 
     family is facing another blow: The Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service says that Lozano's death means that 
     her children must go back to El Salvador. Because she was the 
     primary visa beneficiary, the INS says, the law calls for the 
     papers of her children--the ``derivative beneficiaries''--to 
     be revoked upon her death.
       The incredulous Lozano family has fallen into one of the 
     many cracks in U.S. immigration law. Their case stands out 
     even amid the often dramatic consequences in a legal arena 
     replete with tales of separated families.
       ``It's just not fair to send these children back now.'' 
     Zoila Esperanza Lozano, 54, the children's maternal 
     grandmother, said as she fought back tears during an 
     interview at her Los Angeles apartment, where a photograph of 
     her late daughter and a Mother's Day poem from her are 
     displayed prominently.
       Rosemary Melville, INS deputy district director in Los 
     Angeles, declined to discuss the Lozano case specifically, 
     citing privacy laws. But she confirmed that visas for family 
     members are considered ``null and void'' if the principal 
     beneficiary dies before the visa is used. In ``compelling'' 
     cases, Melville added, the agency has discretion to grant 
     residency or block deportation based on humanitarian 
     concerns.
       In another era, legal observers say, authorities may have 
     been inclined to stretch the letter of the law or issue a 
     waiver allowing the Lozano children to stay. But such 
     exceptions are more problematic amid today's national climate 
     generally hostile to immigration.
       ``The unfortunate track record of immigration law is if you 
     make one exception you find it spinning out of control,'' 
     said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration 
     Reform, a group that seeks to reduce immigration levels and 
     assails ``loopholes'' in the law.
       Relatives of the Lozano children say they were assured by 
     officials at the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador that the 
     children's visas were still good, despite the mother's death. 
     They learned otherwise upon the youths' arrival at Los 
     Angeles International Airport last month, when, according to 
     the family, the three youngsters were held and questioned for 
     six hours and faced being sent back to El Salvador on the 
     spot--an expedited ``removal'' procedure that has been in the 
     INS arsenal since April 1, when a tough new immigration law 
     went into effect.
       Finally, inspectors agreed to allow the three into the 
     country conditionally, pending the outcome of an agency 
     review. The three teenagers have another date with the INS in 
     Los Angeles on June 25.
       The Lozano family has mobilized to do whatever necessary to 
     keep the children in Los Angeles. The three, now enrolled at 
     Belmont High School, are staying in their grandmother's one-
     bedroom Westlake apartment.
       ``For me, the children are a blessing from my beautiful 
     daughter, and I'll do whatever I can for them,'' their 
     grandmother said.
       Tough of modest means, relatives here say they are willing 
     to sign legally binding accords to care for the three and 
     ensure that they do not become public charges.
       Francisco Lozano, Ana Ruth's younger brother, is 
     spearheading a letter-writing campaign to officials in 
     Congress and elsewhere. ``If I have to go and see President 
     Clinton, I will,'' said Lozano, a hotel pastry chef.
       In El Salvador, the family says, the three children have 
     nothing to go back to: no home, no close kin, no means of 
     support. Ana Ruth Lozano had been estranged from the 
     children's father for years, relatives say. Most close 
     relatives on their mother's side of the family are in the 
     United States and Canada, as are many other Salvadorans, who 
     left their homeland during the civil war that engulfed it in 
     the 1980s.
       The children's grandmother has supported them in El 
     Salvador for years, sending back monthly checks of up to 
     $300, almost half her pay as a live-in housekeeper.
       Seated in their grandmother's home on a recent afternoon, 
     all three Lozano youths spoke of their desire to remain in 
     the United States, study, and embark upon careers: Sergio 
     wants to be a graphic artist, Fauricio would like to be an 
     airline pilot, and Ana hopes to become a lawyer.
       ``I don't think I'd have any chance to even dream about 
     such a thing back home,'' said Fauricio.
       ``Here one has the chance to better oneself,'' said the 
     slender, reserved Ana. ``This place is what our mother always 
     wanted for us.''
  By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 1203. A bill to amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit 
consumer liability for the unauthorized use of a debit card, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


             the debit card consumer protection act of 1997

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will 
protect tens of millions of consumers who carry bank debit cards, as 
well as millions more who are being targeted by banks to use this 
relatively new and unfamiliar payment card. This bill extends to the 
users of debit cards the protections that now already apply to users of 
credit cards. And I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators 
Bennett, Dodd, and Bryan, for cosponsoring this important legislation.
  In the past few years, millions of Americans have opened envelopes 
from their banks to find these new payment cards. These cards look like 
credit cards. They have ``VISA'' or ``MasterCard'' logos on the front 
of them--I am holding one up now--but they are actually debit cards, 
or, in the language of the industry, they are ``off-line'' debit cards. 
They are called ``off-line'' cards because they can be used with just a 
signature, and no PIN No., in order to access the consumer's bank 
account directly.
  These off-line cards combine the convenience of a credit card with 
the simplicity of an ATM card. In order to make a purchase, the 
consumer simply presents the debit card to a merchant and signs a sales 
slip. The money for the payment is then automatically

[[Page S9787]]

withdrawn from the consumer's bank account and transferred to the 
merchant.
  But if an off-line card is lost or stolen, it poses a little known 
and potentially unlimited danger to the consumer. Because it needs only 
a signature to authorize a purchase, a criminal who finds the card or 
who steals the card can easily use it to make purchases. He can go on a 
wild shopping spree and buy thousands of dollars worth of goods on that 
stolen card.
  But unlike a stolen credit card, these fraudulent charges are 
immediately deducted from the victim's bank account. And unlike a 
stolen credit card, the law provides virtually no limit to the victim's 
liability.
  And what happens to the consumer whose bank account is cleaned out by 
fraud? Soon her checks begin bouncing, bills go unpaid, late charges 
and overdraft fees pile up, suddenly the victim is facing financial 
disaster. Unraveling this mess can mean weeks of letters and phone 
calls, and nobody will compensate the victim for the lasting damage to 
his or her name or reputation.
  Furthermore, the victim will be literally penniless until the bank 
investigates the theft and, hopefully, restores the account.
  Under current law, the bank could take up to 20 days to complete this 
investigation. Imagine losing one's entire bank balance and then being 
unable to write a check for rent, car payment or groceries for 20 days.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that consumers do not understand the 
off-line debit card. They may think it is just like an ordinary ATM 
card. But without the protection of a secret PIN number, the card is 
not secure. In reality, it is a direct line of access to the consumer's 
bank account. That line of access is open to anyone who possesses the 
card, including a thief. Just the number on the face of the card is all 
the thief needs to totally drain the consumer's bank account.
  Financial institutions have sent out tens of millions of these cards 
unsolicited in the last few years. By 1994, there were 25 million off-
line cards in circulation. By 1996, the number had jumped to more than 
60 million. Millions more will be mailed out this year, because 
although banks cannot legally mail out an unsolicited credit card, a 
loophole in the law allows them to mail out these unsolicited off-line 
debit cards as replacements for consumer's ATM cards.
  Mr. President, this is a ticking time bomb for millions of unwary 
consumers. Does the consumer understand how this new card differs from 
an ordinary ATM card? Does the consumer understand the risk that comes 
from carrying the new off-line card? Too often the answer is no. A 
recent survey by Mastercard found that 59 percent of the consumers who 
carry debit cards do not realize just how important it is to report a 
lost or stolen card immediately. At a minimum, consumers need to be 
warned before they start carrying these off-line cards, and they need 
protection in the event that anything goes wrong.
  Mr. President, we need reform and we need it soon. The bill we have 
introduced today, the Debit Card Consumer Protection Act of 1997, 
provides a level of protection that is clearly needed.
  First, it prohibits the banks from mailing out unsolicited debit 
cards. Only people who want these cards should be getting them in the 
mail.
  Second, it requires a clear disclosure to the consumer that the card 
provides a direct line of access to the consumer's bank account.
  Third, it prohibits the bank from sending out live debit cards. Cards 
must not be valid for use until the recipient identifies himself or 
herself as the rightful owner.
  Fourth, it limits the consumer's liability to $50 in the event the 
card is lost or stolen.
  Fifth, it expedites the restoration of funds to the consumer's 
account within 5 business days. Current law can make the consumer wait 
20 business days.
  Mr. President, this bill would bring the consumer protection laws up 
to date and into line with what the consumer is entitled to and 
expects. That is why consumer groups strongly support this bill, 
including the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, and 
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. These organizations have all 
gone on record to say that this legislation provides essential 
protection for users of debit cards.
  Now, Mr. President, some of the provisions of this bill were recently 
put forth in another bill, S. 1154, by my colleague, Senator Reed of 
Rhode Island, who I see is on the floor. And some of these measures are 
now being implemented voluntarily by the industry. I want to commend 
Senator Reed for his work in this area. I think that a consensus exists 
that consumer protections are needed to improve a situation that 
presents a very real risk for millions of consumers.
  In fact, MasterCard and VISA recently announced that they will 
voluntarily cap the consumer's liability at $50 in the event of an 
unauthorized use. One bank, Bank of America, has announced it will not 
hold consumers liable for any unauthorized charges. I commend the 
industry for responding to these concerns. Because of this 
responsiveness, I am hopeful the industry will vigorously support 
legislation to make these essential consumer protection laws permanent 
and universal.
  Finally, I thank Senators Bennett, Dodd, and Bryan for cosponsoring 
this bill. Senator Bennett, as chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on 
Financial Services and Technology, is very aware of the enormous impact 
financial fraud is having on the industry and consumers. This 
legislation will help to protect both the industry and consumers from 
having to pay these high costs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1203

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Debit Card Consumer 
     Protection Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. CONSUMER LIABILITY FOR UNAUTHORIZED DEBIT CARD 
                   TRANSACTIONS.

       Section 909 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1693g) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Limitation on Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--A consumer shall be liable for an 
     unauthorized electronic fund transfer only if--
       ``(A) the card or other means of access used to make the 
     unauthorized electronic fund transfer was an accepted card or 
     other means of access;
       ``(B) the liability, including any overdraft or other fee 
     imposed by the financial institution in connection with or as 
     a result of the unauthorized electronic fund transfer, is not 
     in excess of the lesser of--
       ``(i) $50; or
       ``(ii) the amount of money or value of property or services 
     obtained in such unauthorized electronic fund transfer prior 
     to the time at which the financial institution is notified 
     of, or otherwise becomes aware of, circumstances which lead 
     to the reasonable belief that an unauthorized electronic fund 
     transfer involving the consumer's account has been or may be 
     effected;
       ``(C) the financial institution that issued the card or 
     other means of access gave adequate notice to the cardholder 
     of the potential liability;
       ``(D) such financial institution provided the consumer with 
     a description of a means by which the institution may be 
     notified of loss or theft of the card or other means of 
     access, which description may be provided on the face or 
     reverse side of the statement required by section 906(c) or 
     on a separate notice accompanying such statement;
       ``(E) the unauthorized electronic fund transfer occurred 
     before the financial institution was notified of such 
     unauthorized transfer, or that such unauthorized transfer may 
     occur as the result of loss, theft, or otherwise; and
       ``(F) the financial institution has provided a method 
     whereby the consumer to whom the card or other means of 
     access was issued can be identified as the person authorized 
     to use it.
       ``(2) Sufficiency of notice.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the financial institution has been notified when such 
     steps have been taken as may be reasonably required in the 
     ordinary course of business to provide the financial 
     institution with the pertinent information, whether or not 
     any particular officer, employee, or agent of the financial 
     institution does in fact receive such information.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.

       Section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1693a) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and received'' and all 
     that follows through ``services'' and inserting ``or renewed 
     and received such card or other means of access (including a 
     non-protected access card and a protected access card)'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (11) through (13), respectively; and

[[Page S9788]]

       (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(9) the term `protected access card' means an accepted 
     card or other means of access that requires use of a 
     personalized code or other unique identifier (other than a 
     signature) to initiate access to the account of a consumer;
       ``(10) the term `non-protected access card' means an 
     accepted card or other means of access that does not require 
     the use of a unique identifier to initiate access to the 
     account of a consumer, except that for purposes of this 
     paragraph, a signature shall not be considered to be a 
     personalized code or other unique identifier;''.

     SEC. 4. TIMING OF ERROR RESOLUTION.

       Section 908 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1693f) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively, and indenting 
     accordingly;
       (B) by striking ``(a) If a financial'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Notice to institution.--If a financial'';
       (C) in the first sentence, by striking ``ten business'' and 
     inserting ``5 business''; and
       (D) in the second sentence, by striking ``The financial'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Written confirmation of oral notification.--The 
     financial''; and
       (E) by striking ``the previous sentence'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``this paragraph'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``ten business'' and 
     inserting ``5 business''; and
       (3) in subsection (f)(1), by inserting before the semicolon 
     ``, including such unauthorized transfer by use of a 
     protected access card or a non-protected access card''.

     SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF CARDS.

       (a) Limitations on Issuance.--Section 911 of the Electronic 
     Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693i) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and indenting 
     accordingly;
       (B) by striking ``(a) No'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Limitations on Issuance.--
       ``(1) In general.--No''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Renewals; substitutions.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), a non-protected access card may only be issued in 
     response to a request or application for, or as a renewal of 
     or substitution for, a non-protected access card.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b) Notwithstanding'' and all that 
     follows through ``basis'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Criteria for Issuance.--A person may only issue to a 
     consumer'';
       (B) by striking ``distribution'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``issuance''; and
       (C) by striking ``distribute'' and inserting ``issue''.
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c) For'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) Definition.--For''; and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Disclosure of Non-Protected Access Capability.--In 
     any case in which a non-protected access card is issued to a 
     consumer, such issuance shall be accompanied by a clear and 
     conspicuous printed disclosure designated as a warning that--
       ``(1) the card does not require a personalized code or 
     other unique identifier (other than a signature) to initiate 
     access to the consumer's account; and
       ``(2) loss or theft of the card could result in 
     unauthorized access to the consumer's account.''.
       (b) Form of Disclosure.--Section 904(b) of the Electronic 
     Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693b(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``section 905'' and inserting ``sections 905 and 911''.

     SEC. 6. NOTIFICATION TO CONSUMERS OF RESTITUTION POLICY.

       Section 905 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1693c) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``than an'' and inserting 
     ``that an'';
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``. The financial 
     institution'' and all that follows through ``year'' and 
     inserting ``, which summary shall be transmitted to the 
     consumer thereafter not less frequently than annually'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs 
     (9) and (10), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) the policy of the financial institution regarding 
     restitution to the consumer of any fees imposed by a person 
     other than the financial institution as a result of an 
     unauthorized electronic fund transfer, including returned 
     check fees, late charges, and other fees;''.
                                  ____

  Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. I am pleased to take the floor 
today in support of the Consumer Payment Card Security Act of 1997. 
This legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor, would address a 
serious gap in our consumer laws which govern the use of debit or check 
cards. I would particularly like to thank my friend and Chairman of the 
Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato, for his leadership role in 
developing this legislation.
  Many of my colleagues may be aware of these cards through the 
intensive ad campaign mounted by VISA and MasterCard with such famous 
celebrities as Michael Jordan, Bugs Bunny, and our former colleague, 
Bob Dole. But these commercials may not exactly explain how these check 
cards--or debit cards--work. Essentially, a debit card is a card that 
looks just like your ATM card that uses the National Credit Card 
Electronic Networks to access your checking account. In this way, you 
could go into any business that accepts VISA or MasterCard, and instead 
of charging your purchase, you could pay for it right out of your 
checking account. Thus, bank customers have access to their accounts in 
hundreds of thousands of locations across the globe, not just at the 
ATM machines that are part of their banks' network.
  In general, I believe that the private sector should be commended for 
developing this new technology. Clearly, if used properly, these debit 
cards will provide bank customers with greater flexibility and 
convenience.
  However, we would not be standing on the floor today introducing 
legislation if the introduction of this card had gone as smoothly as 
everyone may have hoped. As with all new technologies, there are 
growing pains, and in this particular case, legislation appears 
necessary to help ease those pains.
  The goal of this legislation is refreshingly simple: It puts debit 
cards under the same umbrella of consumer protections that currently 
govern the use of both credit cards and ATM cards.
  Let me briefly recount some of the debit card problems--some might go 
so far as to say abuses--confronted by consumers and how the 
legislation would address them.
  First, since a debit cards looks almost identical to an ATM card, 
many consumers don't know that their bank has made a switch. Until very 
recently, this could have posed a significant financial hardship for 
consumers since debit card liability--if it's lost or stolen--isn't 
capped at $50 the way it is capped for both credit cards and ATM cards. 
Also, debit cards are known as ``off-line'' cards; in other words, no 
PIN--personal identification number--is required to use the card--a 
crook can simply swipe it through any electronic scanner, just like a 
credit card, and empty your bank account.
  It should be noted that in the last few weeks, the industry--
particularly VISA and MasterCard, responding to increasing public 
pressure, has volunatrily moved to change these practices. 
Nevertheless, these belated efforts, while laudable, do not provide the 
same certainty to consumers that the statutes do. This legislation 
would clearly limit consumer liability to $50, It would also ensure 
that consumer disclosure is improved so that the bank customer is aware 
that these cards do not need a PIN to be used.
  The legislation would also end the practice of replacing ATM cards 
with debit cards without a customer's consent. One of the ways in which 
these cards become subject to abuse is that consumers aren't aware that 
they've even received this debit card as a replacement for their old 
ATM card. The legislation would conform debit cards with credit cards 
by preventing the mailing of unsolicited cards to bank customers.
  Last, the bill would address a potential problem by shortening the 
dispute resolution process from 20 to 5 days, again conforming it to 
the standards currently in use for credit cards. When there is credit 
card fraud, the cardholder is credited for the loss until the 
investigation is complete, and that investigation must be done within 5 
days. Under current law, debit cardholders are not always credited 
pending investigation and those investigations can take as long as 20 
days. That's a long time for someone whose checking account has been 
emptied by a criminal.
  Again, Mr. President, I note that in most instances, the legislation 
codifies what has become the industry standard. But the fact remains 
that given the difficulties surrounding the introduction of debit 
cards, and the uncertainties that arise from some companies failing to 
follow the industry standard, it is incumbent upon the Congress to 
provide the same statutory safeguards for debit card users as we

[[Page S9789]]

have for both credit card and ATM card users.
  I hope that I will soon be able to stand here and mark the passage of 
this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Craig, Mr. Mack, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Burns, Mr. Hatch, 
        Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 1204. A bill to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts 
for injured parties whose rights and privileges, secured by the U.S. 
Constitution, have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies, 
or other government officials or entities acting under color of State 
law; to prevent Federal courts from abstaining from exercising Federal 
jurisdiction in actions where no State law claim is alleged; to permit 
certification of unsettled State law questions that are essential to 
resolving Federal claims arising under the Constitution; and to clarify 
when government action is sufficently final to ripen certain Federal 
claims arising under the Constitution; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

                          ____________________