Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I call amendment 252, as modified, to the desk.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to increase the funding for LIHEAP from $1.8 billion to $3 billion. This amendment is fully offset. LIHEAP has received level funding for more than 20 years, but energy prices have not remained level. They have not remained stable. In fact, they are at all-time highs. We all have stories such as this from our States. Recently, a mother of two from Arkansas turned on her electric oven in order to heat the house, burned the house down, and killed her two daughters. We all have similar stories such as that from around the Nation. This is an amendment that will help the people who need it most in all of our States.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 213.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something dear and near my heart. Before I do, I want to mention that we in Arkansas and everyone in the Senate joins with you, Mr. President, in your prayers and our prayers for the very tragic, bad news coming out of Atlanta right now. We want you to know that anything we can do, we want to try to help in every way we can.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, thank you for allowing me a few moments to speak about something I care very deeply about; that is, I am going to introduce a bill that would create a commemorative coin in honor of the 50th anniversary of desegregation of Little Rock Central High School in Little Rock, AR. The bill I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, is a companion measure to the work of our Arkansas colleague, Arkansas Congressman Vic Snyder. Once again, Congressman Snyder has shown himself to be quiet and effective and really able to get things done over in the House, not just for our States but for our Nation. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery, and I am here today to introduce identical language to Congressman Snyder's H.R. 358. I was excited to see that 319 members of the House of Representatives cosponsored Congressman Snyder's bill. It is my hope that I will have similar success in the Senate. The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a coin in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School in Little Rock. I believe this will serve as a timeless reminder of an event that provided a landmark change in our school system. Let me remind my colleagues about the desegregation crisis that took place at Little Rock Central High School and why this event is so important. In 1952, the Little Rock school board wanted to follow the rule of law and took the Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, case seriously, that momentous decision from 1954. When the U.S. Supreme Court used the phrase ``all deliberate speed,'' the Little Rock school board thought that it could begin to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling beginning in the 1957 school year. In 1957, nine black teenagers integrated the all white Central High School in Little Rock, AR, testing the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that ultimately ended legal segregation in schools. As these nine teenagers attempted to enter the doors of Central High, they were confronted with an angry, rampaging mob. President Eisenhower ordered Federal troops to Little Rock to end the brutal intimidation campaign mounted against the black students and to uphold Brown and Federal law. The ``Little Rock Nine''--Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair and Melba Pattillo Beals--changed the course of American history by claiming and exercising the right to receive an equal education. They were helped in this important endeavor by civil rights pioneer Daisy Bates who raised public awareness of their plight. Of her experience, Melba Pattillo Beals recalls: I had to become a warrior. I had to learn not how to dress the best but how to get from that door to the end of the hall without dying. Another one of those students was Ernest Green, who best explains why the Little Rock Nine sacrificed their innocence for a chance at a better education. He said: We wanted to widen options for ourselves and later for our children. Mr. Green was the first black student to graduate from Central High School. He later served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs under President Jimmy Carter and as vice president of Lehman Brothers. Turning opportunity into achievement is what civil rights pioneer Daisy Bates had in mind when she led the Little Rock Nine to break down the barriers that stood between them and an equal education. Despite threats on her life and of financial ruin, Daisy Bates made significant strides in the courtroom and increased public awareness through the newspaper she and her husband, L.C. Bates, published. As a former student of Central High--and by the way, I note that we have another student of Little Rock Central High in our presence today as one of our pages--I can tell you the impact of the Little Rock Nine and Daisy Bates is still felt in my heart and in the halls of Central High. The acts of courage, self-sacrifice, and grit by the Little Rock Nine should be shared with our current generation and the generations to follow. It took nine young high school students to prove to our Nation that ``all men are created equal'' and that the rule of law is paramount in the democracy of the United States. Today, children all over America have the right to learn because of the courage and sacrifice of the Little Rock Nine. A commemorative coin will bring national and international attention to the lasting legacy of this important event. With this legislation, 500,000 $1 dollar coins will be minted by the Treasury. These coins will be minted with symbols emblematic of the desegregation of the Little Rock Central High School and its contribution to civil rights in America; bear the year ``2007''; and include the inscripted words ``Liberty'', ``In God We Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus Unum'', which means, out of many, one. Little Rock Central High School helped us to become one nation. To cover the cost of the coins, the Secretary of Treasury shall sell the coins at face value with a surcharge to cover the cost of production and design. The courage of the ``Little Rock Nine'' (who stood in the face of violence, was one of the defining moments of the Civil Rights movement and changed American history by providing a foundation upon which to build greater equality. I hope that the Senate will join me in passing this measure to commemorate the Little Rock Nine and the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and allow the measure to move forward in an effort to ensure that these extraordinary achievements are recorded and shared for future generations.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I offer my amendment because I want to address a practice in the credit card industry. Basically, what happens with some card companies--and not all of them, certainly--is they make it a practice to look at their cardholders' credit reports on a monthly basis. When they find that the cardholder has a late payment maybe on a utility bill, or a car note, or whatever the case may be, they will actually raise the interest rate on the cardholder, even though they may have made every credit card payment on time. They use that as a justification to raise the interest rate on the cardholder. I think that is an unfair practice. It is fraught with all kinds of problems, including the problem that many of these credit reports contain errors. I have certainly been subject to those. I am sure almost every Senator in this Chamber has been subject to an error on their credit report at one time or another. The credit card companies don't take that into consideration. They will routinely increase interest rates. I think it is an unfair business practice. We are talking about bankruptcy. We all know that one of the main reasons people get into financial trouble is because they have credit cards. Sometimes they abuse them. Sometimes the interest rate is so high that it creates great difficulty on our citizens. I think this amendment is important. I think it is one we can certainly justify, and I think it is one that, if people take a look at it, they would think this is a bad industry practice and this is a way to, hopefully, decrease the number of bankruptcies and the number of families in America who get into financial trouble, if some of these hidden methods of increasing interest rates are taken away. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 40.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today marks the end of Black History Month. Each year, we take this opportunity to honor the heritage and extraordinary contributions that African Americans have made in building our Nation. We have many fallen martyrs in the civil rights movement to honor: Harriet Tubman, the pioneer of the Underground Railroad; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a drum major for justice; Rosa Parks, mother of the civil rights movement; and recently deceased Shirley Chisholm, champion of political firsts; to name only a few. Arkansas has its own heroes who turned their determination into opportunity for others and helped shape history as a result. It is perhaps the Little Rock Nine who taught America that ``separate'' was not ``equal.'' Nine black students--Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Borwn Trickey, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair and Melba Pattillo Beals--defied hatred and prejudice to attend the all-white Central High School and exercise their right to a better education. Last year, I worked closely with members of the Little Rock Nine, as well as the former Congressional Black Caucus Chairman, Elijah Cummings, to secure funding to build a Visitor's Center at the Little Rock Central High School in time to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the school's desegregation crisis. I am thrilled Congress authorized the design funding for this project. We celebrate Black History Month every February, but the Visitor's Center is open to teach stories of the civil rights movement all-year long. Part of this Visitor's Center will tell the story of civil rights leader Daisy Gatson Bates, who paid a personal and financial price to help the Little Rock Nine succeed. Bates also made significant strides in the courtroom and increasing public awareness through her newspaper, the Arkansas State Press, about the inequality that existed in Arkansas. Just as Arkansans broke barriers in our schools, they also played a large role in integrating our Nation's military operations, making it the most skilled military in the world. The actions of the Tuskegee Airmen are legendary. Arkansas' own Tuskegee Airmen include: Herbert Clark of Pine Bluff, Richard Caesar of Lake Village, William Mattison of Conway, Woodrow Crockett of Little Rock, James Ewing of Helena, Marsille Reed of Tillar, Jerry Hodges of Heth, and Grandville Coggs of Little Rock. Before 1940, African Americans were barred from flying for the U.S. military. Civil rights organizations and the black press exerted pressure that resulted in the formation of an African-American flying squadron based in Tuskegee, AL., in 1941. The Tuskegee Airmen established an incredible and unprecedented flying record, most notably completing 200 bomber escort missions over most of central and southern Europe without the loss of a single bomber to enemy aircraft. By the end of World War II, almost 1,000 African Americans had won their wings at Tuskegee Army Air Field. Each airman had his own victories and valor, but in the end, the Tuskegee Airmen knew that never again would anybody deny a man or woman the opportunity to serve our country in any capacity because of the color of his or her skin. In 1948, President Harry Truman enacted an Executive order which directed equality of treatment and opportunity in all of the U.S. Armed Forces. This order, in time, led to the end of racial segregation in the military forces. African Americans continue to make remarkable contributions in the fields of mathematics, science, arts, politics and the Armed Forces. Arkansas is blessed to be the home to many of these trailblazers, including Pulitzer Prize winner Maya Angelou, former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, and many individuals who may not be household names but who make an extraordinary difference in our communities nonetheless. As we look back at the African Americans who brought us here today, we must also consider those who are history in the making. The Little Rock Nine and Daisy Gatson Bates knew that education is the great equalizer. Keeping students in school and preparing them for college will pay off in dividends for communities. For students who pursue higher education, the pay margin is significant. In 2002, the average earnings for nongraduates were $18,826; for high school graduates, $27,280; for bachelor's degree holders, $51,194; and for those with advanced degrees, $72,824. Last week, I traveled towns in the Delta, where some rural areas suffer from unemployment rates two to three times higher than the national average, the poverty rate is more than double the national average, and access to health care is abysmal. I spoke with middle school and high school students, sharing with them a message of commitment and responsibility. Every child should know that if they take the initiative to work hard and make good grades, this body will stand by them and match that commitment. Standing by our youth means fulfilling the promises we made to them to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. Most students know that the No Child Left Behind Act requires them to take more tests, but they don't understand the overall goal is to improve our schools--in poor neighborhoods and in wealthy school districts--so that they will all be able to compete in the global and technically advanced workplace. In fulfilling Congress' commitment to our youth, it is imperative that we support programs like the Federal TRIO programs, which help low-income, first-generation college students progress through the academic pipeline from middle school to post-baccalaureate programs. I recently learned about Jessica, a high school senior who participates in the Upward Bound Program. Through the Federal TRIO program, she received tutoring and technical assistance that she needed to attend college. Jessica took the initiative to make good grades in school, score well on her ACTs, and balance a part-time job at McDonalds. She was accepted at the University of Central Arkansas, her first choice college, and she now awaits scholarship information so she knows for sure whether UCA is in her future. Oprah Winfrey once said ``luck is a matter of preparation meeting opportunity.'' Preparation is the most important part of the equation. For students to be prepared and compete in the workforce, Congress must support programs like title I, IDEA, TRIO, as well as programs that provide vocational preparation and technology in rural schools. When we underfund or slash funding for them, as the President proposes in his budget proposal, we take opportunity away from them. African-American students are reaping the benefits of equal opportunity laws passed on to them through the sacrifice of their ancestors. However, too many African-American seniors struggle financially today because they simply did not have the same opportunity in their schools or in the workplace. As a result, 40 percent of African-American seniors rely on Social Security as their only source of income, and the program provides about three-quarters of all retirement income for African-American seniors. Statistics show, in fact, without Social Security, poverty rates for African-American seniors would more than double to 58 percent. The Social Security safety net is at risk with the President's privatization plan. I hope African-American families in Arkansas and throughout the country will listen closely to the debate on Social Security's future. The President recently stated private accounts are in the best interest of African-Americans because the accounts benefit individuals with a shorter life expectancy. To me that statement means we need to reduce the health care disparity in this country, which is something I hope the Senate will take action on this year. Weakening Social Security is not the answer. Black History Month presents an occasion to reflect on the great contributions African-Americans have made to our country, and to celebrate the steps we have taken toward equality. But too much is left to be done to simply leave it at that. We must also remind ourselves of the work ahead and meet the commitment of those who seek opportunity.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. President. But the only point I was going to make on that is, we are a union of States. We should always see the States' attorneys general as being a little different than private sector lawyers. There is nothing wrong with private sector lawyers. Like I said many times during the course of this debate on this amendment, they are doing their job. They are representing their clients, and that is great and fantastic. That is the way the system works. But the State's attorney general does more. The State's attorney general has more responsibility. When they speak, they speak on behalf of the State. It is kind of like us being here in Washington. Certainly we are everyday citizens like everybody else, but we are elected to come here and represent our States in this great body. So I will ask my colleagues to try to see States' attorneys general in a different light, in a materially different light, not a slightly different light but in a materially, substantially different light than you see your ordinary attorneys in private practice. Like I said, some say this amendment is unnecessary because it honors the integrity of the bill. I like that in terms of legislative history. But I also say the counterargument there is: If it is unnecessary and if it does not change the impact of the bill, why not vote on it and allow the amendment to make sure we are all protecting the ability of our States to pursue litigation in the way they have always been able to do that. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, after the 15 seconds, what will happen? Can I ask unanimous consent to extend it for another, say, 10 minutes?

Mr. PRYOR. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this amendment. I am encouraged in one way because I know they have spent time with the amendment and studied it, analyzed it. What encourages me is all four who spoke against this--in fact, every Senator who spoke against the amendment--have said that this bill as currently drafted will not alter or limit the existing rights of any State attorney general. That is very good news. I don't agree with that interpretation. In fact, there are 46 attorneys general, Democrats and Republicans from all over the country, who have written a letter saying they do not agree, or at least they have concern with that interpretation. I hope when this law, if it passes, S. 5, is challenged, and it will be at some point or be litigated at some point, and a State attorney general tries to pursue some sort of action and there is a challenge saying the State cannot do it, I hope the courts will recognize the legislative history we developed today. The intention of this Senate and the conference is not to limit any existing rights or any existing abilities of the State attorneys general in pursuing cases they may deem appropriate to pursue. In addition, a number of the opponents, maybe all, have focused on some language in the bill. We need to clarify that language so when we vote on this we will be able to vote from an informed position. The language is ``but does not include any civil action brought by or on behalf of any Attorney General.'' Chairman Grassley and others have pointed to that language and indicated they have some concern with that. I respect that concern. Let me flesh that out, if I may. In virtually every State, and probably every State, the work of the attorney general's office is too large for one person to do. In other words, the AG himself or herself cannot sign every pleading, cannot attend every hearing, cannot participate in everything. They cannot do it. There are not enough hours in the day and the workload is too heavy. Again, I think every State law does this routinely. I don't know of any exception. What that means is every attorney general in America has an assistant attorney general or deputy attorney general or some other titled person in their office who every single day routinely does things on behalf of the attorney general. It has to be that way. Under the laws of the States, the attorney general is the one who is ultimately responsible. When a pleading is signed, that signatory-- whichever deputy or assistant or attorney general it may be--that person is binding the State's attorney general to certain things in the pleadings. The attorney general is the officer of the court. The attorney general has ethical responsibilities and ethical duties. I would argue that these ethical duties are above and beyond what is in the private practice of law because that lawyer, as the attorney general, is representing the State he or she was elected or selected to represent. Also, some are concerned that the phrase ``or on behalf of'' may mean that a private sector law firm could be retained by the State to pursue a matter. That is true. That is existing law today. And everybody has said the intention of S. 5 is not to limit or alter or change any authority of the States' attorneys general. So all that is true. However, in every State I am aware of--I cannot promise this is true in every State, but in every State I am familiar with, there is a process which States' attorneys general have to go through in order to hire outside counsel. I think if we spent 30 minutes looking at various States and the needs of various States, probably 100 percent of the people in the Senate would understand that there may be cases where it might be appropriate to hire outside counsel under certain circumstances. But there is a process. For example, in Arkansas, we had to go to the State legislature. We had to go to the State legislative committee and get approval to hire outside counsel. We also had to have the Governor sign off on the approval. So we had both the legislative and the executive branch signing off on that decision. Again, I cannot promise every State has that same process, but every one I am familiar with has some sort of process they go through and do that. The United States is a union of States. We should not think of these attorneys general as attorneys. I tried to make this point several times. They are different than private practice attorneys. These attorneys represent the State. They are the mouthpiece for the State. They do the will of the legislature of the State in all of its various capacities. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have served with some of these attorneys general, and I can say they come from different ideological points of view and different ways of practicing law. As a whole, they are not taking a position on the bill, but as you can see by this letter, the vast majority of State AGs agree on one point: As the chief legal officers for their respective States, there must be clarification in the bill to make sure they can continue to represent the citizens of their States and carry out their duties as elected officials. As we all know, attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to their citizens. These cases are usually brought pursuant to the attorneys general parens patriae authority under their respective consumer protection and antitrust statutes. This is an important point. Not all States have parens patriae authority. In fact, the State of Arkansas, when I was attorney general, had very limited parens patriae. In fact, one could argue none at all. We always had to pursue our actions under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which is a State statute, and we had specific authority in that statute. I heard some people say, again, in the hallways here, that all States have parens patriae and therefore we do not need this amendment. But that is not the case. In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for consumers in the State. It is my concern, as well as those of 46 attorneys general, that certain provisions in S. 5 might be interpreted to hamper their ability to bring such actions, thereby impeding one means of protecting their citizens from unlawful activity and resulting harm. It is important to all consumers, but especially to the poor, elderly, and disabled, that the provisions of the act not be misconstrued and that attorneys general maintain the enforcement authority needed to protect them from illegal practices. I know there are many people who want this body to pass class action reform this year and do not want to ruin its chances by adding too many amendments to the underlying bill. But, as I said a few moments ago, in this case, with this particular amendment, we are not changing the intent of the bill. I would like to address a falsehood about the amendment that I have heard, and that is that some people have said this amendment would create a major loophole because suits could be brought on behalf of State attorneys general, that some attorneys general may allow their friends to use their names to avoid moving the case to Federal court. The notion is incorrect and, quite frankly, it is offensive. Let me be clear. No one can add a State attorney general without his or her express consent or permission. Moreover, attorneys general are statewide elected officials accountable to the same citizens who vote for us. They work hard and take their responsibility as chief legal officers very seriously. State attorneys general would not expend the resources or their reputations to take up a class action they did not believe was worthy of protecting their citizens. In addition, it should be noted that in many cases, attorneys general are not after the check or the payment in litigation. They are not eyeing the big settlement, although in some cases there are large settlements at the end of the horizon. The primary objective of State attorneys general is not chasing the money but bringing about reform. Let me be clear on this point. I alluded to this a few moments ago. State attorneys general are fundamentally different from private attorneys. Private attorneys have clients, and they are out there doing what their clients want: trying to get a recovery and trying to make their clients whole. I understand that. That is a good thing. I do not have any problem with that. State attorneys general are different. Generally speaking--maybe not in every single case but generally speaking, when the State attorney general becomes involved, there is a matter of public policy in the litigation. In fact, I said a few moments ago that the State attorneys general are elected officials. That is not true in every single case. I think there are about 35 elected attorneys general. There are a couple selected by the supreme court or by the State legislature, and some are appointed by the Governor. Nonetheless, attorneys general have a level of accountability that you do not find in private practice because they are accountable to the people, either the people who elected them or appointed them or selected them for the office. And attorneys general, more than private lawyers, are sensitive to criticism. I can assure you, the last thing an attorney general wants to read is an opinion by a judge who is criticizing the attorney general for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, criticizing the attorney general for going too far. That is the last thing the attorney general wants to read in the paper. Also, there is the court of public opinion. The attorney general does not like bad editorials to be written about him or her. They do not like to be out on the street and people questioning their integrity or their sense. So attorneys general have a level of accountability that just does not exist in other areas of practice. That is an important distinction. As I mentioned a few moments ago, normally cases brought by States involve a matter of public policy, and we can go through a long list of cases and show where the public policy is in the cases and also show how a lot of these cases would not be profitable for the private sector to bring. Oftentimes there is a matter of fairness and not a matter of money involved in these cases. There are several major examples where State attorneys general have filed a cause of action in State court to protect their citizens or bring reform. However, if we do not act to clarify S. 5, I am concerned this legislation would make it much harder for the attorneys general to do their jobs. Back in the 1990s, the attorneys general around the country pooled together and sued the tobacco industry for reimbursement of State moneys as a result of disease brought about by smoking. I know in some quarters that is still a very controversial decision. Let me very respectfully remind the Congress that the Congress a year, two or three before this settlement occurred had the chance to enter into a federally mandated global settlement of all claims. That did not happen. The States pursued their case after the Congress failed to act. This tobacco case resulted in a historic global settlement that drastically altered the way our Nation views and approaches smoking. Money from these settlements was used by the States for youth smoking prevention, to improve health care, educate citizens on the dangers of smoking, and an increased level of treatment for smoking-related illnesses. My State of Arkansas has spent every penny of the tobacco money it has received on health-related issues--every single penny. Back to the point about the difference in the private sector attorney representing the individual or representing a class versus the attorney general representing the State's interest and the citizens of the State, when you look at the settlement agreement between the tobacco companies and the State, if I recall right, it was about 147 pages long. It was very detailed, very negotiated, a very hard-to-reach settlement. I believe it was 147 pages long without the attachments, and 91 of those pages, that is two-thirds of the pages approximately, were about the public policy and changing the tobacco industry's practices. Here again, in private litigation it is about getting recovery for one's client, and we understand that, but when the attorney general is involved it is a materially different type of litigation. I have never seen a private settlement in which two-thirds of the settlement document requires the industry or the company to change its practices, but that is the type of litigation the attorneys general enter into. Each State in the tobacco case filed individual suits in their respective State's court alleging fraud. In our particular State, we alleged the Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations and also a number of common law claims. Due to the nature of the claims, if this legislation as it is written would have existed at the time of this case, it may have presented hurdles to the attorneys general that could have prevented a resolution. In 2001, several State attorneys general took on Ford and Firestone for failure to disclose defects in Firestone tires used on Ford SUVs, of which they should have been aware. These cases were brought again in Arkansas, and other States have similar laws, under our State's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud and consumer protection laws. Let us make this point in another case. In private causes of action, and there were many relating to the Ford and the Firestone litigation, the parties' and the lawyers' primary concern was trying to make the plaintiffs whole. That is the nature of that type of litigation. In the attorney general actions, we established a restitution fund and a long series of injunctions against the companies in the way they marketed their products. In fact, some people may have noticed they have seen some new Ford Explorer ads on television in recent weeks. These Ford Explorer ads are due to the attorney general lawsuit, and they deal with the safety of Ford Explorers. All this goes back to the way Ford Explorers were marketed originally. The buyers bought them thinking they were safe under pretty much all conditions, but practice has taught us differently. So I make that point one more time to show how different State litigation is versus private litigation. Ultimately, the Ford case was settled. However, had these States been required to file separate State cases under their own consumer protection laws, as could be required under this class action bill, those States would have been removed to Federal court. The Federal court would then have been required to become an expert in each State's diverse consumer laws and remedies. State litigation is different from private litigation, and I think to some degree this amendment is a matter of States rights. In 2000, 26 attorneys general from 26 States brought suit against Publishers Clearinghouse claiming that the company was intentionally preying on the elderly by misrepresenting their sweepstakes award. My colleagues may remember that for years people used to get mail with pictures of celebrities, and in big bold letters it would have your name and say: You have won X number of millions of dollars. Or it would say: Congratulations, millionaire. Think about it. We do not get those letters anymore. Why? Because the States intervened. The States came in under consumer protection laws and looked at how deceptive those ads were. In fact, in Arkansas when I was in the attorney general's office I would talk to an adult child of a deceased person or an adult child who had put their parents in a nursing home and they would clean out the closets and the living room or whatever and they would find stacks and stacks of magazines that had been ordered through these sweepstakes companies. Even if one reads everything in great detail, they would find in the fine print that ordering does not increase their chances of winning. Most people do not read all the fine print. Most people thought that ordering did increase their chance of winning, and what happened was people would order the same magazine. People would tell me they would find 10 copies of the same Sports Illustrated or 10 copies of the same Newsweek or Good Housekeeping because these senior citizens ordered to try to win the sweepstakes. It is sad and unfortunate, but they saw this as a chance they were willing to take to leave a lot of money to their children and grandchildren. So we came in as States and put a stop to that. I think it was 26 States that banded together and put a stop to that. It was alleged that Publishers Clearinghouse was profiting from this fraud at the expense of the vulnerable elderly. I can recall that these individuals had spent their life savings on these fraudulent sweepstakes. When we got inside of the cases, we found many seniors in Arkansas who had spent hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars trying to win sweepstakes. Is there someone here who thinks the actions of the attorneys general are out of step with common sense and fairness? In this bill we should make sure we do not take away any existing authority of the attorneys general. These are just a few examples of the very hard and worthy work by the State attorneys general where they are trying to protect the citizens of their States. I challenge my colleagues to deem the work they do as frivolous or as junk lawsuits because attorneys general around the country have a layer of accountability that does not exist elsewhere. They are accountable to the people. They are accountable to the legislature that makes their budgets. They are accountable to the Governor. They are accountable in the court of public opinion. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to this bill for several reasons. One is that the overwhelming majority of State attorneys general, our States' chief legal officers, are concerned about the language of this bill, and we should be concerned about it. Remember, these attorneys general represent the citizens in all of our States. They try to get out there and do the right thing for their citizens. Secondly, by making this change, we are not obstructing the intent of the bill, but I believe very strongly we are clarifying the authority that already exists. Third, we should allow our attorneys general to seek State remedies to State problems. I think this is an important piece of this. It goes back to States rights. It goes back to local control and people trying to do things the way they want to handle them in their own States. So I implore all of my colleagues who are champions of States rights or who want to protect the integrity of the bill and want to leave the tools that currently exist with the State attorneys general, to vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, to ensure that State attorneys general elected by the people of their States as the chief law enforcement officer will still be able to do their business and protect the people of their States. My amendment simply clarifies that State attorneys general should be exempt from S. 5 and be allowed to pursue their individual State's interests as determined by themselves and not by the Federal Government. I know that S. 5 is intended to fix problems around class action law in America, and I think most agree that the attorneys general are not part of the problem. In the simplest terms, this amendment allows them to seek State remedies to State problems. I hope we can all agree infringement on State rights should not be a result of this bill. I believe class actions remain an important tool for enforcing shareholder and employee rights, for cracking down on telemarketing fraud in attempts to prey on the elderly, and in forcing companies to improve product safety both in the manufacture of unreasonably dangerous products and in drugs. We need to make sure class action reform does not unnecessarily restrict the ability of citizens to seek redress for legitimate claims. While we all may not agree with those in Congress that we need to improve the class action process, we should all agree that it should not be done by shutting State attorneys general out of the system. I believe to do so would circumvent the intent of our Founding Fathers in recognizing that State sovereignty should not be dismissed by Federal action so easily. To that end, I offer this amendment in an attempt to quash ambiguity about the authority of State attorneys general that may exist in this bill. It should be known that this commonsense amendment in no way impairs the class action reforms as intended in this bill, nor does it in any way expand the authority of State attorneys general. What this amendment does is clarify the existing authority of State attorneys general. I have heard in the hallways, and as I have gone through the corridors in the Senate in the last few days, that there are some who do not want any amendments to this bill. This amendment, if accepted, I believe is very consistent with the intent of the bill. I believe the authors of the bill did not intend to shut out State attorneys general. So even though some do not want amendments--I think we ought to consider all amendments; some of the amendments are very worthy of consideration. Although some do not want amendments, I think they can vote for this with a clear conscience that this will not change the intent of the bill. I am a former State attorney general. I understand the important work they do for consumers and the most vulnerable in our society. It is not just my opinion that this amendment is needed. I offer this amendment on behalf of a bipartisan group of 46 State attorneys general who have expressed that it is critically important to all their constituents, especially the poor, elderly, and disabled, that provisions in this legislation be clarified so as not to compromise the traditional law enforcement authority. I have a letter. Interestingly enough, in the first paragraph of the letter, it says--and these are 46 State attorneys general: We take no position on the act as a general matter and, indeed, there are differing views among us on the policy judgments reflected in the act. This is very clear. The attorneys general are split on the underlying act, but they are not split on their authority being called into question with this act. They say: Clarifying the act does not apply to and would have no effect on actions brought by State attorneys general on behalf of their respective States and citizens. I want to talk in just a minute about how State attorneys general are different from private sector lawyers. I will get to that in a minute. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this letter signed by 46 State attorneys general, Democrats and Republicans, collectively representing more than 90 percent of the country, who are very concerned that this legislation as it is written will stop them from doing an important part of their jobs.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor William Randle and Connie Marie Hudgens on the occasion of their 70th wedding anniversary. The Hudgens were married on November 10, 1934, in England, AR, and celebrated their Platinum Anniversary on November 10, 2004. Mr. Hudgens was born in Cornersville, AR, on January 16, 1915. His family moved to England, Arkansas, in 1922 where he met and later married his wife, Connie Marie Saulter. Mr. Hudgens is a retired farmer and heavy equipment operator. He contributed greatly to Arkansas' highway system with his work on the construction of Interstates 30 and 40. Mrs. Hudgens retired from a position with Wal-Mart and worked with several other companies in central Arkansas. Her most important and rewarding role, however, was as a wife and mother. The Hudgens raised two beautiful daughters, Joyce Cates of North Little Rock, AR, and Sandra Evans of Lonoke, AR. Their lives have also been blessed with six grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. Mr. and Mrs. Hudgens now reside in Lonoke, AR. They are devoted members of the Lonoke Baptist Church, where Mr. Hudgens serves as a Deacon Emeritus. It is my honor and privilege to join the Hudgens' family and friends in recognizing the very special and momentous occasion of their 70th wedding anniversary. I ask my colleagues to join me in offering Mr. and Mrs. Hudgens best wishes for continued happiness.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a couple of my constituents who are celebrating their 70th wedding anniversary. William Randle and Connie Marie Hudgens celebrated their anniversary on November 10th. Mr. Hudgens was born in Cornersville, AR, January 16, 1915. He moved to England, AR, in 1922 where he met and married his bride, Connie Marie Saulter, born in England January 4, 1917. They were married in the bride's home in England November 10, 1934. Mr. Hudgens is a retired farmer and heavy equipment operator. He helped with the construction of Interstates 30 and 40. Mrs. Hudgens retired from Wal-Mart and worked many other jobs before. But her most important and rewarding job was as a wife and mother. They have two daughters, Joyce Cates of North Little Rock and Sandra Evans of Lonoke. They are also blessed with 6 grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren. Mr. and Mrs. Hudgens now reside in Lonoke where they attend, and Mr. Hudgens is a deacon emeritus of Lonoke Baptist Church.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the assistance and support one soldier's family has shown him during his 26 years of service in the United States Army. Lieutenant Colonel Andy Lucas, currently serving with J37, Joint Task Force Global Network Operations, is the oldest of Andrew and Shirley Lucas' five children. The entire family attend the University of Arkansas, making me particularly proud because that is my alma mater, and Mr. Lucas and three of his children have bravely served our country in the military. Lieutenant Colonel Lucas wrote to me on the occasion of his retirement and asked that I write to each of his family members in an effort to show them how grateful he is for their love and support over the last 26 year. He writes. My family is fantastic, personal bias aside. Throughout my entire time in the military, they have always been there to support me and provide that emotional stability during deployments in both peace and crisis. Everything that I have accomplished in the military and in life can be attributed to the upbringing, love, and support by my parents coupled with the love and support from my brothers and sister. I am truly blessed to have such a wonderful family . . . Our country is blessed to have you, too, Andrew and Shirley Lucas; Ernest and Carole Lucas; Lieutenant Colonel John and Coleen, John Jr., Kevin, Bryan, and Andrea Lucas; Jim and Cathy, Linden and Weston Spalding; Thomas and Sara, Darcy and Will Lucas; and April Kulda-Lucas and Christopher Drew, LTC Lucas' wife and son. It is extremely hard on our men and women in uniform to deal with the ups and downs of military life, but it is family members like you that help them through it, which is why I am happy to honor LTC Lucas' request and say thank you for your service to our country.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Pryor pertaining to the introduction of S. 2941 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I know the hour is late, and I will try to keep my comments fairly brief. I promise I will not take more than an hour or two. What I am showing tonight is a picture of some American heroes. Oftentimes we look at a person in uniform and say: That's a hero. Certainly, the folks injured and killed in combat we see them as heroes. But you are really just a hero if you serve, if you put on your uniform and do your duty to your country. The other heroes in this picture are this soldier's family. We can see they are hugging him and supporting him, and that is really part of the definition of a hero as well. Certainly, the folks who are not pictured here--this man's employer because he is probably in the Guard or Reserve, and folks in the community, people in his church or his neighborhood--whatever the circumstances may be--they are heroes in this picture. We thank all of our soldiers who are serving bravely for our country, wherever they may be tonight. I want to thank the conferees, who worked so hard on the Working Families Tax Relief Act last week, for including the provisions of S. 2417, the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act or, as some people call it, TRAC. One thing that TRAC was designed to do was eliminate the combat pay penalty. I introduced TRAC back in May of this year. The rationale for introducing TRAC was to help our men and women in combat. In fact, in my work on the Armed Services Committee, and with the help of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, the committee requested a GAO report. We became concerned in the Armed Services Committee about the tax package that is available to our soldiers, Marines, airmen and seamen. So Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus were gracious enough to request a GAO report. In essence, what the GAO report found was a glitch in the Tax Code, an unintended consequence. Basically, what they found is that if one is a soldier and receives combat pay, which means they are in theater and they are in harm's way every day, they receive their combat pay and they want to claim their earned income tax credit, which many of these individuals are entitled to under our Tax Code, they actually can lose money on their taxes by receiving their combat pay. That is why I call it the ``combat pay penalty,'' because it really does disadvantage some people on their taxes. I have a chart that illustrates what I am talking about. If someone is working in a hardware store 12 months out of the year, let's say they were making $16,000 a year annually, under the earned income tax system that we have on our books right now, $4,100 may possibly come back to him under the EITC. If that same person works in a hardware store, say, for 4 months, and he is in the guard or reserve and he gets 8 months for his military service and he makes the same $16,000, by the time he does the math and he fills out his tax form he is only entitled to $2,100 under the earned income tax credit. What we are doing is, inadvertently we are putting our soldiers at a disadvantage. In other words, this soldier in this example has lost on his taxes about $2,000. Clearly, this is not the intent of Congress. The way I feel about it--and I know a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel about this--is while our brave soldiers are overseas fighting for us, we need to be in Washington fighting for them and their families. I think it is just incumbent upon us to recognize the principle that we need to take care of those who take care of us. There is no one in the world who is doing a better job taking care of us than our men and women in combat. Under the provisions of a bill that I will file this evening, the provisions are very simple. What it will do is allow men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income and their child tax credit benefits. If that calculation works in their best interest, it gives them control over their taxes and allows them to make the determination for what is in their best interest on their taxes. Again, I want to thank the conference, and the Senate, House, and the President for signing it, because we did win a short-term victory on this. We got this provision on the earned income tax credit for 2 years. Everything else in the bill was 5 years, but we did get 2 years. It is a short-term victory, something I hope we will be able to go back and change and make it a long-term solution for these brave Americans. I do not want to speak to all the intricacies of the earned income tax credit because I have heard Senators in this Chamber say that it is basically a Tax Code for a welfare program. I disagree with that. We may have an honest disagreement about that. Clearly, our men and women in uniform receiving combat pay are working hard. We know this is not a welfare program for them. We know they are not going to abuse this or they are not going to miscalculate it. We have a high degree of confidence that this is going to be good for them and good for all of us. Anyway, I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to the next chart, which is the earned income tax credit. This chart shows how it is structured. Depending on a person's situation, if they have no child, one child, two or more children, it shows a sort of range of possibilities, depending on what one's income is. Obviously, it is like a formula where the numbers have to be plugged in. It is different for different people. As we can see, a soldier who is making, say, about $6,300 ought to get about $390 from the earned income tax credit. Whereas a soldier who is down on the income scale, making $1,400, should get about $2,600 in earned income tax credit. So, again, this will change depending on the situation. What we are proposing would allow our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, to take advantage of an existing provision of the Tax Code and maximize it to their full advantage. I am not saying that we can get this done this week. We certainly understand that we are out of legislative days, but I hope sincerely that we can come back in the lame duck session or whenever we reconvene and really get serious about helping our men and women in uniform. We fixed the earned income tax credit for 2004 and 2005. Here is another chart showing some of the numbers and how it would work, again, depending on how many months one is in combat. Just depending on the various losses that one might have, we can see based on this chart and the numbers here, the soldiers who are impacted the most are the enlisted men. Officers can be penalized under this, but the enlisted men and women are the ones who are probably at the greatest danger of losing their tax benefit. One reason that Senators have decided to help me on this--we have, I believe 36 cosponsors now who have signed up to help out on this--is because it is a cheap fix. When we look at the numbers for 2 years, 2006 and 2007, we are only talking about $15 million. When we talk about taxes in this country, we talk about billions or trillions, but over 2 years this is only $15 million. Over 10 years it is only $68 million. That is not a lot of money. That is really peanuts in the grand scheme of things when we are talking about our Tax Code and other numbers that we talk about, when we talk about fixing our taxes in this country. This is real money for these soldiers in uniform. I close with another picture of some heroes to remind us what this is all about, who we are trying to help. These soldiers, most of them, are relatively low-income because one has to be relatively low-income to even qualify for the earned income tax credit. They are leaving their families behind. Many of them are leaving jobs, homes, all kinds of economic security. Like I said, these are the folks who are taking care of us, and I think in the Senate and in the Congress we ought to do our part to take care of them. Mrs. LINCOLN: Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators Pryor and Baucus in introducing legislation to ensure members of the military who serve in combat are not treated unfairly under the tax code. I believe strongly that we have an obligation in Congress to take care of the brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives to take care of us. As my friend and colleague Senator Pryor mentioned, the provision in the Tax Code we are seeking to amend affects the ability of military personnel who serve in combat zones to benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit. Due to an unintended consequence in the tax code, those affected may loose up to $4,000 in tax relief simply because they have volunteered to defend our freedom. This is wrong. We corrected the problem for 2 years--until 2006--in the Working Families Tax Relief Act which Congress recently approved but we didn't resolve the matter appropriately in my judgement. I offered an amendment during the conference report to bring tax relief for military families in line with the other provisions in the bill but that amendment was rejected. I hope my colleagues will reconsider. The men and women in uniform who serve in harm's way and their families here at home are the last people we should burden with uncertainty in the Tax Code. I think we should fix this problem without delay and that is why l am proud to join in this effort. I applaud Senator Pryor for his leadership and hard work on this issue, and I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I know the hour is late, and I will try to keep my comments fairly brief. I promise I will not take more than an hour or two. What I am showing tonight is a picture of some American heroes. Oftentimes we look at a person in uniform and say: That's a hero. Certainly, the folks injured and killed in combat we see them as heroes. But you are really just a hero if you serve, if you put on your uniform and do your duty to your country. The other heroes in this picture are this soldier's family. We can see they are hugging him and supporting him, and that is really part of the definition of a hero as well. Certainly, the folks who are not pictured here--this man's employer because he is probably in the Guard or Reserve, and folks in the community, people in his church or his neighborhood--whatever the circumstances may be--they are heroes in this picture. We thank all of our soldiers who are serving bravely for our country, wherever they may be tonight. I want to thank the conferees, who worked so hard on the Working Families Tax Relief Act last week, for including the provisions of S. 2417, the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act or, as some people call it, TRAC. One thing that TRAC was designed to do was eliminate the combat pay penalty. I introduced TRAC back in May of this year. The rationale for introducing TRAC was to help our men and women in combat. In fact, in my work on the Armed Services Committee, and with the help of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, the committee requested a GAO report. We became concerned in the Armed Services Committee about the tax package that is available to our soldiers, Marines, airmen and seamen. So Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus were gracious enough to request a GAO report. In essence, what the GAO report found was a glitch in the Tax Code, an unintended consequence. Basically, what they found is that if one is a soldier and receives combat pay, which means they are in theater and they are in harm's way every day, they receive their combat pay and they want to claim their earned income tax credit, which many of these individuals are entitled to under our Tax Code, they actually can lose money on their taxes by receiving their combat pay. That is why I call it the ``combat pay penalty,'' because it really does disadvantage some people on their taxes. I have a chart that illustrates what I am talking about. If someone is working in a hardware store 12 months out of the year, let's say they were making $16,000 a year annually, under the earned income tax system that we have on our books right now, $4,100 may possibly come back to him under the EITC. If that same person works in a hardware store, say, for 4 months, and he is in the guard or reserve and he gets 8 months for his military service and he makes the same $16,000, by the time he does the math and he fills out his tax form he is only entitled to $2,100 under the earned income tax credit. What we are doing is, inadvertently we are putting our soldiers at a disadvantage. In other words, this soldier in this example has lost on his taxes about $2,000. Clearly, this is not the intent of Congress. The way I feel about it--and I know a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel about this--is while our brave soldiers are overseas fighting for us, we need to be in Washington fighting for them and their families. I think it is just incumbent upon us to recognize the principle that we need to take care of those who take care of us. There is no one in the world who is doing a better job taking care of us than our men and women in combat. Under the provisions of a bill that I will file this evening, the provisions are very simple. What it will do is allow men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income and their child tax credit benefits. If that calculation works in their best interest, it gives them control over their taxes and allows them to make the determination for what is in their best interest on their taxes. Again, I want to thank the conference, and the Senate, House, and the President for signing it, because we did win a short-term victory on this. We got this provision on the earned income tax credit for 2 years. Everything else in the bill was 5 years, but we did get 2 years. It is a short-term victory, something I hope we will be able to go back and change and make it a long-term solution for these brave Americans. I do not want to speak to all the intricacies of the earned income tax credit because I have heard Senators in this Chamber say that it is basically a Tax Code for a welfare program. I disagree with that. We may have an honest disagreement about that. Clearly, our men and women in uniform receiving combat pay are working hard. We know this is not a welfare program for them. We know they are not going to abuse this or they are not going to miscalculate it. We have a high degree of confidence that this is going to be good for them and good for all of us. Anyway, I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to the next chart, which is the earned income tax credit. This chart shows how it is structured. Depending on a person's situation, if they have no child, one child, two or more children, it shows a sort of range of possibilities, depending on what one's income is. Obviously, it is like a formula where the numbers have to be plugged in. It is different for different people. As we can see, a soldier who is making, say, about $6,300 ought to get about $390 from the earned income tax credit. Whereas a soldier who is down on the income scale, making $1,400, should get about $2,600 in earned income tax credit. So, again, this will change depending on the situation. What we are proposing would allow our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, to take advantage of an existing provision of the Tax Code and maximize it to their full advantage. I am not saying that we can get this done this week. We certainly understand that we are out of legislative days, but I hope sincerely that we can come back in the lame duck session or whenever we reconvene and really get serious about helping our men and women in uniform. We fixed the earned income tax credit for 2004 and 2005. Here is another chart showing some of the numbers and how it would work, again, depending on how many months one is in combat. Just depending on the various losses that one might have, we can see based on this chart and the numbers here, the soldiers who are impacted the most are the enlisted men. Officers can be penalized under this, but the enlisted men and women are the ones who are probably at the greatest danger of losing their tax benefit. One reason that Senators have decided to help me on this--we have, I believe 36 cosponsors now who have signed up to help out on this--is because it is a cheap fix. When we look at the numbers for 2 years, 2006 and 2007, we are only talking about $15 million. When we talk about taxes in this country, we talk about billions or trillions, but over 2 years this is only $15 million. Over 10 years it is only $68 million. That is not a lot of money. That is really peanuts in the grand scheme of things when we are talking about our Tax Code and other numbers that we talk about, when we talk about fixing our taxes in this country. This is real money for these soldiers in uniform. I close with another picture of some heroes to remind us what this is all about, who we are trying to help. These soldiers, most of them, are relatively low-income because one has to be relatively low-income to even qualify for the earned income tax credit. They are leaving their families behind. Many of them are leaving jobs, homes, all kinds of economic security. Like I said, these are the folks who are taking care of us, and I think in the Senate and in the Congress we ought to do our part to take care of them. Mrs. LINCOLN: Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators Pryor and Baucus in introducing legislation to ensure members of the military who serve in combat are not treated unfairly under the tax code. I believe strongly that we have an obligation in Congress to take care of the brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives to take care of us. As my friend and colleague Senator Pryor mentioned, the provision in the Tax Code we are seeking to amend affects the ability of military personnel who serve in combat zones to benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit. Due to an unintended consequence in the tax code, those affected may loose up to $4,000 in tax relief simply because they have volunteered to defend our freedom. This is wrong. We corrected the problem for 2 years--until 2006--in the Working Families Tax Relief Act which Congress recently approved but we didn't resolve the matter appropriately in my judgement. I offered an amendment during the conference report to bring tax relief for military families in line with the other provisions in the bill but that amendment was rejected. I hope my colleagues will reconsider. The men and women in uniform who serve in harm's way and their families here at home are the last people we should burden with uncertainty in the Tax Code. I think we should fix this problem without delay and that is why l am proud to join in this effort. I applaud Senator Pryor for his leadership and hard work on this issue, and I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

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