Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her wonderful leadership on this issue. I sit here and I am listening to this debate which we have been involved in so many times. Now I know why Christie Todd Whitman wrote her book ``It Is My Party, Too.'' When you look at who set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it was a Republican President. Here the biggest forces for opening drilling are coming from the Republican Party, fervor about how this is going to solve our energy problems when everyone admits if we get oil out of their at all it is not going to be for another 10 years, and the economically recoverable oil is 6 months, maybe. So the zealotry that we hear shows the changes in the Republican Party. That is a fact of life. Now, let's see what President Eisenhower's Secretary of Interior, Fred Seaton, said about this area. He said this was ``one of the most magnificent wildlife areas in North America . . . a wilderness experience not duplicated elsewhere.'' Senator George Allen called it the dark side of the Moon. So who is right--President Eisenhower or Senator Allen? Let's take a look at some of the photographs because we need to see this dark side of the Moon. The first thing we see is the porcupine caribou herd, the mother and the little calf. Quite beautiful. It does not look much like the dark side of the Moon to me. The U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resource Division found the porcupine caribou herd may be particularly sensitive to oil development. Let's look at the effects on the caribou and other animals, including bears. This is my favorite, a polar bear photograph taken by a wonderful photographer who spent 18 months in the wildlife refuge. It does not look much like the dark side of the Moon to me. And polar bears are particularly sensitive to oil development because they den in the winter--exactly the time the oil companies want to drill. Millions of migratory birds--over 130 species--journey to our States, so our States will be impacted. To me, this is a God-given environment. With all the talk about faith-based politics, if you do believe, as I do, that these are gifts, then we have to be careful in what we are doing here today. My friend from Alaska says we are going to do this very sensitively. They were very sensitive at the Exxon Valdez. They were very sensitive in Santa Barbara when we had the unbelievable oil spill that led to, actually, the very first Earth Day because it was so devastating to see what happens. We know that the economic activity that comes from oil drilling is going to have an impact. So anyone who tells you anything else simply is thinking in a wishful fashion. We are alive today, we see what happens with the spills. Let's be careful what we are doing. If this is something that will make us energy independent, that is one thing. But the fact is, it won't. Let's look at some of the scenes because there was talk about how barren this area is. We will look at some of the landscapes because it is important to look at this and decide for ourselves if it is worth risking this for 6 months' worth of oil. This is along Marsh Creek in the coastal plain, in the very area they say is completely barren. One of my colleagues said it only looks that way for a few weeks. Well, it certainly looks that way at a point in time. When I sent my environmental legislative assistant up to that area, she was overcome. I went to Alaska. It is true there are other magnificent areas of Alaska, but this is one of those beautiful areas. Here is the issue. The oil companies are backing out. They do not want to be involved in this controversial area. Many have already backed out. BP, ConocoPhillips, and ChevronTexaco have pulled out because they know what they are walking into here, and they don't want to drill. It may be that even if we get the vote, no one will drill there. We are not sure of that. Why is this happening? I say it is happening because if they could open this area, they can open any area. Don't take my word for it; you can take the Bush administration's word for it. That is what they have said in essence. They admit it.

Mrs. BOXER. Here is the point. This area was set aside by a Republican President who found it to be most pristine. We understand there are certain times in this Senate when we do something as radical as this, which is to open up a wildlife refuge, we may want to have a few more votes. That is kind of the rules of the Senate. They are doing a backdoor, so they may get 51 votes here, and with 51 votes they open this--for what, maybe 6 months' worth of oil. If we close the SUV loopholes, if we said over time they should get the same mileage as cars, we would have seven ANWR fields over 40 or 50 years. We do not need to do this. If you believe this is God-given land, let's protect it. At the end of the day, that is our job. I hope we get the votes. If we do not get them today, this will be a big issue out in the country. I hope the oil companies will continue to walk away from this because clearly it is very controversial to go into this pristine area. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

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

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

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

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

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I think it has already been agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

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

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues very much. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside.

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. 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

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. 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.