Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks to Senator Graham for a moment, if I could get his attention. I wanted to direct some remarks to the Senator. First, I wish to thank the Senator. I think what he is doing here is quite different than what we have been getting from this White House. The Senator is being very careful to essentially say, let's get together and work together to solve the problem.

I also believe that the word ``permanently'' is a little naive. I don't mind it, but the point is, nothing is permanent around here except we are going to die one day. We cannot bind future Congresses. I get the Senator's point that we want to make sure this challenge is met. Believe me, I intend to meet it. I intend to meet it without putting us in debt, and the Senator is totally silent on that; I appreciate that. This country is in debt now $7.7 trillion. This administration has turned it around. We started to balance the budget, pay back Social Security. It has been turned around.

We have the highest debt ever. A child born today has about $40,000 worth of debt on his or her back. This is painful for our country: $7.7 trillion of debt is $1 million a day for 21,000 years. That is what it is. I appreciate the fact that unlike the President's plan, the Senator from South Carolina does not talk about borrowing those staggering sums of money because there are a lot of us who will not do that to the American people. They are being burdened enough with this debt now.

The Senator is also silent on privatization. My hat is off to him on that because, as we know, the Democrats are saying, if you want to privatize this system, the only way you are going to do that is to put us deeper in debt, and you are going to take an overhead of one-half of 1 percent and turn it into a 20-percent overhead. That is according to a University of Chicago study.

I so appreciate that the Senator does not mention borrowing because we are staggering in red ink, and he does not mention privatization because it is a nonstarter. When you privatize, you take a guaranteed benefit and turn it into a guaranteed gamble. I have nothing against Wall Street, I once worked on Wall Street. I was a stockbroker. Sometimes it works out great, but you cannot count on it, not at all. So why would we take a system that has worked perfectly and turn it into a gamble, except if we really wanted to get some of that money away from the trust fund and into the hands of Wall Street.

I was in the House of Representatives in 1983, and I supported two icons in politics: Ronald Reagan, a Republican icon, and Tip O'Neill, a Democratic icon. They followed the spirit of the approach of Senator Graham, which is we get together because, guess what. The people are more important than the politics.

We have a President who is doing his round of townhall meetings all across this great Nation. I think it is great. He is working hard to sell his privatization plan, to tell people they better listen to him or else they are going to be sorry. But do you know what the President did not count on? That the people understand what Social Security is.

So you can do a song and dance about privatization, you can talk about it in poetry, you can talk about an ownership society, but they are not fooled because this is what the people know: They pay a portion of their check over to the Social Security trust fund, and when they retire, they get a safety net retirement. It is safe, and it is sure. It has never defaulted. It is there.

And guess what. If the head of household dies and there are kids, they get a benefit. A lot of my constituents understand this. My own husband's father died when he was 10 years old. His mother had three kids. She was a stay-at-home mom. What would she do? Social Security. One of those kids, my husband's brother, was mentally disabled. What would she do? Social Security.

I praise my friend for not talking about putting this country into deeper debt--we are not going to go there--and for not mentioning privatization because we are not going to go there. We are not going to take money out of the trust fund and give it to Wall Street. We are not going to have a Social Security system that has an overhead cost one- half of 1 percent and turn it into a 20-percent overhead and turn it into a gamble. We are not going to do it.

The people are smart. They get it. I do not care how many townhall meetings any of us has, this is one the people understand. I have my own townhall meetings. The people get it, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. They say Social Security works and why would we turn our back on it.

Watch out for the word ``reform.'' If it is truly reform, we should do it. But if it is repeal, which is what privatization is, we are not going to do it.

Again, with the same reservations that my friend has, I read this amendment and I say, bravo, we can talk, if we are not going to borrow. We can talk, if we are not going to privatize. We can talk, if we are not going to set up a two-tier system that hurts people. We can talk. And we can do what we did in the eighties. I was proud to stand with my President at that time, Ronald Reagan, and my Speaker at that time, Tip O'Neill, these icons who got behind a very simple plan.

And by the way, there are many civil ways. My friend has outlined one. We can step to the plate on this challenge.

Let's stop using the word ``crisis'' because you are not fooling anybody. Mr. President, 22 years ago the Cato Institute put out a paper. They said: Make people think it is a crisis as soon as you can. If they think it is a crisis, they may accept the end of Social Security. Tell them it is an iceberg coming.

That is what the White House secret little memo did.

Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds, and then I will stop.

The people are smart. They know there are some people around here who have been trying to get rid of Social Security for decades. We cannot trust this matter to people who have wanted to do away with Social Security. The President himself said in 1978 that Social Security will go broke by 1988 unless it is privatized. He was wrong then; he is wrong now. He said in the year 2000 that people act as if Social Security is a Federal program or something. How do we trust someone who does not know Social Security is a Federal program where people pay their insurance, they pay for it, and they get back what they put in, plus a safety net?

I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank my friend, Senator Graham, for offering us something that I think many of us will be able to vote for.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I call up my Amendment No. 62.

Mr. President, is the rule 10 minutes per side?

Will my friend tell me when I will have 1 minute remaining?

Mr. President, in the next 5 minutes I want to describe this amendment. I cannot imagine anyone in the Senate voting against this amendment. Having said that, I predict that this amendment will not be agreed to because there seems to be some type of agreement going on that this bill can not change at all, in any way, shape, or form. But I want to give the Senate a chance.

When I was growing up, my mother said, If you ever borrow anything, give it back. Try not to borrow money, but if you borrow money, give it back as fast as you can.

I think all of us here understand that to be a responsible person, you have to be responsible for your debts. There is no question about that. It is not right to borrow money and then turn your back on the person who extended that credit to you, whether it is an individual or a credit card company or a bank. But in this bill there seems to be absolutely no bounds. It seems to be that the person who lent you the money has no responsibility whatsoever to be diligent about it, to be fair about it, to be reasonable about it, or, frankly, to be smart about it. And the credit card companies know they have the perfect bill coming toward them. There is absolutely no responsibility placed on them.

I ask anyone listening to this debate to think about how many credit card applications you receive in the mail in a week's time, in a month's time. Once I started saving it up. Then they started sending them to my grandson. He is 9. I was surprised they didn't send it to our cat. I suppose they would, if cats could pay interest.

But let me tell you about this particular egregious situation I am trying to fix. I think it would shock Americans to understand this. The fastest growing part of the credit card business is the young people in this country. The credit card companies entice

our young people to go into debt, go into debt, and they know the sky is the limit as to what they can charge for that debt. Is it 10 percent? No. That would be low. Is it 20 percent? That would be low. There was an amendment here to cap it at 36 percent, and that failed. We are talking about taking a young person who doesn't have a clue and offering them credit cards.

If I were to ask you how many cards does the average young person have--people between 18 and 24--I would say one or two--the answer is six credit cards. This is the fastest growing group.

That is also why the credit card companies go ahead and give more and more credit cards to people who were defaulting the most. Frankly, it is because they are still making a mint. Credit card profits have gone up in the last 10 years 100 percent.

When you analyze the stories--I have read them in the Wall Street Journal--you find they are getting paid back for sure, but they are not getting the full 30-percent interest. But the poor people who are caught in this have a real problem.

Here is what the amendment says. If a credit card company issues a seventh credit card to someone below the age of 21 without a responsible party cosigning, and if that individual has a job that pays less than the poverty level, then in fact if there is a default the judge should take into consideration the facts. It is as simple as that. Why wouldn't a credit card company ask you that simple question, How many cards do you have? And, What is your income? After all, this is unsecured debt. It is not secured by anything but the person.

We are saying, if, in fact, an individual defaults, they are younger than 21, they had no cosigner, they earn below the poverty line, they already have six cards, if they wind up in bankruptcy court, the judge should consider this situation.

This is about responsibility on the part, yes, of the person who is using the card, but also on the part of the credit card companies.

I yield the floor.

Here are the facts, my colleagues. The fastest growing segment of bankruptcies occurs in Americans who are 25 years and younger. The average number of credit cards a college senior has is not two, three, or four, but six. The average senior in college has six credit cards and credit card companies are marketing to our young people at rock concerts, on college campuses. We want responsibility but on all sides.

My amendment puts a modicum of responsibility on the credit card companies. It simply says a bankruptcy judge should consider an appropriate response if a credit card company has given a card to a person who is under the age of 21, has no responsible cosigner, an income below the poverty level, and the person already had six credit cards.

My friends, I hope you will not march down and vote ``no'' against this amendment. How can you explain at home that a credit card company would have no responsibility if they have given a seventh credit card to a person below the age of 21 who has income below the poverty level? I hope you will support the Boxer amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 62, and then I will ask it be laid aside.

I think it has already been agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 62. It would then be my intent to ask it be laid aside. I believe we have an agreement that I be given 10 minutes in the morning, followed by a vote at a time both sides can agree to.

Mr. President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside.

I thank my colleagues very much.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor the memory of one of California's great labor leaders and dedicated social justice activists, Frank Souza. Frank passed away on February 19, 2005. He was 79 years old.

Frank Souza was born in New Bedford, MA in 1925. In 1948, he and his wife Virginia drove across the country to California in search of better job opportunities. Upon his arrival, he took a job with Greyhound as a bus mechanic, and worked there for 13 years. In 1953, Frank became involved in the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.

When I first met Frank many years ago, before I was in elected office, I was struck by his kindness and dedication to working people. That kindness and dedication grew with each passing year. Frank's commitment to social justice earned him the trust and respect of fellow labor activists and allowed him to rise quickly through the ranks at the machinists union. It was not long before Frank was a nationally known leader of the machinists union in northern California. In his capacity as Directing Business Representative of District 190, the largest automotive district of the machinists union in America, Frank was a constant source of pride for both his fellow machinists and the community at large.

Although Frank retired in 1989 after 25 years with the machinists union, he remained an active union leader, holding impressive positions as a machinists union delegate to the National AFL-CIO, vice president of the California Labor Federation for the AFL-CIO, chair of the Western States Trucking Committee for the National Auto Transporters, chair for the Sea Land West Coast negotiating committee, and treasurer for the California Alliance of Retired Americans.

It is not just Frank's accomplishments in the field of labor that made him stand out. Frank was one of the most wonderful people that I have come in contact with in all of my years of public service. His warmth and intelligence were a true inspiration to me. When he talked to me about injustice in the workplace, or in the world, his eyes would tear up. I knew that I could never let him down.

Frank Souza was a deeply loved labor leader who championed the causes of America's working families, not only in this country, but throughout the world. We can take comfort in knowing that future generations will benefit from his spirit, his vision, and his leadership. He taught us about the dignity and soul of working people, and in his memory we won't forget.

Mrs. BOXER: Mr. President, it is my honor to speak in recognition of Judge Jane McKeag. Judge McKeag has served the last 11 years as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

In addition to her service as a judge, Jane McKeag utilized her expertise to educate the community and improve the bankruptcy system in Sacramento County, the State of California, and the Nation. Her many accomplishments are testament to her strong leadership and devotion to public service. Throughout her career she served the law community as a member of the Ninth Circuit Conference Executive Committee, the Eastern District Uniform Bankruptcy Rules Committee and the Finance Committee of the National

Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, as Chair of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Education Committee and the Debtor/Creditor and Bankruptcy Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California and as President and Vice President of the Bankruptcy and Commercial Law Section of the Sacramento County Bar Association.

Judge McKeag has not only contributed to the betterment of bankruptcy law as a judge, but also as a teacher. She was an Adjunct Professor at McGeorge School of Law and a frequent lecturer for the California Continuing Education of the Bar, the University of California, Davis Law School and the Sacramento County Bar Association. In addition, Judge McKeag spent 2 years as a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa.

I commend Judge McKeag for dedicating her life to her country and her community. Her accomplishments have touched the lives of many, and her impact on her community and the Nation will be long remembered. I extend my sincere best wishes for her continued health and happiness. Jane McKeag is a distinguished member of the community, and it is with great pleasure that I recognize her today.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect public health and the environment by preventing chemicals from leaking out of underground storage tanks and thereafter contaminating drinking water supplies and nearby communities. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion legislation.

Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and economic growth.

There are approximately 670,000 underground storage tanks in the United States, and there have been more than 445,000 confirmed releases from these tanks as of mid-2003. Over 35 States report that leaking underground storage tanks are one of the top threats to their drinking water sources. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from leaking underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies in 43 States and in 29 States has contaminated drinking water. Estimates indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up MTBE contamination nationwide.

Currently, the leaking underground storage tanks program and other laws ensure that responsible parties pay to clean up the damage caused by these leaking spills. Unfortunately, the pace of cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks is 20 percent below the historic average. Our Nation faces an estimated 94,000 to 150,000 additional cleanups over the next 10 years--at a cost of $12 billion to $19 billion.

The best, most commonsense solution to stop leaking underground storage tanks from threatening public health is to prevent them from leaking in the first place with the use of secondary containment, such as double walls. There is already widespread support for this throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require secondary containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in California--or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls, containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003 were double walled.

But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population relies on groundwater for their drinking water, including almost 100 percent in rural areas. The time to prevent contamination is now.

We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Clinton in introducing the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.

The 2000 election exposed a number of serious problems with the accuracy and fairness of election procedures in this country, as well as the reliability of certain types of voting technology. As a result of those irregularities, many eligible voters were effectively disenfrachised and thus deprived of one of our most fundamental rights.

In the 2004 election, we again saw serious irregularities when voters across this country went to the polls to cast their votes. From untrustworthy electronic voting machines, to partisan secretaries of state, to outrageously long lines at the polls, the election system was far from what voters are entitled to have.

At Kenyon College in Ohio, for example, voters were made to wait in line until nearly 4 a.m. to vote because there were only two machines for 1,300 voters. In the Columbus area alone, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters left

polling places, out of frustration, without having voted. In Cleveland, thousands of provisional ballots were disqualified after poll workers gave faulty instructions to voters.

Because of these irregularities--as well as voting irregularities in many other places--I joined Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in objecting to the certification of the Ohio electoral votes on January 7, 2005. I did this to cast the light of truth on a flawed system that must be fixed now. Americans deserve a system where every vote is counted and can be verified. And, Congress must do more to give confidence to all of our people that their votes matter.

In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which took important steps toward electoral reform. Since the enactment of HAVA, however, concerns have been raised about the security of voting machines and the inability of the majority of voters who may use these machines to be able to adequately verify their vote and to ensure that the vote they intended was both cast and counted. In addition, many other problems in our Federal election system--including long wait times in which to vote, the erroneous purging of voters, voter suppression and intimidation, and unequal access to the voting process--remain.

Last year, I sponsored legislation to address some of these issues. I also joined Senator Clinton and former Senator Bob Graham in introducing an election reform bill. I am pleased to again join Senator Clinton today to introduce the Count Every Vote Act of 2005--the CEVA Voting Act. It requires voting machines to have a voter-verified paper trail for use by all individuals, including language minority voters, illiterate voters, and voters with disabilities; and it mandates national standards in the registration of voters and the counting of provisional ballots. All provisions of this legislation are to be in effect no later than the November 2006 Federal election.

Mr. President, in a democracy, the vote of every citizen counts. We must make sure that every citizen's vote is counted--and counted accurately and fairly so that the American people have confidence in the results. HAVA was a good first step. The CEVA Voting Act is the next step, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect public health and the environment by preventing chemicals from leaking out of underground storage tanks and thereafter contaminating drinking water supplies and nearby communities. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion legislation.

Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and economic growth.

There are approximately 670,000 underground storage tanks in the United States, and there have been more than 445,000 confirmed releases from these tanks as of mid-2003. Over 35 States report that leaking underground storage tanks are one of the top threats to their drinking water sources. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from leaking underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies in 43 States and in 29 States has contaminated drinking water. Estimates indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up MTBE contamination nationwide.

Currently, the leaking underground storage tanks program and other laws ensure that responsible parties pay to clean up the damage caused by these leaking spills. Unfortunately, the pace of cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks is 20 percent below the historic average. Our Nation faces an estimated 94,000 to 150,000 additional cleanups over the next 10 years--at a cost of $12 billion to $19 billion.

The best, most commonsense solution to stop leaking underground storage tanks from threatening public health is to prevent them from leaking in the first place with the use of secondary containment, such as double walls. There is already widespread support for this throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require secondary containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in California--or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls, containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003 were double walled.

But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population relies on groundwater for their drinking water, including almost 100 percent in rural areas. The time to prevent contamination is now.

We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Clinton in introducing the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.

The 2000 election exposed a number of serious problems with the accuracy and fairness of election procedures in this country, as well as the reliability of certain types of voting technology. As a result of those irregularities, many eligible voters were effectively disenfrachised and thus deprived of one of our most fundamental rights.

In the 2004 election, we again saw serious irregularities when voters across this country went to the polls to cast their votes. From untrustworthy electronic voting machines, to partisan secretaries of state, to outrageously long lines at the polls, the election system was far from what voters are entitled to have.

At Kenyon College in Ohio, for example, voters were made to wait in line until nearly 4 a.m. to vote because there were only two machines for 1,300 voters. In the Columbus area alone, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters left

polling places, out of frustration, without having voted. In Cleveland, thousands of provisional ballots were disqualified after poll workers gave faulty instructions to voters.

Because of these irregularities--as well as voting irregularities in many other places--I joined Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in objecting to the certification of the Ohio electoral votes on January 7, 2005. I did this to cast the light of truth on a flawed system that must be fixed now. Americans deserve a system where every vote is counted and can be verified. And, Congress must do more to give confidence to all of our people that their votes matter.

In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which took important steps toward electoral reform. Since the enactment of HAVA, however, concerns have been raised about the security of voting machines and the inability of the majority of voters who may use these machines to be able to adequately verify their vote and to ensure that the vote they intended was both cast and counted. In addition, many other problems in our Federal election system--including long wait times in which to vote, the erroneous purging of voters, voter suppression and intimidation, and unequal access to the voting process--remain.

Last year, I sponsored legislation to address some of these issues. I also joined Senator Clinton and former Senator Bob Graham in introducing an election reform bill. I am pleased to again join Senator Clinton today to introduce the Count Every Vote Act of 2005--the CEVA Voting Act. It requires voting machines to have a voter-verified paper trail for use by all individuals, including language minority voters, illiterate voters, and voters with disabilities; and it mandates national standards in the registration of voters and the counting of provisional ballots. All provisions of this legislation are to be in effect no later than the November 2006 Federal election.

Mr. President, in a democracy, the vote of every citizen counts. We must make sure that every citizen's vote is counted--and counted accurately and fairly so that the American people have confidence in the results. HAVA was a good first step. The CEVA Voting Act is the next step, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations I Committee, Senator Lugar, in reintroducing the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act. Today, we are reintroducing a bill that we worked on together in the 108th Congress--a bill that will help those most vulnerable to the HIV/AIDS pandemic throughout the world.

An estimated 14 million children have lost either one or both parents to HIV/AIDS. By the year 2010, It is estimated that this number will grow to 25 million. The pandemic has created an orphans crisis, especially in sub-Sahara Africa where this crisis is most severe.

The struggle of those orphaned by this pandemic is heartbreaking. These children face the trauma of watching their parents die. They are forced at a very young age to care for their younger siblings while suffering from deep poverty, hunger, and sicknesses.

A girl from Uganda who lost her parents to HIV/AIDS at age 11 told the BBC:

When my mother died we suffered so much. There was no food,

and there was no one to look after us. We didn't even have

money to buy soap and salt. We wanted to run away to our

other grandparents, but we didn't have transport to go there.

I tried to be positive, but it was difficult. I missed my

mother because I loved her so much.

Picture this story repeated 14 million times throughout the world. We cannot stand by and allow this suffering to continue.

The Lugar-Boxer legislation that is being introduced today is designed to help these orphans and other vulnerable children who have been affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

First, our bill would authorize the President to provide assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. Specific authorization is provided in the areas of basic care, HIV/AIDS treatment, school food programs, protection of inheritance rights, and education and employment training assistance.

Second, this legislation calls on the President to use U.S. foreign assistance to support programs that eliminate school fees. Throughout the world, many orphans are prevented from attending school because they cannot afford to pay school fees or are forced to financially support their families or care for sick relatives.

And, third, our bill would require the President to develop and submit to Congress a strategy for coordinating, implementing, and monitoring assistance programs for orphans and vulnerable children.

This strategy must include measurable performance indicators to ensure that our policies are effective in helping orphans and vulnerable children.

Once again, Mr. President, I thank Chairman Lugar for working with me on this bipartisan legislation. I also thank Congresswoman Lee for her leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives.

I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this important bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations I Committee, Senator Lugar, in reintroducing the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act. Today, we are reintroducing a bill that we worked on together in the 108th Congress--a bill that will help those most vulnerable to the HIV/AIDS pandemic throughout the world.

An estimated 14 million children have lost either one or both parents to HIV/AIDS. By the year 2010, It is estimated that this number will grow to 25 million. The pandemic has created an orphans crisis, especially in sub-Sahara Africa where this crisis is most severe.

The struggle of those orphaned by this pandemic is heartbreaking. These children face the trauma of watching their parents die. They are forced at a very young age to care for their younger siblings while suffering from deep poverty, hunger, and sicknesses.

A girl from Uganda who lost her parents to HIV/AIDS at age 11 told the BBC:

When my mother died we suffered so much. There was no food,

and there was no one to look after us. We didn't even have

money to buy soap and salt. We wanted to run away to our

other grandparents, but we didn't have transport to go there.

I tried to be positive, but it was difficult. I missed my

mother because I loved her so much.

Picture this story repeated 14 million times throughout the world. We cannot stand by and allow this suffering to continue.

The Lugar-Boxer legislation that is being introduced today is designed to help these orphans and other vulnerable children who have been affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

First, our bill would authorize the President to provide assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. Specific authorization is provided in the areas of basic care, HIV/AIDS treatment, school food programs, protection of inheritance rights, and education and employment training assistance.

Second, this legislation calls on the President to use U.S. foreign assistance to support programs that eliminate school fees. Throughout the world, many orphans are prevented from attending school because they cannot afford to pay school fees or are forced to financially support their families or care for sick relatives.

And, third, our bill would require the President to develop and submit to Congress a strategy for coordinating, implementing, and monitoring assistance programs for orphans and vulnerable children.

This strategy must include measurable performance indicators to ensure that our policies are effective in helping orphans and vulnerable children.

Once again, Mr. President, I thank Chairman Lugar for working with me on this bipartisan legislation. I also thank Congresswoman Lee for her leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives.

I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this important bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, may I ask what is the order at the current time?

Does one have to ask unanimous consent to go past the 10 minutes?

I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, Senator Frist came to the Senate to make some opening remarks about the class action bill that will be before the Senate. There will be a very good debate on this bill. I will make a couple of points.

The Senator said every 2 seconds a lawsuit is filed. I have no reason to doubt his number, but I wonder if he has looked at who is filing the lawsuits. The last time I looked, it was mostly one business suing another business. So before we come to the Senate and say we have to do something about the class action lawsuits, saying every 2 seconds a lawsuit is filed gives the wrong impression. We are going to get the exact numbers, but I make that point.

What we will find among colleagues, regardless of party, we all want to make sure these lawsuits are fair and that they are heard in a fair way. It appears when a class action lawsuit winds up in a Federal court, the judge, on many occasions, if not most occasions, refuses to hear it because the plaintiffs come from so many different States. I will give an example of what these lawsuits are about.

When we talk about lawyers, we talk about fees, we talk about costs the lawyers have, or the time they have. We are overlooking the main point, which is: what are these class action lawsuits about? I will talk about a couple of these lawsuits because we need to put a human face on what they are.

Rob Sanders of Maryland explained how his daughter was killed, as were other children, by a deployed airbag in a Chrysler minivan. For years, consumers have pursued class action cases against Chrysler to force the company to replace existing airbags in such vehicles with others that deploy less rapidly and do not pose a safety risk to

the car's occupant. As someone who is small in stature, I can say the automobile companies make these airbags to protect people who are much larger and much heavier, and much taller than appropriate for children. We have seen children killed by these airbags.

We all want airbags that work, regardless of our weight, our height, or stature. A class action was blocked in a Louisiana Federal court because the judge threw up his hands. But in Oklahoma--as we all know, that is a conservative State--the State court is proceeding to look at this even though the company has been working for years to block it. We are talking about life and death. We are talking about real victims.

Let's talk about the ability to make a living. Georgie Hartwig of Washington State is a former Wal-Mart employee who was cheated out of overtime pay. This is a common practice, unfortunately, at many of the company stores. Her class action case is being heard in State court. Three Federal courts have refused to hear such Wal-Mart cases, whereas five State courts have allowed them.

I am hopeful as we move this bill forward, we will ensure that at least some court will hear these important cases. They involve real people. I am sure Georgie Hartwig of Washington State and her colleagues at Wal-Mart have to raise a family and pay the rent. If we have a system that simply shuts the courthouse door, be it a State courthouse or a Federal courthouse, we are not fulfilling our job to make sure people get justice, they get it expeditiously, and it is done fairly.

Shelly Toliver is a firefighter from Connecticut. These are the people we are talking about here--Americans. Shelly Toliver, a firefighter from Connecticut, described how she brought a State class action suit against Credit Acceptance Corporation of Michigan for cheating her and other consumers out of their vehicles in violation of Connecticut law, destroying their credit ratings in the process. We all know what it is to get a bad credit rating by mistake. It is terrible. Ultimately, the class members had their purported debt to the company wiped out and their bad ratings cleared because they were able to get their case heard.

It goes on and on. I hope as we get through this bill we will be honest with the American people regarding whose rights are at stake. We are supposed to be here for the rights of the men and women of this country, the families of this country. The corporations, which are rather faceless, I support when they do the right thing, but when they do not do the right thing, when they wrong a firefighter, if an automobile company does not do what they should to protect children, there ought to be justice. That is all we are saying.

Are there abuses? Yes. Should we resolve them? Yes. I am very happy to do that. It is true, we have abuses everywhere. We should fix those abuses.

We have to be careful we are being sincere. There is one colleague who has been very strong on capping pain and suffering, but when it happened in his own family, he went for the gold. So let's be careful. The American people are watching. If we say we ought to cap pain and suffering for our constituents--forget about it, one size fits all. This is not class action, but these are other kinds of cases this Republican Senate is coming after: one size fits all. Let's cap it it is killing us; it is killing the country.

I go to the supermarket every week. No one comes up to me and says, please, please, do something about the filing of lawsuits when their child died in a hospital. What they will say to me is, make sure there is fairness for victims.

Let's get together and do the things that have to be done so that the people who get the benefit are our constituents. Do not close the courthouse door to firefighters, moms and dads, who are working for justice in their lives.

The President has sent down his budget. We are going through it now to see what it means for our State. But this is quite a budget. This is a budget that does not include the costs of the war in Iraq. This is a budget that does not include the costs of the war in Afghanistan. This is a budget that does not show the true costs of making the tax cuts permanent. This is a budget that does not show the costs of what I call anti-Social Security, going into personal accounts, which is an enormous multitrillion dollar cost.

So you have a document which is, on its face, incomplete. That is the best way I can put it: incomplete. Other people might use another word for it, but I will be charitable and say it is incomplete. Why can't the President show the true costs? Because he could not hold up his head if he put the true costs in there. We would be looking at deficits that are ruinous. The truth is, the deficits are ruinous.

When President Bush took over, he had a surplus as far as the eye could see. He turned it into a deficit in 15 minutes. He said the tax cuts would be so great that we would have economic growth and we would suddenly have a balanced budget. It did not happen.

Let me tell you what else is not in this budget. Where is the money from the Iraqi oil that was supposed to be coming our way? On March 27, 2003, not that long ago, this is what Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Secretary of Defense said, in congressional testimony, sworn to tell the truth:

The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100

billion over the course of the next two or three years. . . .

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own

reconstruction, and relatively soon.

Let me repeat that. A Bush administration spokesperson, very high up in the Defense Department, said:

The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100

billion over the course of the next two or three years. . . .

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own

reconstruction, and relatively soon.

Well, here it is, folks, it is 3 years later, and not a penny of revenue is coming into our budget to help us, and the whole cost of the Iraq war is outside the budget--a disaster.

Here is another claim, by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer:

Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq

has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And

so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to

shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.

Where is the revenue in our budget? Not a dime, not one slim dime. They are not even talking about making these costs into loans against future oil revenues. And in the meantime, what are the American people told by this President and his budget? What are the veterans told? Oh, we are cutting back on veterans health care. Can you imagine? We are almost at 11,000 wounded, and this President's budget says, You are going to have to pay more for your pharmaceuticals, $250 to join, and you have to pay more. Let me tell you, a lot of us are going to stop that. Let me tell you, a lot of us are not going to let that happen.

The people coming home from Iraq, half of them are very seriously wounded--thousands and thousands. Some estimates are that a third of them need mental health care. And this budget cuts veterans health. Wrong. That is not going to happen. It is unacceptable. I think it is unacceptable to the American people.

I ask my constituents if they believe we ought to be doing more for veterans or less for the veterans or the same as we did last year. I know--and I have not taken a scientific poll--they would say: Senator, you give them what they need.

The President says to the Iraqi people: As long as it takes. Whatever it is. Whatever it costs. I want to say to the veterans: Whatever it takes, however long it takes for you to get on your feet, we will be there.

We have the President eliminating a program where the Federal Government gives States funding to incarcerate illegal immigrants who have committed crimes--cut, gone, finito, finished--eliminating $300 million. We call it SCAAP. How can a President, at this time in our history, where we are guarding our borders, where we are concerned about who is coming in, lay all of that on the border States? This is wrong. It is unacceptable.

How about this: The Bush budget slices law enforcement grants to States from $2.8 billion to $1.5 billion, while the President claims he is increasing homeland defense.

I have a message for the President, in a nice, respectful way: It is our local law enforcement people who are protecting our citizens in every capacity. They are the bottom line of homeland defense.

There is a special and important program to assist police departments to improve technology and their ability to communicate with other agencies through COPS technology grants. Do you know what happens if there is an emergency in one area? What we have found out is, our police departments, our fire departments, our first responders do not have the equipment they need. They do not have the communications equipment. They cannot talk to each other.

The Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed authorizing legislation to say we need to help connect these departments with one another. Because suppose something happens on a railroad track, and one sheriff sees it, and there is a disaster, and he needs to get on the line immediately to all the other agencies in the area; they cannot do it right now. They need to move toward the ability to do this. It seems shocking that we have not done that already in America, but that is the truth. What does the President do? He cuts that program. He eliminates it.

Now, the President also creates a new program. He wants to extend the No Child Left Behind to high school. Well, how about fully funding his first No Child Left Behind? I wrote the part with Senator Ensign that deals with afterschool programs. It has been frozen for 3 years. There are millions of kids who want to get into afterschool programs.

We know it works. Law enforcement loves the program. The teachers love the program because the kids get to do their homework. They stay out of trouble. The FBI loves the program. The FBI has told us the vast majority of juvenile crime occurs right after school until the parents come home. We did not need the FBI to tell us that. We kind of figured that out. But this is key.

So here we are with a new program to extend No Child Left Behind to high school kids when we have not fully funded the afterschool program and many of the other programs that were promised to our people in the first No Child Left Behind. That is $1.4 billion, folks. This is not small change. This is $1.4 billion for this new program. There are no revenues in there from Iraqi oil.

This is also the first administration not to back a polluter-pay fee. When polluters cause these superfunds, where we have toxics all over the ground seeping into the water, it costs a lot of money to clean it up. This is the first administration, Republican or Democratic, not to support this polluter-pay fee. That would bring billions in over 5 years.

There are ways for us to pay for things the American people need. I am looking forward to getting into more of the fine print of this particular budget. I used to be on the Budget Committee. I can tell you, I loved being on the Budget Committee because it was a way to look at the big picture. When I went on the Commerce Committee, I had to give up the Budget Committee. It was a sad decision for me. But I look forward to hearing from Kent Conrad and I look forward to hearing from the Republican chairman, who was Pete Domenici, and I am not sure if it has changed or not. Because I want to hear their take on this budget.

But we see new initiatives in this budget that obviously are not paid for when we are shorting probably 150 programs, according to the President. We see nothing in here about getting any revenues from the Iraqi oil that were promised to us: $50 to $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years we were told by this administration in 2003. I believe in holding people accountable when they say things. I think it is important. That is what they said, and we do not see any evidence of any of this in this budget.

So we have the budget to deal with. We have the class action lawsuit legislation, which I hope we can do in a way to protect the important lawsuits that need to be heard and need to be resolved. Because if they are heard and they are resolved, our people will be safer, our people will be stronger, our people will feel they have been given justice.

We have the Social Security, what I call, repeal. Not a penny has been put into this budget to reflect any of that.

I understand my time is up. There is no one on the floor so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Mikulski for taking the lead in organizing the Democratic women. We don't always agree on every issue, but here is one that has united us. I think what is interesting about the Democratic women is we are very different. We are very different ages. We range from the 40s to the 70s. We go from the west coast to the east coast, and places in between--the north and the south. When we can come together like this--knowing that some of us are progressive, some of us are more conservative--in a whole group and say we are going to protect Social Security, we hope it sends a very powerful message to the people of this country, particularly the women of this country and to their families, that we are going to be there for you. That is what this is all about.

Whose side are we on, anyway? I think in the battle over Social Security the sides are becoming very clear. You are either on the side of the families, of our people, young and older, or, frankly, if you follow money you are on the side of Wall Street because Wall Street is going to get billions of dollars if George Bush is successful, and it will come straight out of the pockets of working families.

I used to be a stockbroker so I have absolutely nothing against stockbrokers and I loved working on Wall Street. But I can tell you, and I am sure you know it is true, that markets go up and markets go down. I have seen elation and I have seen devastation. One thing I never saw was a sense of security that the stock market was going to be there necessarily when you need it to be there.

This year is Social Security's 70th birthday. It has been enormously successful. Before Social Security, over half of all seniors were poor. Today, 10 percent live in poverty. That is too much and we want to take care of that. What we do not want to do is go back to the days when 50 percent were living in poverty. So we, the Democratic women, are going to use every tool at our disposal to make sure the people of this country do not wind up in poverty.

Certainly we know Social Security needs adjustments, as your own family budget needs adjustments. We did a major adjustment in 1983. I was over in the House side. Senator Mikulski was over in the House side. With Ronald Reagan as President, we all got together, Democrats and Republicans alike, and we strengthened Social Security. Under Bill Clinton, we made some efforts to strengthen it again. The fact is, we have to strengthen Social Security, not destroy it. The fact is, Social Security is not a handout, it is a promise we make to working men and women in this country: You pay into the system, it is insurance, and it will be there for you in your retirement years.

Basically, when the folks on Social Security look at me and say, Will you fight for my Social Security? do you know what I tell them? You earned it, and of course I will make sure it is never taken away from you.

Unfortunately, President Bush's solution is to dismantle Social Security. He can call it anything he wants. He can say he is not going to change it for those already on it. But what about

those who are not already on it? Don't they have a right to have this insurance program, which has been there for so many years?

I will show you what the LA Times wrote. This is not a new issue for George W. Bush. He has been at it for a long time:

Even as a young man, Bush was sympathetic to revamping the

program. When he ran for Congress in 1978 he argued that

the program would go broke by 1988 if people were not

given the ability to invest money themselves.

So here you have the candidate George Bush, way back in 1978, calling for privatizing Social Security. He said it would go broke in 1988.

That is what he said. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. We have to call it the way we see it. He underestimated the bipartisan will of Congress and President Reagan to keep Social Security for current and future generations. Instead of seeking to follow the path of Ronald Reagan, who was supposed to be one of his heroes, he is seeking a path that was plotted over 20 years ago to destroy Social Security. In the course of this debate--not today, at other times--I will share with my colleagues the roadmap that was laid down in the 1980s, a plan to destroy Social Security. George Bush was right there in 1978.

So he is misleading the American people by calling Social Security a crisis. According to the Social Security trustees, there is enough money to pay full benefits until 2042. According to the Congressional Budget Office, there is enough money to pay full benefits until 2052. So, yes, we need to make adjustments so we can keep this program secure, but we do not have to destroy it.

While President Bush is traveling around the country on Air Force One, telling people there is a crisis in Social Security--this is what is amazing--he is giving lip service to the real crises that are right here, right now, under his own nose and on his own watch. What about the crisis of the budget deficit? It is well over $400 billion, that deficit. You want to talk about bankrupt? In my family, if you are spending that much more than you are taking in, you are bankrupt. Let's call it what it is.

What about the crisis of the trade deficit, and the plummeting of the dollar? What about the crisis of the IOU that is given to our kids and grandchildren the day they are born? As Senator Reid has said, there is a birth tax on every child today--$36,000 worth of debt. We know the President is going to have to borrow trillions for his plan.

What about the crisis of 40 million Americans without health insurance? What about the crisis of millions of Americans, including 10 million children, who live within 5 miles of a toxic waste dump that is wreaking havoc on their health? What about the crisis of being unprepared for a domestic terrorist attack because we have not invested enough in rail security, port security, chemical plant security, aviation security, nuclear plant security? What about the crisis in afterschool programs, where hundreds of thousands of kids are left out because the President has frozen funding for 3 consecutive years?

I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute, if I might.

The President's solution to Social Security is to borrow, borrow, borrow, throwing us deeper into debt. I will tell you, this is not going to happen under our watch.

I will show you one more chart very quickly.

The plan the President has talked about a lot results in benefit cuts of 45 percent. The average yearly payment for a widow would only be $5,700. Who can live on that? Certainly not those of us here or those in the White House. Widows would be 35-percent below the poverty line if the President's plan goes into effect.

We think Social Security Plus is a place we can start. Keep Social Security and strengthen it, as Ronald Reagan did. We can work together to do that for our young people. I think we can solve this problem and keep one of the greatest programs ever known in the history of our country.

I thank the Senator from Maryland.