Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my friend if I can have an additional minute in addition to the 30 seconds.

Mrs. BOXER. That would be great. Mr. President, I wish to start out by thanking Senators McCain and Feingold for their hard work on this very important piece of legislation. I know it is hard to challenge the status quo. I commend them both for their courage and their commitment to this cause. My own commitment goes back to my early days as a candidate for political office 25 years ago. I have supported such efforts to change our campaign finance system whenever I have gotten the opportunity. I thank my friends for getting us this opportunity. It wasn't easy to do it. They worked hard and they got it. When I ran for the Senate, I became even more of a rabid supporter of campaign finance reform, as I learned I had to raise $12 million at that time in 1992. After my second run for the Senate, in which I had to raise $20 million, I became so supportive of campaign finance reform that I am truly ready to clamp down on this obscene situation. Yes, if there are some unforeseen consequences, I am willing to take a look at how to fix it, but today we must support this change regarding soft money. I want to give my colleagues some figures. For someone from California who does not have independent wealth, in order to raise $12 million--and that is an old number; it is probably going to be up to $30 million the next time--just $12 million, I would have to raise $10,000 a day 7 days a week for 6 years. What a way to be a Senator when you are consistently worried about how you are going to raise this money. I say to my friends, Russ Feingold and John McCain, that I liked their other versions better than this one because they went further; they did more. They included an incentive to lower the amount of money we could spend. I liked it better. They allowed you to get lower prices for TV and mailings. This version is not my favorite one, but it is the only game in town that does something about clamping down on the soft money abuses. Therefore, I will be supporting it. I want to talk a minute about the broadcast industry. What a situation. When I ran the last time, to get a 30-second spot on prime time, it cost $50,000 to get one ``Barbara Boxer for Senate'' spot on TV. I always thought we owned the airwaves. Isn't there a way we can do better than this? In other words, the people of the country should be able to get our message, but why should it cost these obscene amounts of money? The fact is, the Court, as my friend, Senator McConnell, has said so often, has equated money and speech. I respectfully disagree. It means someone with wealth has more free speech than I do because they can spend their own money. That is not right. I think our founders would turn in their graves thinking about that one. We are all supposed to be equal. We are all supposed to have free speech. Why should one of us have more free speech than another? I think the Buckley case ought to be reheard, but that is a debate for another day, and in 6 minutes I could never go into all its nuances. There are three proposals essentially before us. One is the McCain- Feingold bill which I support, one is the Hagel bill which I do not support, and one out there is a vague proposal by President Bush which, to me, is a total sham, and I will explain why I think that way. I truly think Chuck Hagel is trying hard to come up with an alternative. I do not agree with it because I think it opens the floodgates of hard money and does not do enough to cap soft money. I know he is trying hard to put something forward that he thinks will hold up. I want to talk a minute about the President's approach. First, he wants to punish working people by making them sign off before a dollar can be used by a union. I always thought this was a free society. People join unions freely, and if they do not like their union leadership, they can vote them out. The President knows what he is doing. He is after working men and women in this country. Just look at his tax cut. He does not do anything to help them. They are in the dog house, so he is going to hurt working men and women by this so-called Paycheck Protection Act that makes no sense. This idea of having the shareholders check off every time somebody wants to make a contribution is just absolutely unworkable. Then he puts a little caveat in there that puts the entire issue at risk because we think it will be struck down by the courts. It is a cynical ploy. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment No. 42. It has been cleared on all sides. I send the modification to the desk at this time.

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

Mrs. BOXER. We showed it to the Senator's staff.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Biden, Senator Hatch, and Senator Clinton, who worked so hard with me on this issue. I thank Senator Phil Gramm as well. What we do is simply say that the definition of a luxury item will be raised from $250 cumulative to $750. Frankly, I don't think that is high enough, but it certainly moves us in the right direction. I hate to think that people who accumulate $250 on a credit card 90 days before bankruptcy will be assumed to be a bad person and committing fraud. I think this is a step in the right direction. I appreciate it. I also thank Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy on the other issue that they have agreed to place into the managers' amendment: My amendment to ensure that public education expenses are protected in bankruptcy as well as private education expenses. I am very pleased that would be in the managers' amendment. I will not ask for a rollcall vote but a voice vote on my amendment, as modified.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 3 seconds.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. How much time is remaining, Mr. President?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Clinton for her support. I know Senator Biden would like to have some time. I am glad he got that by unanimous consent. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. The only reason I asked for 3 seconds is my friend asked for 2 seconds. I am trying to be fair. The bottom line here is, as I look at this, this is the little person against the huge credit card companies. The CEOs, who are getting paid millions of dollars, look at the little people and say if they charge $250 cumulatively over 90 days before they declare bankruptcy, they are presumed to be bad people. I have more faith in people than that. I really hope that Senators will support this amendment. Let's go back to current law. It is fair. And let's reject this portion of S. 420. It is unfair. I thank my friend from West Virginia very much for his generosity.

Mrs. BOXER. I would be delighted to have 1 minute.

Mrs. BOXER. If the Chair would inform me when I have used another 5 minutes, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. This is the letter: The undersigned women's and children's organizations write to urge you to support Senator Boxer's amendment to S. 420, the ``Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001.'' This amendment is necessary to protect parents and children owed child support from facing increased competition from credit card companies after bankruptcy. Senator Boxer's amendment to the ``luxury goods'' provision of S. 420 would prevent credit card debt from being routinely elevated to the same protected status as child support and alimony obligations after bankruptcy. Under current law, child support and alimony are among the few debts that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy process allows debtors to get back on their feet and focus their resources on paying their most important debt: their obligation to support their families. Credit card debts generally are discharged in bankruptcy, unless there has been an abuse of the bankruptcy process; for example, by purchasing ``luxury goods'' on the eve of filing for bankruptcy. S. 420 would apply the label ``luxury goods'' to very modest levels of expenditures, allowing much more credit care debt to survive bankruptcy and compete with support obligations. Under S. 420, purchases on a credit card that total $250 over the 90-day period prior to filing bankruptcy would be presumed to be nondischargeable ``luxury goods.'' For example, a debtor who charged just $25 a week at the supermarket would have to prove that the purchases--because they would exceed $250 over the 90-day period--were necessities, not luxuries. Cash advances of any more than $75 per week in the 70 days before filing for bankruptcy would be presumed to be nondischargeable. Senator Boxer's amendment would retain the current ``luxury goods'' exception, preventing abuse of the bankruptcy process by debtors without allowing its abuse by the credit card industry. We urge you to support this important amendment to prevent the credit card industry from making it even more difficult for women and children to collect child support after bankruptcy. I already talked about how credit card companies solicit and coax people into spending more than they earn. I do not feel sorry for the companies. I have seen the interest rates. I have seen the profits. Mr. President, $250 is not an amount that says it is a luxury over a 90-day period. Where is the committee coming from? I don't understand it. Let's take an example. A woman who grocery shops with a credit card for her family of four at the local Safeway or Albertson's would be able to spend no more than $25 per week in the 12 weeks before declaring bankruptcy. It is true. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: No problem. They just have to prove that in a court of law as they go through the filing. This is a mother who is going through probably a hellish time in her life and she now has to dig out the receipts, or get a lawyer, by the way, or take off from work. Why are we presuming that a person is bad if they charge $250 over 90 days before they file bankruptcy? Can't we give people a break? Don't we respect the American people? People do not want to do this. Keep the current law. There are many other examples I could show you, all of which they would have to prove in a court of law. The burden is on them. Why not give this exemption? Why not keep the current law? That is the purpose of this amendment. It just says trust folks a little bit more. That is why I believe very strongly. I ask Senator Clinton if she would now wish to use 5 minutes on this amendment at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very sad to say that there is great controversy surrounding this amendment because there is a misunderstanding about it. I guess what I want to say is I am putting my faith in a number of groups that have written to me about the current status of this bill. I would like to put the names of those groups up on the easel right now. These are groups that have very astute attorneys who have studied this bill. They have enlisted our support. We are about to tell you who they are: The American Association of University Women, Children NOW, Children's Defense Fund, Center for Law and Social Policy, Feminist Majority, National Association of Commissions For Women, National Center for Youth Law, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Youth Law Center, National Women's Conference, National Women's Law Center, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Older Women's League, the Women Activist Fund, Wider Opportunities for Women, Women Employed, Women Work, Women's Law Center of Maryland, and the YWCA. I put my faith in these groups. Their purpose is to protect women and children. I believe they are correct when they say this bill will hurt women and children. Let me explain their position, and mine. Under the current bankruptcy laws--I want you to remember this number, $1,075--it is presumed that 60 days before you declare bankruptcy, if you have accumulated charges of $1,075 or more, then those charges are presumed fraudulent and the credit card companies can go after those charges. I think it is fair. This number did not come out of the air. It has been adjusted for inflation. It makes sense. I think the credit card companies have the right to say, if you are going to declare bankruptcy and you have charged that much, that you should not be able to discharge it. Let me tell you what happens in S. 420. That number, rather than being increased for inflation, is brought down to $250 over 90 days. So if someone charges, in that 90-day period, more than $250, all charges on that card in a 90-day period are presumed to be fraudulent and the credit card companies can go after you. Can you prove these were not luxuries? Sure. You could take time off from work, time away from your children. Can you hire a lawyer? You can fight the credit card companies. But it just makes me ill to think we are presuming that a single woman who may be plagued with all kinds of problems who used her credit card to purchase food at the supermarket would in fact be told that she is a fraud, that she meant to defraud the poor credit card companies. I have to tell you a story. The member of my family who has part-time work and is going through a difficult time right now just received today an application for a credit card where they say: Take a trip to exotic lands and put it on your credit card. It happens to be Diners Club. And, don't worry about paying it back for months. The poor credit card company. You would think they would investigate to whom they were sending these cards. But, no, they want us to protect them from some poor woman with a single child, perhaps, or two, who is struggling with a divorce, and let us say is charging $250 on her credit card over 90 days. These charges are fraudulent. Let me read for you a letter that was sent to me by a women's group, and then I am going to yield 5 minutes to Senator Clinton. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, my dear friend, for yielding me this time. This is an amendment about which I care an awful lot. Senator Clinton cares a lot about this. We just want to take a brief time, and speak as concisely as we can, to explain why we believe this amendment is so important. I think I must call up amendment No. 42 because I have this amendment pending at the desk, and I ask the clerk to report it.

Mrs. BOXER. It is $1,075.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is painful, to have a debate with your brother. But the question of who is full of malarkey is debatable. I have some pretty good folks on my side. May we show them again? I have never known my friend to say the American Association of University Women is full of malarkey, or the Children's Defense Fund, or on and on. I really haven't. That is a debate we will have privately. But this is the point. To me, it is a question of faith and trust in Americans--in particular, in this case, women, who most of all find themselves caught in this problem. I would like to know where you get a leather couch for $250.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I might, I so appreciate the opportunity to offer the amendment. I know Senator Byrd is going to yield to me to do that and then he will get the floor. I just want to make sure we can vote on that in the next block, which we are hoping will be around the 2:30 area.

Mrs. BOXER. If you can find one, let me know, because I need one. The fact is, you can't. The other fact is, if we could put this chart back up, under current law this is the cash card advance. You play with that, too, I say to my friend. It used to be $1,075 over 60 days. Now he rolls it back to $750 and says it is a great deal. This reminds me of the debates on a woman's right to choose. The presumption is, we can't trust women to make this decision. People supported a 24-hour waiting period, as if a woman never thought about it. They want Government to be involved and make the rules. In a way, it is very similar. It is treating people with distrust. We have a good law here, the current law. At $1,075, it is presumed you needed these things. It is fine. The other point about: Oh, you have the receipts; it is not a problem, I would ask every American today to put their hands on their receipt that they got when they made their last purchase. Now maybe I am just not good at it. My husband is good. He is probably the one guy I know who keeps every receipt.

Mrs. BOXER. May I have 30 seconds?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask the Senator to take 4 minutes and I will wrap it up.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with a combination of great sadness and great joy that I ask the Senate to pause briefly so that I may share a little of the remarkable life of my dear friend and confidante Gina Pennestri. I first met Gina when she was working for my hero and former boss, Congressman John Burton. When John announced his decision to leave the House in 1982, I decided to run for his seat. I can say without hesitation that without Gina I never would have won my first election to Congress. In fact, it is almost certain that without Gina I would not be here today as a U.S. Senator. After that first election she came to work for me and headed my district office until her retirement in 1989. For these and all her other gifts, I will be forever in her debt. Gina was born on September 30, 1923 in Washington, DC. In retrospect, this makes perfect sense. She always seemed to have been born into politics. She attended George Washington University and became active locally advocating for voting rights for District residents. She began her long career in public service during World War II conducting employee relations for civilian employees stationed overseas. After the War she assisted with the Berlin Airlift working to assure that medical, food and other supplies got to those who needed them. Gina moved to San Francisco in 1951, where she began at once to raise a family and more than one ruckus. From her first days in the City until her very last, Gina was known for her community spirit and activism. Over the years she worked to protect open space, to achieve civil rights, to end the war in Vietnam and so much more. Gina could be tough. She believed deeply in the inherent worth of all people, and worked especially hard to protect those less fortunate. She was that all-to-rare person whose depth of compassion was matched by an astute political mind. When it came to fighting for what was right, she let nothing and no one stand in the way. Her example inspires me to this day. A thorn in the side to a few, she was deeply beloved by countless more. And to those who knew her best she was more than just an ally or friend, she was a member of the family. When Gina let you into her life you were there for keeps. Her loyalty was legendary, and her wisdom helped me navigate many difficulties, both in my professional and private life. My family and I will miss her tremendously. Our thoughts and prayers are with her son Marc, his wife Nancy and their children Laura and Daniel, to all of whom Gina was deeply devoted. So today, I stand before you full of tremendous sorrow over the loss of a true friend and partner. But through the process of remembering Gina and her time among us, I am also filled with tremendous joy--joy that I was so fortunate to have met her and shared in her generous gifts and spirit. It comforts me to know that although she is gone, these will most assuredly live on in the many lives she touched.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Another private utility did the same thing to the tune of $5 billion. That is $9 billion these private utilities sent out. In my opinion, this amendment sends a strong message to the utilities in my State: It is not right to ask for help and walk away from your obligations. This amendment helps 12 power companies in California, municipal companies. In the end, it will help consumers because the next time there is a crisis, power companies will not fear they will be left high and dry and they will be willing to assist us in the future. This amendment was not offered in anger; it was offered in fairness. I support it. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am supporting the Wyden-Smith amendment because it sends the right signal--an ethical signal to the private utilities in California who owe billions of dollars of unpaid bills to those who supplied energy to my State when my State was in dire need. Sometimes these power generators, many municipal utilities, were forced by the Federal Government to send this power, even though they were concerned that they needed to conserve it for themselves or that they might not get paid. Call me old-fashioned, but I say pay your bills. Don't send your parent company $4.8 billion--which is what one private utility did--to pay dividends of the shareholders and repurchase stock when you know you have bills to pay. I have a Washington Post article. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.