A bill for the relief of Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have heard discussion of the so-called Class Action Fairness Act. I oppose the Class Action Fairness Act for the simple reason that it is not fair. Actually, the legislation makes it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves against violations of State civil rights, consumer, health, and environmental protection laws. The way it would hurt them is it would force these cases out of convenient State courts, which have experience with the legal facts and issues involved in such cases; instead, it would push them into Federal courts with new barriers to lawsuits, with new burdens on plaintiffs.

For the many Americans who are watching this debate, we have to at least mention the first, basic question that scheduling this debate right now raises. Here we are, 3 weeks beyond October 1. October 1, of course, is the beginning of the new fiscal year. It is a deadline for passing the appropriations bills that fund the basic work of the Federal Government. It is the law that the House and the Senate must pass the 14 appropriations bills that fund our Nation and do it by October 1. We have not done that. The Congress has not lived up to the responsibility the law mandates. We are in the final few weeks, if not days, of this congressional session, but here we are, 3 weeks past the legal deadline to do what we are required to do, and what we are paid to do, and instead we are devoting these precious days not to acting on the people's priorities, but we will spend several days debating a bill which is a priority of some special interests.

Over the past several weeks, I have received call after call from Vermonters who are more and more anxious over Congress's ability--in fact, Congress's willingness--to finish appropriations for fiscal year 2004. I know other Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, are getting similar calls. I have told those Vermonters who call me to hang in there. I assure them that Congress will eventually get around to doing its work.

Then the Republican leadership decides to have us consider controversial special interest legislation such as this bill. Apparently the special interests can go to the front of the line. The people's interests go to the back of the line. I suggest we have it the wrong way around. Do the people's legislation first; do the appropriations bills first;

do the things we are required to do by law. Do the work that we go back home and tell everybody we are going to do, and if there is time left over for the special interests, let them come up then; don't put them ahead of the people.

My colleagues and I who serve on the Appropriations Committee worked long and hard to get the fiscal year 2004 bills voted out of our committee. We got them all out. They could go anytime they wanted. The Republican leadership has decided not to. The House has passed all 13 of the regular appropriations bills. They are waiting for the Senate to act. We are not acting. Instead, we are bringing up special interest legislation.

The new fiscal year began 3 weeks ago, but the Senate has not even bothered to take up the appropriations bills that fund Agriculture or Commerce, Justice, State, and, our Federal law enforcement, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the actions we take to counter terrorism.

As for Commerce, we might do that, so we might actually get us some jobs in this country at a time when we are losing a million a year.

Foreign operations? That hasn't been brought up.

Transportation? We all know our roads and bridges and rail system are falling apart. We ought at least to be voting. We may vote not to give any money to fix any of the problems of the Nation. We did vote, incidentally, to send $87 billion to Iraq and we will fix their roads; we will fix their electrical system; we will fix their communication system; we will fix their postal system; we will even give them a new ZIP Code. But maybe we could take a few minutes and bring up those things that might actually pay for roads and transportation and electrical grids and ZIP Codes in the United States.

Veterans Affairs is in there. The administration is cutting veterans benefits all over the country. They are cutting our veterans hospitals. They are cutting out what is available to our veterans. At the same time we are asking our men and women to serve in Iraq, we are cutting out their money. We ought at least to bring that up. Let's vote on it.

We voted to send money to the veterans of the Iraqi army. We voted to send money there. We ought to spend some time here voting on veterans in the United States.

We have the Housing and Urban Development appropriations bills. We have a great housing shortage in this country. We just spent billions. We had plenty of time to vote billions of dollars to build houses in Iraq. We can't even bring up the housing bill for the United States, but this special interest legislation we do make time to address.

What I would say is: OK, we voted to do all these things now for the Iraqi people. Can we at least spend a day or two voting on the same bills that might help the American people at the national, State, and local levels?

Let me tell you about a few of these programs that are being pushed aside so we can take up this special interest legislation.

In the area of agriculture, there is more than $1 billion in conservation assistance for farmers to help them improve water quality and stop sprawling development. Last year, the aid was delayed by more than 4 months. Each month is critical. The men and women who farm in this country are just barely getting by.

They stalled the Justice spending bill so we could get money as quickly as we possibly could to the police forces of Iraq. But because we stalled it, there is no money for the Bulletproof Vests Partnership Program which helps State and local police agencies buy armored vests to protect the lives of their officers. This is a good bipartisan program that Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I put together.

I have had police officers come up to me all over the country, people I have never met, who want to shake hands and say, We really want to thank you and Senator Campbell and those who joined you to help us get this money. Now I am going to have to tell them it is stalled. We had to wait to get the money for Iraq, that is fine, but now we have to stall again because we have special interest legislation that comes up.

Take the COPS Program; this puts new police officers on the community streets and in our schools; the Violence Against Women Act programs that provide services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Those were all set aside so we could bring up this special interest legislation.

All funding for transportation and critical infrastructure projects was bottled up. In fact, the Senate has failed to pass the transportation reauthorization bill. We don't have time to bring that up. We can bring up special interest legislation, we can bring up highways in Iraq, but we can't bring up the highway transportation bill here in the United States. And what is the cost to us? It is 90,000 jobs here in America.

All foreign assistance to nations other than Iraq and Afghanistan are on hold. In fact, all the funding to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases is also on hold.

We have another group of Americans awaiting action by Congress. Those are our veterans. They need Congress to make basic decisions about their medical care and benefits, decisions that are being held in limbo, and they have no idea where we are going to go.

These are priorities. American priorities are being set aside, and we will take care of Iraq. We will take care of the special interest legislation. In fact, the special interest legislation is going to do more harm than help.

I think the American people are entitled to ask why we are bogged down considering this controversial and unfair class action bill when the Senate has yet to take up and debate five important appropriations bills amounting to $301 billion.

I hope the Senate gets down to the business of the people and carries out the responsibilities given to us by the Constitution: taking up, debating, and passing the remaining appropriations bills. And we can pass them. There will be a bipartisan majority of both Republicans and Democrats working together to pass them, if we are even allowed to vote on them. We were allowed to vote on Iraq and special interest legislation. Can we take a little bit of time to vote on legislation that actually helps the people of America?

The American people and the people around the world depend upon the funds and services supplied through the spending measures that are now held hostage. Let us do our job. Let us move these bills. Let us spend a couple of weeks on the floor of the Senate legislating for the people of America. It would be a nice refreshing time. We could pass these bills.

Earlier this year, I joined with Senators Kennedy, Biden, Feingold, Durbin, and Edwards in requesting a hearing on class action litigation in order to help the Judiciary Committee develop consensus reforms-- something that we could have done. Republicans and Democrats could have joined on it. But our request was ignored. Actually, our letter went unanswered.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I had hoped that the Judiciary Committee would undertake a deliberate and careful review of information from parties

actually involved in class action litigation to provide a realistic picture of the benefits and problems with class actions. But instead of doing the work for America, we are proceeding with a special interest piece of legislation which has repeatedly failed to pass the Senate in recent years. Our Judiciary Committee did not carry out the kind of thorough and thoughtful legal analysis of this difficult issue it should have. The committee did not provide our fellow Senators with the assistance that they may want and need in this complex area.

I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of my friend, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, who took on an enormous task, attempting with her amendment to rectify some of the harms created by this bill. I appreciate the sincerity of her concern. I appreciate the genuine effort she made. But her amendment touches on only a sliver of the class action cases which this bill would affect--only when plaintiffs and primary defendants are from the same State--and even then it could cause harm.

At its core, this bill deprives citizens of the right to sue on State law claims in their own State courts if the principal defendant is a citizen of another State, even if that defendant has a substantial presence in the plaintiff's home State, and even if the harm done was in the plaintiff's home State. The amendment does not remedy that problem. It burdens the plaintiff even more.

I also want to recognize the sincere efforts made by my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. I may disagree with him about the nature of the problem. I may disagree with the appropriate solution in this area. But I do so respectfully. He has worked very hard, and I appreciate his efforts.

I would like to note the significant changes in the bill since it passed out of committee.

As originally drafted, this bill included mass tort claims along with class actions. It actually treated them like they were class actions.

One improvement the Judiciary Committee did manage to make to the bill was to strike that provision. We struck it. We voted on that, and we struck it. But somehow, mysteriously, after the bill left the committee with nobody voting, that was reversed. Now mass tort actions are again included in this bill.

Just in case anybody says this is what we voted out of committee, it is not. We changed that.

Now we find out how we actually get things changed in the committee because, apparently, our friends on the other side of the aisle could care less about what we actually did in committee. They just change it in the draft on the way over here. It is fascinating. I have never seen that in 29 years here. But I guess we live under new rules.

In the old days, we just lived under the Senator rules. But now we have rules outside the Senate rules. In fact, this bill is not the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee, S. 274. It is another bill--S. 1751--which was introduced last week. We didn't have hearings on that. We didn't have votes on that. I guess the special interest says, OK, as soon as you finish with the roads in Iraq, as soon as you finish the schools in Iraq, as soon as you finish giving the power grid to Iraq, as soon as you finish paying for the police officers in Iraq, as soon as you are finished with veterans' benefits for Iraq, before you do anything for American citizens, give us our special interest legislation, and we can just drop it in and go forward.

The special interest legislation will be subjected to the same shunting to a Federal court, and plaintiffs will endure the same unnecessary difficulties in making their claims and pursuing their remedies. But these mass tort cases are not class actions. They have not been analyzed under rule 23 standards or State law.

Mass tort actions have entirely different procedural vehicles to reach justice than class actions. They shouldn't be lumped in with class actions in any kind of class action bill, either this misguided attempt or a better wrought piece of legislation.

Some special interest groups are distorting the state of class action litigation by relying on a few anecdotes and an ends-oriented attempt to impede plaintiffs bringing class action cases. If we really want to correct things, we can and should take necessary steps to correct the problems in class action litigation. But simply shoving most suits into Federal court with the new one-sided rules isn't going to correct the real problems faced by plaintiffs and defendants. It will clog up the Federal courts, but it won't accomplish anything.

We forget that our State-based tort system remains one of the greatest and post powerful vehicles for justice anywhere in the world-- no doubt around the world--as a vehicle for justice. It lets ordinary people ban together to take on powerful corporations--sometimes even their own government.

Defrauded investors, deceived consumers, victims of defective products, and environmental torts, and thousands of other ordinary people have been able to rely on class action lawsuits in their State court systems to seek and receive justice.

I remember when the Soviet Union broke up. A group of legislators from the Duma came in to see me, as they did several other Senators. One of them asked a question. They said: We have heard it is actually possible that citizens in your country can ban together and sue the government. I said that is true.

They said: We have heard further that not only do they sometimes sue the government, but there are times the government loses. They win.

I said: Oh, yes.

They said: You mean you don't fire the judge and make him do it over again?

I said: You don't understand our system. It is not the Soviet Union. Here in the United States, we are able to ban together to take on the government. If the government is wrong, the government is going to lose.

It was an eye-opener to them. Actually, it was a bit of an eye-opener to me because I realized those things we take for granted other countries haven't had the opportunity to have.

I am old enough to remember the civil rights battles of the 1950s and the 1960s and the impact of class actions in vindicating basic rights through our courts. When Congress sat back and did nothing, when Presidents sat back and did nothing, it was class action lawsuits that won.

The landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education was a culmination of appeals from four class action cases, three from Federal court decisions in Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia, and one from a decision of the Supreme Court of Delaware.

Only the Supreme Court of Delaware, the State court, got the case right by deciding for the African-American plaintiffs.

The State court justices understood they were constrained by the existing Supreme Court law but nonetheless held that the segregated schools of Delaware violated the 14th amendment. The Federal courts did not get it right; before any Federal court did so, a State court rejected separate and unequal schools. The U.S. Supreme Court, to their credit, joined in a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education and closed down the highly discredited separate but equal idea, Plessie v. Ferguson. There was no separate but equal in the schools and they knew it--separate and unequal. The State courts realized that first in a class action suit and then the U.S. Supreme Court followed.

Many civil rights advocates, including the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership Council on Civil Rights, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education, and the National Asian Pacific Legal Consortium have written to Senators in opposition to this legislation. The civil rights advocates conclude this legislation ``would discourage civil rights class actions, impose substantial barriers to settling class actions and render federal courts unable to provide swift and effective administration of justice.''

I ask their letter, dated September 16, 2003, be printed in the Record.

We all know without consolidating procedures, such as class action lawsuits, it might be impossible for plaintiffs to receive effective legal representation. Lawyers tend to be paid by the hour. They are well paid. But lawyers usually hope they get a portion of the proceedings to take on either the governmental or culprit defendants. They have to do so on a case-by-case individual basis. Sometimes that is what cheaters count on. That is how the cheaters get by on their schemes. If you cheat thousands of people just a little bit, you still cheat; if you only cheat them by $3 or $4, nobody will sue them. But if you are cheating a million people of $3 or $4 each, it adds up.

Class actions allow the little guys to band together and get a competent lawyer and address wrongdoing. The best class action made it possible for individual tobacco victims to take on the powerful tobacco conglomerates in ways individuals could not. It allows stockholders and small investors to join together and go after investment scams.

Another example of a class action litigation serving the public interest is the Firestone tire debacle. The national tire recall was started in part by the disclosure of internal corporate documents on consumer complaints of tire defects and design errors that were discovered in the litigation against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Then the plaintiff's attorneys turned this information over to the National Highway Safety Administration. That started a Government investigation.

Months later, because some people had banded together, Bridgestone/ Firestone finally did what they should have done right from the beginning: They recalled 6.5 million tires--but not until after there were 101 fatalities, 400 injuries, and 2,026 consumer complaints.

As reported by Time magazine at the time, it is doubtful that the internal corporate consumer complaint information would have ever seen the light of day absent the civil rights justice discovery process.

The bill before the Senate creates unique risks and obstacles to plaintiffs that are not in the current system. A particularly troubling aspect of S. 1751 is it allows the removal of a case at any time. Anybody who has ever practiced law, anybody who has ever litigated cases--and I, as many other Senators, have--knows the possibilities for abusing this provision are obvious.

As more than 100 legal experts, law professors, noted in a letter to the distinguished Republican leader and the distinguished Democratic leader, Senators Frist and Daschle, they said:

This would give a defendant the power to yank a case away

from a state-court judge who has properly issued pretrial

rulings the defendant does not like, and would encourage a

level of forum-shopping never before seen in this country.

Moreover, this provision would allow an unscrupulous

defendant, anxious to put off the day of judgment so that

more assets could be hidden, to remove a case on the eve of a

state-court trial, resulting in automatic delay of months or

even years before the case would be tried in Federal courts.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of the 100 law professors be printed in the Record.

Added to the ``removal-at-any-time'' problems in the legislation are the hurdles established by Senator Feinstein's amendment adopted in committee. I know it is well intentioned, but the amendment does set up cumbersome requirements for determining whether an action is to be heard in State or Federal court. It provides that a Federal judge may use five factors in deciding jurisdiction of a class action where between one-third and two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same State as primary defendants; and if two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the primary defendants, then the case will stay in State court.

The bill fails to determine when this measurement takes place during the litigation. It has been my experience that membership in class actions frequently changes. So the two-thirds provision or the middle- third provision which is subject to judicial discretion could open up easily to judicial gamesmanship. The defendant could try to remove a case from State court at the discovery stage. Someone takes a deposition and finds, oops, this is going against us, let's get it out of here. Or the judge has made a ruling they do not like and they know they can never win on appeal, let's get it out of here, even after all the evidence is presented, or after closing arguments.

Actually, the way the bill is currently written, it could be done while the jury is deliberating. Considering the vast resources of defendants in many class actions as compared to plaintiffs, it will make it more difficult for class members to ever have a final ruling, where the bill will cause unnecessary and expensive litigation. It favors corporate defendants.

I like to think the scale of justice is even. This tilts the scale of justice and it will bounce right off the stand.

If there were ever a time to think about protecting the consumers, the investors, and the employees, think of Enron, WorldCom, and other corporate scandals. Think of the employees who worked so hard and were told to put their money in the corporate pension program. Look what has happened. Look at the employee investors. I am not too concerned about some of the leaders of a company like that. They might have to sell one of the $50 million homes or they no longer will have several billions of dollars but rather several hundred million, but I am worried about the people who truly had their lifesavings or their pension destroyed or their company destroyed.

This bill does nothing to make the Enrons of the world more accountable for their actions. Actually, the bill undercuts Congress's other efforts to make the companies more responsible or accountable for their misdeeds or more susceptible to penalties when they do wrong. The legislation makes it more difficult for the victims of corporate wrongdoing to join to make those companies accountable. It seems to me that is the exact opposite to the approach we should be taking.

Now, not surprisingly, consumers and those representing consumers object strongly to the enactment of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from numerous consumer advocates in opposition to this bill.

Last year a group of investors recovered millions of dollars in lost investments under State corporate fraud laws and a State class action case in Baptist Foundation of Arizona v. Arthur Andersen. These investors, mostly elderly, banded together to successfully recoup $217 million from Arthur Andersen. Why? Because of questionable accounting practices surrounding an investment trust. The case is just one example of how a State-based class action litigation holds corporate wrongdoers accountable and helps defrauded investors recoup their losses.

Like most Vermonters, I am a strong supporter of the environment. But I look at this bill and I think, what a green light for polluters and others responsible for environmental damages to avoid accountability in court. So many polluters, who would fear class action suits if they were to violate the law, now know they could get caught. With this legislation, they might take the old idea of: Go ahead and pollute; nobody gives a hoot. They are going to get away with it.

This legislation removes almost all important environmental class actions from State to Federal court. Not only does this deny State courts the opportunity to interpret their own State's environmental protection laws, but it also hampers and deters plaintiffs in pursuing important environmental litigation. It means we Vermonters would not have a say in our own courts--or those in Utah or in any other State.

Under this bill, environmental class action suits may not get litigated, reducing the incentive to keep our environment clean. Plaintiffs' attorneys may not be willing to take these high-risk, high- cost, and time-consuming cases, particularly when what they are looking for is injunctive relief. That is an injunction to stop the polluter from polluting. Intentionally or not, this bill protects polluters and ignores innocent victims of their negligence.

Just a few months ago, as I recall, we read about a horrible toxic dumping situation in Alabama and a monumental settlement in State court to clean up an entire community. It was in State court, though--in State court.

In Anniston, AL, the Monsanto Company manufactured PCBs-- carcinogens--from 1929 to 1971. For more than 40 years, in arrogant-- arrogant--disgusting disregard of people's health and the environment, Monsanto dumped untreated, unfiltered waste from its PCB plant into the streams and landfills of Anniston. They never let the residents--many of whom actually worked, and worked very hard, for Monsanto--they never let them know of the horrific risk to their environment and their health.

When the undeniable truth of Monsanto's malfeasance became clear, several thousand residents of Anniston sued in State court. They recently won a liability jury verdict. When the case moved into the damages phase, Monsanto was not out there defending and saying: Well, we did not do something bad. They knew they did something terrible. They did not start arguing about: Well, people were not injured by it. They knew they were injured by it.

So what did they do? They tried to get the judge removed. That is what they tried to do. Although the Alabama Supreme Court, a conservative supreme court, had already held that the trial judge was acting properly, Monsanto continued to oppose his participation. They tried everything they possibly could do to confuse people and escape facing up to the issues. They then had to focus on the merits of the case and settled with the local residents for $600 million and pledged to pay additional cleanup costs for the town.

The Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama State court, did this very well. Not under this bill. Under this bill, it would have been yanked away from those courts, yanked away from the Alabama State court, yanked away from the Alabama Supreme Court, and stuck into Federal court.

Why? More than 100 people lived in Anniston. Even though all the people

suffered, they lived just a block or a driveway from each other. We, those of us who say we really care about States having their rights, would reach down and yank it right out of the State and say: You are not good enough to handle the case that involves your own people.

Cases such as this one would provide hard evidence that our State- based civil justice system is working--it is working--to protect the environment and to protect victims of polluters, and there is no reason to prefer a Federal reform for resolution of their claims. State courts, unlike the Federal courts, have a sound understanding of evolving local law and the open dockets to resolve conflicts in a manner that would protect our society from polluters.

In fact, we ought to at least ask, Do the Federal courts want this? The Judicial Conference, headed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, wrote a letter in March of this year opposing this bill because its ``provisions would add substantially to the workload of the federal courts and are inconsistent with principles of federalism.''

They singled out serious environmental disasters as an example of class actions that should remain in State courts.

Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conference said: What are you doing to us? Why are you sending these cases over there? State courts can handle them better.

I would be a very wealthy person if I had a couple dollars for every time I heard speeches or statements from my fellow Senators about how we have to better respect our individual States. After all, that is why we have a Senate. Each one of the 50 States has equal representation here to make sure the States are not subsumed in the Federal system. Those who would support this bill are giving the back of their hand to their States and saying: You are not smart enough, you are not good enough to take care of the laws of your own State.

Numerous organizations devoted to the protection of the environment oppose this bill, including Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, the Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Mineral Policy Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

These advocates conclude, in a letter, this bill ``would benefit polluters at the expense of people and communities harmed by public health and environmental disasters.'' I ask unanimous consent their letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as colleagues may have gathered, I am not in favor of this piece of legislation, the Class Action Fairness Act. Man, I have heard things. There ought to be a law against misleading labels on legislation we pass because this would break the law. These many injured parties who have valid claims would have no effective way to seek relief. Class action suits have helped win justice and expose wrongdoing by the polluters, the big tobacco companies, and the civil rights violators, and brought about Brown v. Board of Education, as I said earlier. It gives average Americans at least a chance for justice. We should not take that chance for justice away from the American people.

So I hope Senators will consider the harm this bill would do the American people and to their constituents and join me in opposition.

Lastly, Mr. President, as I said, we found time to get highway money for Iraq, but we do not have time to pass the highway bill for America. We had time to get money to improve police departments and law enforcement in Iraq, but we do not have time to pass a bill to do the same here for Americans.

We had time to pass legislation to help military veterans in Iraq, but we can't find time to pass legislation for veterans in the United States.

Of course, I yield to my friend from Nevada.

Did the Senator say omnibus or ominous?

I appreciate the comments of my friend from Nevada. I can't think of any person who has worked harder to help get legislation through. The senior Senator from Nevada has a good reputation of working with both Republicans and Democrats. There are two primary reasons. One is the fact that he knows legislation better than anybody else around here. Secondly, he is totally honest and truthful to everybody.

It is frustrating because, again, there is legislation for highways in Iraq, but not in the United States, all these other things. We passed a transportation bill. That would mean 90,000 jobs right there that we could put Americans back to work.

I thank him for saying that. I don't care if people want to spend time on this bill. It is a terrible bill. If they want to spend time on it, let's at least get the appropriations bills done. Let's answer the questions of our veterans, whether the benefits will be there or not; answer the questions police officers have about benefits; answer the questions those in education have, whether the money will be there.

I see my good friend, the senior Senator from Illinois. I yield the floor.

What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address a few remarks made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle during yesterday's debate on the class action bill. First, they repeatedly accused the leader of jeopardizing the chances of getting this bill passed by filling in the amendment tree. Give me a break. That is the phoniest argument I have ever heard. The fact is, they are trying to kill this bill, and they are probably going to be effective in doing so.

I hate to give up--and I haven't given up yet--but that is what is happening. I have been through it so many times around here that I know when there is a real desire to kill a bill. The way you do it is with nongermane amendments that are called killer amendments or poison pills, because they are political amendments one side or the other does not want. The leader filled the tree because he wanted to protect the bill from extraneous amendments that would eliminate any chances of this measure becoming law. Anybody who argues otherwise is being deceptive.

Everyone here knows the class action bill was an extremely attractive vehicle for extraneous amendments, especially those amendments that were sure to be offered for the sole purpose of scoring political points during an election year. But what my Democratic colleagues conveniently overlook is this bill will find itself in the recycle bin if it is saddled with a host of irrelevant amendments. While this is certainly a win/win situation for those on the other side of the aisle who oppose this bill, apparently including some of the Democratic leadership, I find it a truly puzzling outcome for those who say they support class action reform. Not only does a loaded bill risk peeling away Senate votes from the underlying class action measure, it will, in all certainty, undergo changes when it goes through the House. And what happens then? Do we have a conference to resolve our differences? I think the answer is a resounding no. I don't think the other side is going to permit this because this bill flies in the face of the demands of one of their greatest hard money constituent givers, and that is the trial lawyers of America.

We all know there is little time left in this Congress to go through the motion of doing a conference. I think the chances of getting a conference done in this election year with two conventions and with all the problems we have to address. The appointment of conferees is further cast into doubt by virtue of the minority leader's threat earlier in the year to the appointment of conferees for the rest of the year. So if you add these poison amendments to this bill, these extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the bill, you are basically killing the bill. Everybody knows that. The majority leader had no choice other than to do what he did.

I certainly did not hear any assurances from the minority leader yesterday on whether he would consent to the appointment of conferees to this bill. As such, I am led to believe his position remains unchanged. But even if he did consent, I don't think there would be enough time to do a conference. We have 62 people who said they would support this bill. That means all 62 should vote for cloture so we can actually pass this bill. But unfortunately, we have some who agreed they would vote for cloture--that was the whole reason for the agreement last November--and are now changing their minds and saying, well, this is something I can't support because we want our colleagues to have their right to put poison pills on this bill.

(Mr. TALENT assumed the Chair.)

Well, they cannot have it both ways. Let me be clear. It is because of the potential feeding frenzy that the leader moved to safeguard the bill from an open season on nongermane, nonrelevant, extraneous amendments. He did it to advance the ball on this legislation so it can be considered without the same initiatives we saw with other measures that were considered by the Senate this year. He did it with the hope of reaching a time agreement on amendments. He was not being unreasonable. He even allowed one nongermane amendment the Democrats have tried to get an up or down vote on all year, which members on this side feel is a terrible amendment. But probably it would pass, who knows. At least some think it would probably pass. I think there needs to be a substitute amendment to it that would probably pass.

I want to remind my Democratic colleagues the majority leader made three extremely generous offers regarding the consideration of germane and nongermane amendments.

First, he asked unanimous consent that amendments be limited to five related amendments to be offered by each side. So nobody would be foreclosed from offering the amendments they might think are important. When the minority leader objected to the offer, he expanded the request to include 10 related amendments on each side. I don't know how he could have been more fair. When the minority leader rejected this even more generous counterproposal, the majority

leader yet again expanded the agreement to include an unlimited number of related amendments. In other words, amendments that are pertinent to the bill, that are at least germane. Again, the minority leader rejected this third offer. Of course, let us not forget each offer included an up-or-down vote on a nongermane amendment that the Democrats demanded, which is an amendment by Senator Kennedy on the minimum wage.

We also heard yesterday that filling the amendment tree was unprecedented, and we are somehow committing a terrible wrong against the institution of the Senate. How soon we forget the past. I remind my colleagues that the minority leader filled the tree in October of 2002 on the homeland security bill, which was even a more important bill than this one, although this is an extremely important bill for this country. Mind you, he filled the tree after promising at the beginning of his tenure as then-majority leader he would never fill the tree. But he did so, anyway. To be sure, we even saw Senator Byrd do it when he was the majority leader. Unprecedented? Come on, give me a break. Terrible wrong?

Let us not hide behind Senate process in order to play both sides of the fence on class action reform. I said it yesterday, and I will say it again today: S. 2062 represents a bipartisan agreement we reached in good faith with key Democrats who say they support class action reform. We agreed to a number of their amendments in order to get them to agree to vote for cloture. That was the agreement. And implied in that agreement was to vote down poison pill amendments that would kill the bill. Otherwise, they weren't sincere; we know they must have been at the time, but they would not have been sincere in the bipartisan agreement we reached. We reached a compromise because I thought the ultimate goal was to get class action enacted into law.

Let me be clear when I say my agreement to further moderate this bill was in no way predicated on letting this legislation become a ``Christmas tree'' for unrelated measures. This is never the way we have done business around here. Our agreement was about getting class action reform enacted, and that is the very direction our leader is moving us toward. I can only hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say they support this bill can see that. A deal is a deal. They should not break it because politically it might be in their best interest to do so. That works both ways. We should not break it because politically it might be in our best interest to bring up extraneous, nongermane amendments and make them vote on them.

Another argument my colleagues on the other side raised repeatedly yesterday was the Judicial Conference and the Chief Justice of the United States are somehow opposed to this bill. I have heard this point made over and over. I think it is about time to set the record straight.

Let me start by saying Chief Justice Rehnquist has never written a letter, issued a statement, nor published an opinion that comes out in opposition to this bill. Rather, my colleagues who make this claim rely on outdated letters from the Federal Judicial Conference espousing opinions on prior iterations of this bill--prior iterations, not the same language of this bill.

On two prior occasions, the Judicial Conference expressed opposition to earlier bills, as offered in the 106th and 107th Congresses that would have expanded Federal diversity jurisdictions over purported class actions. But in March of last year, a substantial shift in position occurred. In a March 26, 2003, letter to the Judiciary Committee, the Judicial Conference expressed its position on the bill by stating:

That Congress may decide to base a statutory approach to

remedy current problems with class action litigation by using

minimal diversity litigation. The Conference position

recognizes that the use of minimal diversity may be

appropriate to the maintenance of significant multi-State

class action litigation in the Federal courts.

The Judicial Conference also suggested employing provisions to raise the jurisdictional threshold and fashioning exceptions that would preserve a role for the State courts in the handling of in-State class actions.

Senator Feinstein offered an amendment during the ensuing markup that was directly responsive to these suggestions. Those changes were reflected in the version of the bill reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee in early April 2003.

Perhaps more important than what was said is what was not said. Nowhere in the letter does the Judicial Conference express opposition to the bill now in consideration. I think this silence is deafening and speaks for itself on where the Judicial Conference stands.

I ask unanimous consent that the March 26 Judicial Conference letter be printed in the Record.

To be sure, on the very day the bill was reported from committee, the ranking member sent letters to the Judicial Conference requesting comments on the revised version of S. 274 as reported out of committee and further urging that the Judicial Conference propose alternative legislative language reflecting its views on how the jurisdictional provisions should be structured.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of April 11, 2003, from Senator Leahy be printed in the Record.

In its April 25 response, the Judicial Conference noted that the markup changes to S. 274 were responsive to its previous comments about changing the jurisdictional threshold and preserving the role of the State courts in handling State class actions. Indeed, the Judicial Conference expressed no opposition to the revised version of S. 274 reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee.

The Judicial Conference explicitly declined Senator Leahy's invitation to propose alternative language. The Judicial Conference's resolution deliberately avoided specific legislative language out of deference to Congress' judgment and the political process. The letter further noted that:

[T]hese issues implicate fundamental interests and

relationships that are political in nature and are peculiarly

within Congress' province.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of April 25, the Judicial Conference response, be printed in the Record.

The Judicial Conference concluded its letter by stating:

We are grateful that Congress is working to resolve the

serious problems generated by overlapping and competing class

actions.

Finally, another piece of evidence that counters the Judicial Conference's purported opposition to the class action bill is Chief Justice Rehnquist's 2003 year-end report on the Federal judiciary. While this report criticizes various legislative measures considered by the Congress, absolutely no mention is made of class action reform efforts.

I suppose this begs the question then, if the Judicial Conference and Chief Justice Rehnquist stand opposed to this bill, why is there no reference to such a measure in their year-end report?

Again, I think the silence speaks for itself. I ask my colleagues to refer to the 2003 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary which can be found easily enough on the Supreme Court's website.

With all of this said, is it credible to suggest that the Judicial Conference, much less the Chief Justice of the United States, stands somehow opposed to the class action bill? I think not.

I will refer to this ``myth'' chart. The myth is that the Federal Judicial Conference opposes the Class Action Fairness Act.

These are the facts: The Conference's opposition was directed at class action bills in previous Congresses. In March 2003, the Conference strongly criticized the current class action system and suggested several areas to modify the Class Action Fairness Act.

After the Class Action Fairness Act was modified during markup, the Conference declined an invitation to criticize or revise the version favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee and thanked the Senate for its efforts to clean up the State court class action mess.

That certainly rebuts everything that was said on the floor yesterday and today by those who are looking for any excuse they can to scuttle this bill. Unfortunately, some of them are people who have agreed to support the bill. That seems apparent to me. I hope it is apparent to all of those in the various States who have relied on these agreements, and at least this agreement made last November, that we would at least vote for cloture. That was the whole issue. Then, of course, they could still have any amendment they wanted to bring up that would be germane, and they might even be able to bring up nongermane amendments if they could get a supermajority vote on them. So nothing would stop them from at least an attempt to bring up nongermane amendments.

I would like to also reply to comments made yesterday in defense--can anyone believe it?--of Madison County, IL. I heard suggestions that the Madison County court is not as renegade as we have portrayed it. After all, the number of certifications has not escalated at the same rate as the number of cases brought.

Now, this fact may have some appeal on its surface but when one looks at why the certifications are so low, I think they will find themselves right back to the inescapable conclusion that this court is a downright embarrassment to our civil justice system. Any attempt to defend Madison County's record on class certification must account for the number of class actions that were not certified because the defendants, knowing that the judicial deck was stacked against them, simply conceded defeat and settled rather than go through the motion of defending their lawsuit in this court.

As I said yesterday, the plaintiffs' lawyers who descend on this small rural courthouse in southwestern Illinois know class certification is a sure thing and that all they need to do is come up with a complaint in order to extort a settlement from the unfortunate defendants. These settlements come well before the class certification phase of the lawsuit and is exactly why this court is so attractive to greedy, dishonest lawyers--greedy, flagrantly dishonest lawyers-- looking to make a quick buck, money hungry lawyers looking to buy their next Gulfstream at the expense of everyday Americans such as Hilda Bankston, dishonorable lawyers looking to pay off their next multimillion-dollar mansion in Palm Beach, FL, at the expense of shattering public confidence in our civil justice system, and unscrupulous lawyers seeking to fund the next campaign of a State court judge who can tilt the playing field for them in yet another magnet jurisdiction.

There is something clearly rotten in middle America, and when it comes to Madison County, there is only one way to describe it: If you go there, they will pay. If someone is brought in as a defendant there, even though they do minimal business in that State, they are going to pay.

Finally, I would like to respond to the wild accusations from the other side of the aisle that the Republicans are trying to kill this bill because the measure does not go far enough to achieve class action reform. Give me a break. I do not think this accusation merits a real response, other than to observe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will resort to just about anything in order to justify their vote against this bill, in order to justify this filibuster against this bill.

Despite all the rhetoric we have heard from the other side about how they support class action reform, about how terrible this system has become and about how we have a modest bill that fixes the problem, we will know their true colors when we vote on cloture either tonight or tomorrow.

It makes absolutely no difference whether Senators vote no because they oppose the bill or because they want to preserve the sanctity of the Senate process. A vote against cloture is a vote against class action reform. It does not get any simpler than that.

By the way, how can they make that argument when they have a right to bring up any amendment they want to after cloture is invoked? True, nongermane amendments will have to have a supermajority vote to pass, but all germane amendments only have to have a majority vote to pass. How can they make these types of clownish arguments?

To make a long story short, it is apparent that sometimes money does count around here, and the only reason this thing is fought so hard is because the major funding institution in this country happens to be the trial lawyers for those on the other side of the aisle.

Now, what galls me is that last November, when we had 59 votes for cloture, 1 less than was necessary to end the debate, we then made all kinds of concessions to three more Democrats--and I think the business community knows who they are--that are now in this bill to get their agreement that they would vote for cloture when the time came. There was no misunderstanding. Everybody knew there would be an attempt to load this bill up with poison pill amendments or killer amendments, if one wants to call them that. It meant that we at least go to cloture and get 62 votes for cloture, and I believe it meant more than that.

I think when we make a deal, those who enter into that deal agree to support the bill, against all amendments, unless we can agree otherwise. Unfortunately, that is not the interpretation of some who agreed to the deal last November. But there could be no misunderstanding. Their agreement last November was to vote for cloture. The whole issue was we lacked one vote in putting this bill before the Senate as a whole and letting it have its day in court, so to speak, in a court that is much more fair, much more balanced, and much more considerate than the courts in Madison County, IL.

There is no excuse for the arguments that have been made by the other side. If this bill goes down because we cannot get 60 votes for cloture, then shame on those who entered into the agreement with us. It was not an easy agreement for some of us because we had to make changes that literally some of us would not have made otherwise. So anybody who says this side does not want this bill to go forward is being less than candid, and I will put it in those terms, although I think probably more stark terms would be acceptable.

This is an important bill. This bill will correct some of the major wrongs in our society from a litigation standpoint. This bill is fair. It is not going to stop truly in-State lawsuits from being tried, even in Madison County, but this bill does correct some tremendously rotten situations in our country. It also would be supported by decent, honest lawyers throughout the country, at least lawyers who do not always think of the almighty dollar as the only reason they are practicing law.

This is a very important bill. There are a lot of great trial lawyers out there who I believe are embarrassed by some of the arguments that have been made by my Democratic colleagues. There are a lot of great trial lawyers who do not need phony courts, or dishonest courts, or courts that go way beyond reasonability, or courts that favor them, or magnet courts to win their cases. Great lawyers are going to be able to win their cases whether they are in State court or Federal court. In fact, I suggest they probably have an easier chance in Federal court because people automatically think those courts are more august and the cases more serious.

But here we have a case where true advantage is being taken of the class action system by a limited number of lawyers in our society who are getting fabulously wealthy and rich because of forum shopping to courts like the Madison County court that are going to find for the plaintiffs no matter what the law or the facts say. That is wrong. When plaintiffs are right, they ought to recover, but when they are not right, they should not recover. The courts ought to be the bulwark of standing for what is right and not what is wrong. In the political system that exists in Madison County, IL, it is a system that, if it is not corrupt, it is the closest thing to it.

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

Mr. President, this afternoon, I have listened to my colleagues speak courageously about their family members they have lost to suicide. My heart goes out to all of them, especially, my colleague and dear friend, Senator Gordon Smith. By speaking openly about the circumstances of his son, Garrett's death, he has raised awareness to the serious matter of youth suicide. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. I believe the Senate will approve this legislation today due primarily to Senator Smith's courage to speak openly about his own family's experience.

This legislation is necessary because it raises awareness of the alarmingly high rate of youth suicide--it is much higher than most would believe. Suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people aged 15 to 24, and the fourth leading cause of death for children between 10 and 14. My own State of Utah is ranked among the top 10 states in the nation for suicide.

I cosponsored this bill because it provides grant funding to states so each may develop a youth suicide and intervention strategy through the administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in order to prevent teen suicide. This money may be used to develop statewide early prevention and suicide intervention strategies in schools, educational institutions, juvenile justice

systems, substance abuse programs, mental health programs, foster care programs and other child and youth support organizations.

The bill also creates a federal Suicide Technical Assistance Center to provide guidance to state and local grantees on establishing standards for data collection and the evaluation of this data. Finally, this legislation provides grant funding to colleges and universities to establish or enhance their mental health outreach and treatment centers and improve their youth suicide prevention and intervention programs.

I became deeply interested in this issue when I found out that my home State of Utah suicide rates for those ages 15 to 19 have increased almost 150 percent in the last 20 years. According to the CDC, in the mid-1990s, Utah had the tenth highest suicide rate in the country and was 30 percent above the U.S. rate. This is one statistical measure on which I want to see my state at the bottom.

Teen suicide is an issue that is rapidly becoming a crisis not only in my State of Utah but throughout the entire country. Young people in the United States are taking their own lives at alarming rates. The trend of teen suicide is seeing suicide at younger ages, with the United States suicide rate for individuals under 15 years of age increasing 121 percent from 1980 to 1992.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students. In a 1997 study, 21 percent of the nation's high school students reported serious thoughts about attempting suicide, with 15.7 percent making a specific plan. Although numerous symptoms, diagnoses, traits, and characteristics have been investigated, no single fact or set of factors has ever come close to predicting suicide with any accuracy.

We need to understand what the barriers are that prevent youth from receiving treatment so that we can facilitate the development of model treatment programs and public education and awareness efforts. This bill provides the funding to get these types of initiatives started.

Again, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and I commend my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith for his commitment and dedication on this matter. I know it is such a difficult subject for him but his openness today will make a difference tomorrow.

In fact, I believe our floor discussion today on the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act has already made a difference because families who have lost someone to suicide now know that they are not alone. And, if one life is saved because of our consideration of this bill today, we have done our job.

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

Mr. President, I would like to be standing here today to debate the merits of why we should be voting for cloture on this bill. But since we all know how this vote will turn out, I just want to congratulate in advance some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for killing yet another civil justice reform measure this Congress.

The constituents that they serve--the powerful and well financed plaintiffs bar--owe them a deep debt of gratitude for not only killing class action reform but also derailing the asbestos trust fund bill, the medical malpractice reform bill, and gun liability reform bill, to name a few. Their truly special interest constituent has survived yet another year devoid of tort reform, and as a result, will continue raking in millions of dollars in cash to help finance the Democratic party in the coming months.

I am hoping the 62 people who committed to vote for cloture last November will vote for it. We can even lose two of them as long as we have 60 to vote for cloture. If we have 60, then I will feel a lot better than I do in giving these remarks.

But unlike the caution chorus that they rolled out to kill the asbestos bill, the tactics used by my Democratic colleagues to defeat class action reform have been disappointing at best, and downright disingenuous, at worst. We tried to proceed on this bill last year and were led to believe that we would command enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Indeed, before the cloture vote, we had certain members declare their support publicly for the bill. But when the moment of truth came, there was at least one member from the other side who voted against proceeding on the bill despite statements to the contrary. And what happened? We fell one vote shy of invoking cloture.

After the vote, we had three additional Democratic members come to us just days before our Thanksgiving recess eager to strike a deal on class action reform. So we listened, and we negotiated, and then we compromised. And at the end of the day, we reached an agreement on a more modest version of the class action bill. But the honeymoon certainly did not last long as the supporters of the measure started demanding extraneous labor-oriented amendments that included a measure to raise the minimum wage; a measure to extend unemployment insurance; and a measure to overturn the administration's overtime regulations.

We gave them votes on two of the three and then offered yesterday to give them a vote on the third. But of course, we all know that three was not enough.

We heard the stories of how the Senate must work its will, and how the hallmark of this institution's procedures cannot be compromised; that we must take on more extraneous amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the business at hand. But what these colleagues know very well is that the more amendments this bill takes on, the less likely it will become law.

We have a bipartisan deal on class action reform that now stands on the verge of collapse--a broken deal that will forever stain the honor of this hallowed institution the minute the supporters of this bill cast a no vote on cloture. In a court of law, we would call it a breach of contract, but in the Senate we are not governed by common law principles when we legislate. Rather, we are governed by honor and credibility--attributes that will lose stock the minute this bill fails.

Let me just finish by saying that a vote against cloture means that you are not committed to class action reform. Let us not dance around the issue any further, and just call a spade a spade.

A vote against cloture means that you care more about helping certain unscrupulous plaintiffs' lawyers rather than every day consumers like Martha Preston, Irene Taylor and Hilda Bankston. These are the real victims whose horror stories will fall on deaf ears.

And a vote against cloture means that a deal will never be a deal unless strings are attached. That true bipartisanship will always come at a price to be disclosed later.

I have been here 28 years. I have never seen, when we finally put a deal together, people who have not been willing to live up to their commitment.

Everybody knew back in November of last year that we needed one more vote to get cloture. We compromised. We accepted amendments which we probably wouldn't have accepted because we had--we had 59 who would have voted for the bill as it was--to get those extra votes. Now there is some indication that those three votes will not be there, and we will probably lose on cloture again. I am hoping that is not true. I am hoping all three votes will be there, or at least one that will be there so that we can invoke cloture and proceed on this bill. If we can't, then I have to say this is one of the few times that I have seen where commitments are made that have not been honored that should have been honored, and it is a disgrace to this institution, in my humble opinion.

Keep in mind that if we invoke cloture, that doesn't mean those who want to bring up extraneous, nongermane amendments or nonrelevant amendments can't do it. They can bring them up after cloture, but they are going to have to get a supermajority vote to win. That doesn't foreclose them.

Anybody who argues that they ought to be able to bring up any amendments they want when it is hurting the Senate, is not shooting straight. The fact is, they can bring up any amendments they want. They just have to get the votes to win. Maybe they will postcloture. I don't know.

But in all honesty, we all know the game. It is either we are going to get cloture and people are going to live up to their commitment or not, and bipartisanship is even hurt more than it has been up until now. It has been in shambles as far as I can see almost all year long. This has been one of the worst years in my Senate career because of the lack of partisanship, the lack of comity that normally exists in this body in the desire to make everything political and the effectiveness of making everything political as well.

This is one bill that does not deserve that kind of unfair treatment, especially since we compromised last year and took amendments we would not have taken and changed the bill we would not have changed, all for the purpose of getting enough votes to vote for cloture. And now we are here again this year--another year, 6 years in a row--whereby the same people who said they were for this bill and talked us into all these amendments on the basis that they would vote for cloture may not. I personally hope they will. If they will, it will do more for comity in this body, more for bipartisanship than we have seen all year. It would be a ray of hope to everybody in this body that maybe there is a chance of us getting together on things that are important, the things that are right, things that we promised, things that will benefit the business community, things that will correct the ills which literally have been wrecking this institution and hurting our country immeasurably and will put the screws to these jurisdictions, these magnet jurisdictions, that do not seem to care about the law or anything else.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank both of my colleagues from Nevada and Oklahoma as well. Their remarks were very moving today. In the midst of all these other matters we debate and discuss--matters we think are of such great and global and national importance--I don't think anything we have listened to has been as important as the comments that have been made by our good friend and colleague from Oregon, Gordon Smith, and my good friends and colleagues, Harry Reid and Don Nickles. I was aware of the circumstance of my friend from Nevada. I was not aware of the circumstance of my friend from Oklahoma. I appreciate both of them adding their voices today to this discussion. Particularly, though, I think we all feel a special bond with Senator Smith and what he and his lovely wife Sharon have gone through. I commend him for his courage and determination to share his story with us and the country today.

Time does heal wounds. I suspect my friend from Nevada and friend from Oklahoma still feel tremendous pain, and I suppose that time does remove some of the bitterness. But we know that our friend from Oregon lost his son only a matter of months ago, and we know the fact that he came to me, to Mike DeWine and Senator Reed, to others, asking with great determination if there was a way to clear the legislation before us this year. I am so glad that he came to us. I will forever remember the hour or so we spent--not many weeks ago--talking about this legislation in my office and trying to find a way to clear it. Gordon, it is because of you that we are here today.

I commend the majority leader and the Democratic leader and others for insisting that we find some time here to allow this legislation to be considered and, I believe, adopted unanimously by our colleagues. I know the other body is considering legislation as well.

If I could, I would like to spend a couple of minutes speaking about this important issue, and I hope this time maybe there are people listening. I know occasionally people follow C-SPAN. There are probably times when they wonder why they are watching us at all, but maybe today, as a result of our conversation and the tremendous remarks by our colleagues who have talked about this issue in very personal terms, in addition to the underlying legislation, there will be people listening whose lives might be transformed. My admiration for the three of our colleagues who have spoken today, particularly our colleague from Oregon, is unlimited. He has done a great service, if nothing else, by sharing his story with America. That has great value.

There are people listening to this who I know full well are going through similar circumstances and wondering how to cope, or a child out there who may be wondering whether anyone can pay any attention to his or her needs, or trying to find a place he or she can go to try and resolve these conflicts. I think this discussion is a worthy one for this historic Chamber to be engaged in.

Adolescent years are the most difficult in many ways. We spend a lot of time talking about early childhood development, and rightfully so. Those are formative years in a child's life. There is much more we could do to try and assist parents and young children beginning the journey of life to get it right from the beginning. And we spend a great deal of time talking about higher education, talking about the cost and getting jobs and the like. Certainly that has great value as well. However, we don't spend enough time talking about those adolescent years, those middle years from age six to 24. I can think of only a few instances where we have actually had hearings and talked about the problems of adolescents, those tremendously changing years that can be so terribly complex for an individual of that age.

I hope that as a result this discussion, the legislation we are introducing will have some ability, some impact, maybe, in focusing our attention on those questions. Let me go back and, first of all, again thank my colleague Senator Mike DeWine, with whom I have worked on this issue, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who has done a tremendous job as well on this legislation, and my colleague Richard Durbin of Illinois, who wants to be added as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

As has been pointed out by our friend from Oregon, suicide among our Nation's young people is an acute crisis that knows no socioeconomic boundaries. My State of Connecticut, as well as all other states in the nation, suffer from this tragedy. In fact, my hometown of East Haddam, Connecticut--a small rural community of 8,000 people--has not been immune.

In 2001, I chaired the first Congressional hearing on youth suicide, and I was alarmed at the disturbing statistics that were read at that hearing. Well, those statistics have not changed and they are worth repeating again today. According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost 3,000 young people-- 10 percent of all suicides--take their lives in the United States every year. It is the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 account for 15 percent of all suicides completed. In fact, more children and young adults die from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, and chronic lung disease combined.

Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their own lives. Again, recent CDC figures estimate almost 3 million high school students or 20 percent of young adults between the ages of 15 to 19 consider suicide each year, and over 2 million children and young adults actually attempt suicide. Simply put, these figures are totally unacceptable and of a crisis proportion.

Sadly, we rarely find these facts disseminated widely among public audiences. We rarely read them in newspapers or hear them on television. Individual cases, yes, but not the national numbers.

We know youth suicide is integrally linked to mental health issues such as depression and substance abuse. Yet we also know all too well that both youth suicide and children's mental health continue to carry an unfortunate stigma, a stigma that all too often keeps these crucial issues unspoken and discourages children and young adults from seeking the help they so desperately need.

We have a societal obligation to break through this stigma attached to youth suicide and children's mental health. Again, the comments of our colleagues this afternoon have taken a major step in that direction. When people in public life can address these issues in public forums and talk about them in personal terms, then they help us break down the barriers and stigmas that exist. That is why I feel so strongly about the willingness of our colleagues today, particularly Senator Smith, to share their personal thoughts with us.

We also have a societal obligation to instill in our young people a sense of value, of self-worth and resilience. All too often children and young adults considering suicide lose sight of themselves, their talents, their potential in life, and all too often they lose sight of the love their families, friends, and communities have for them, as our friend from Oregon so eloquently described.

I am pleased our Nation has already taken positive steps toward better understanding the tragedy of youth suicide and its emotional and behavioral risk factors. Several recent reports like the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, and the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Suicide have made youth suicide a top national public and mental health priority.

Today hundreds of community-based programs across the country offer a variety of early intervention and prevention services to thousands of children and young adults--services that include comprehensive screening, assessment, and individualized counseling. Every State and many tribal nations have begun developing or already have implemented a youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategy that coordinates appropriate services in schools, juvenile justice systems, foster care systems, mental health programs, substance abuse programs, and other youth-oriented settings.

Furthermore, the Federal Government has stepped up in its role in both supporting these community-based activities and conducting relevant research and data collection. Several mental health and public health agencies have shown a great interest in youth suicide, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health. However, despite these important gains, we still face significant challenges.

Today a large number of States, localities, tribes, and service providers are finding themselves with unprecedented budget deficits, making the establishment of new services and the retention of existing services increasingly more difficult.

Furthermore, youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies are often underfunded or understaffed to be properly effective. And while a number of Federal agencies have supported youth suicide activities, there have been no comprehensive interagency strategies implemented to share data, disseminate research, or evaluate the efficacy of youth suicide early intervention and prevention programs.

Today I am introducing bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senators Mike DeWine, Jack Reed, Gordon Smith, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin, named in memory of Garrett Lee Smith. This legislation further supports the good work being done at the community level, the State level, and the Federal level with regard to youth suicide, early intervention and prevention in four principal ways.

First, it establishes new grant initiatives for the further development and expansion of youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate.

Second, it authorizes a dedicated technical assistance center to assist States, localities, tribes, and community service providers with planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services.

Third, it establishes a new grant initiative to enhance and improve early intervention and prevention services specifically designed for college-age students.

And last, it creates a new interagency collaboration to focus on policy development and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide. I continue to believe that funding for concrete, comprehensive, and effective remedies for the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. They must also come from individuals, such as doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, clergymen, survivors, and affected families who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults who suffer from illnesses related to youth suicide.

I believe we have made an important first step with this legislation today. That step has been implemented by the comments of my colleagues on the floor of the Senate. However, I also know that our work is not done. I sincerely hope that as a society we can continue to work collectively both to understand better the tragedy of this incredible problem of youth suicide and to develop innovative and effective and public mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this great Nation of ours, compassionate initiatives to give them encouragement, hope, and love, and most important, life.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I was going to ask my colleague to yield, but he has spoken eloquently enough. I was

just going to once again thank him and Nancy, his lovely spouse, as well, who have been real champions on this issue for as long as I have been here, almost a quarter of a century.

I was thinking of the number of times, in my own public service of now almost 30 years, that I have been with audiences--50 people, 100 people, 200 people--talking about this subject matter. I oftentimes will turn to the audience and say to the audience: I want any of you here who have not been affected by this issue to raise your hand. If there is someone in the audience out here who has not had a father or a mother or a sister or a best friend or a cousin who has been affected by one form of mental illness or another, just raise your hand. I am curious to know if there is anybody here who has not been touched by this issue. I have never, in my 30 years of public service, in my home State of Connecticut, when I have ever raised this issue, ever had anybody raise their hand--in 30 years. Everyone--every single American--has been touched by this issue.

You would think, in this kind of environment, when we all understand this issue--and we have gone through one of the most moving moments of my 24 years in the Senate today, listening to the eloquent comments of my colleagues from Oregon and Nevada and Oklahoma speaking about their own personal experiences--you might think at a moment like this we would be able to come together to not only deal with the legislation that we have authored together to deal specifically with teenage suicide and related issues, but we might also find some time, right now, in the midst of this, to bring up and vote on a bill that enjoys overwhelming support in this body.

It would be one thing if the Senator from New Mexico and others who have joined him in this matter were in a minority, but there is a majority of us who believe exactly as does the Senator from New Mexico, that it is the 21st century--we are not in the 17th, 18th, 19th, or even 20th century--and we are still treating this issue as if somehow it belongs in the recesses and shadows and darkness of some corner, despite the fact that almost every single one of our fellow citizens understands this issue because they have confronted it very directly in their own homes and in their own neighborhoods. Yet we can't seem to find, as the Senator from Nevada has suggested, the 15, 20, 30 minutes or an hour to give us a chance to vote. Maybe people will want to vote against it. If they do, that is their business. But I believe there is a majority of us who would like to see this get done.

So I want to say to my friend from New Mexico, who I have worked with on this issue--and I appreciate our colleague from Nevada raising the name of Paul Wellstone, who was a great champion of this issue as well during his service in the Senate--that I don't know when this is going to happen--I hope sooner rather than later--but I want my friend from New Mexico to know: Don't you ever doubt for a single second this is not going to get done. It may not be today and it may not be tomorrow or next week, but I promise you that before long--hopefully before this session ends, if not sooner--we are going to get this legislation passed, and we are going to give the President an opportunity to sign it into law to begin to make a difference for the people in this country. So then I can not only ask the question to those audiences in my own State, ``Is there anyone who has not been affected by this?'' but I can ask, ``Is there anybody who cannot get help?'' because we have insisted the insurance companies and others start treating this condition as if it were any other ailment people can get coverage for and their families get protection.

Once again, I thank my friend from Oregon, and I thank his lovely wife Sharon and their family for their courage and their willingness to share with the country their feelings.

There have been many moments of pride when you watch a piece of legislation become law. There are very few that will equal the moment we are going to have this evening. My hope is that we will adopt this legislation named after Garrett.

Mr. President, I might add, I think Senator Kennedy as well wants to be added as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I do not know if there is any further discussion on this subject matter. If not, I want to move back to the subject matter of the bill.

I see my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I am glad to yield to my colleague.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I want to let my colleagues know what I am going to do at the end of these remarks. So that there will be no surprises, I am going to ask unanimous consent that the anticipated vote on cloture that is going to occur later today or tomorrow morning be vitiated indefinitely. I am not making that motion yet, but I am going to make the motion. I want to give them notice so they can find someone here who may want to object. I am going to make the motion because my view is that we have worked long and hard on getting this class action reform bill done. This bill is not perfect, but it is a reasonable bipartisan compromise that will reform the nation's class action system.

Having worked on this legislation last fall with a number of my colleagues, we now find ourselves in the middle of July dealing with this issue. I still have never received an adequate explanation of why this matter was not brought to the floor in January, February, March, April, or any point earlier. Why we waited until as late as we have to bring up an issue that has been as important as this makes little sense.

But my plea to the leadership, particularly the majority leader, is to not insist upon this cloture vote right now. Instead, I would like to give the leadership some ample time over the weekend to see if they can't fashion a compromise which would allow for the consideration of a number of amendments, both relevant and nonrelevant, as is the normal course of Senate business. Then we would come to a final vote and go to conference on the class action reform act.

I thought the decision to invoke cloture was one that was made last evening out of frustration because we were not getting very far with the class action reform bill. We began Tuesday night, but there were no votes that evening. On Wednesday morning, before any amendments were offered at all, the majority leader filled the amendment tree, precluding any amendments from being offered without getting his approval. Then Wednesday night, the decision was made to file cloture.

I am looking at a piece of correspondence dated July 6, the day before the decision to invoke cloture, from the National Association of Manufacturers. In his letter to all 100 Senators--dated July 6, not July 7--he notes a cloture vote will occur and that it is going to be considered a vote that will be scored on their annual legislative report card.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.

My point is, I would have thought this letter might have been dated on July 7, not the day before the decision to invoke cloture. It raises some suspicion that maybe the intention was all along to file cloture and not to give us a chance to go through the normal processes of debate and amendments.

Apparently the fix was in even before we started, which indicates to this Senator that the intention was never to get to this bill. There were numerous meetings over the last several. One of the things we talked about was the importance of setting aside an adequate amount of time for the full consideration of this bill.

The Democratic leader offered a proposal of limiting several nongermane amendments and a limited number of relevant amendments. The majority leader countered and offered to have even fewer nongermane amendments and an unlimited amount of germane or relevant amendments. I was mystified by that offer because had it been accepted, we could have spent weeks on this bill without ever invoking cloture if we had had hundreds of amendments filed that were germane to the underlying bill.

I am convinced there is still a formulation of germane/nongermane amendments that would allow us to consider those in a relatively expedited fashion and then get to final passage of the class action reform bill. My plea will be at the appropriate time that we vitiate the cloture vote, let the leaders over the weekend see if they can't come up with some formulation on amendments, and then next week or so to return to the legislation.

It is a great travesty that we are going to abandon this bill many of us have worked long and hard on because a small minority are unhappy over the possibility that we might consider as amendments several proposals that enjoy broad support in this institution. I realize that can be difficult. But nonetheless, it seems to me you don't shut down the underlying bill entirely because there are some proposals that may be offered that are unappealing to only a handful. Yet that is the situation in which we find ourselves.

For those who have worked on this, we are about to miss this opportunity, maybe not only for this Congress but for many years to come. That can happen. I have been around here long enough to know if you don't strike when the iron is hot, you may lose the opportunity for a long time down the road.

I appeal to the majority leader, who filed the cloture petition last evening, to vitiate that cloture motion. Give himself, the Democratic leader, and others who are interested a chance over the next several days to see if they can't come up with a formulation that will allow for the consideration of several amendments under time agreements. That ought to be the way we proceed, rather than abandoning this effort.

I am told the next two issues to be brought up--and the minority whip can correct me if I am wrong--are a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and a flag-burning constitutional amendment, neither of which have any chance of passage in this body. I don't believe anyone agrees there is any chance of them becoming the law of the land. Yet we are going to shove class action reform, based on the decision of the majority leader, off the table, maybe permanently, in order to consider two matters that have no chance of being adopted whatsoever.

If that is in fact the situation, then those who have been such strong supporters of this proposal outside of this Chamber ought to understand what the game is. As I have often said, I was born at night, but not last night. I think I understand what is going on here. Maybe all this time was only a game to bring the issue up with the full knowledge that once you close the opportunity for further amendments, you are then guaranteeing the outcome we are about to have.

I am terribly disappointed, after a lot of time being spent on this effort, that we have come to this particular moment. We just listened to the eloquent comments of our colleague from Oregon on legislation that will be adopted later this evening or next week dealing with teenage suicide. We have listened to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, who has worked for 15 years on trying to achieve parity in the provisions providing coverage for people with mental illnesses. There is a significant majority of us in this body who believe that legislation ought to be adopted and then sent to the House for their consideration. They may reject it. It may not be adopted in conference, but we owe those who have fought long and hard a chance to vote on these measures. Certainly the American public might be more impressed with the Senate if we were to deal with the issue of mental health rather than with the issue of gay marriage or flag burning.

Literally thousands of cases, I am told, by people out there are being filed in State courts when they belong in Federal courts. I am a strong supporter of that effort. Are people here to tell me the flag- burning amendment and a gay marriage constitutional amendment are more important than dealing with reforming the class action system or the issue of mental health parity? I hate to see what the outcome would be if I polled the American public what they felt about the priorities of the Senate so close to the election.

What issues would America like to see us address? We have the issue of the minimum wage. Senator Craig of Idaho has an issue dealing with immigration and joblessness which enjoys the cosponsorship of three- quarters of the Members of this body and the support of the White House. We can't get it to the floor of the Senate. We have the provisions offered by our colleagues from Hawaii who are seeking some support for legislation that is critically important to their State. I mentioned the minimum wage. I mentioned mental health parity. These are only some of the issues.

On the question of importation of drugs, we are constantly being told that matter is going to come to the Senate floor for debate. Yet we are finding all of these issues being scuttled, including class action reform, to the sidelines so we can deal with a couple of issues that have limited support in this Chamber and I think marginal support if people thought about them out across the country.

So I am disappointed by the priorities here. I realize the majority has the right to set the agenda; it is their business to set the agenda. The majority party controls this Chamber, they control the other body, and they control the White House. They set the agenda. They have decided that the agenda--America's agenda--ought not to be class action reform, ought not to be mental health parity, ought not to be the minimum wage, ought not to be immigration reforms, which the Latino and Hispanic community and agribusinesses care about so much, and ought not to be the legislation offered by my colleague from Hawaii. Instead, it ought to be gay marriage and flag burning, neither of which have any chance of being adopted by this body.

My colleagues know full well constitutional amendments require supermajorities in order to leave here for consideration by the various States.

I see the presence of a colleague on the other side. I wanted to make sure someone was here before I make a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to invoke cloture, scheduled for tomorrow morning, be vitiated indefinitely, and that the reason for doing it is to give the leadership an opportunity to try to formulate a structure that will allow for the consideration of the class action reform bill in some manner that we can all endorse, support, and allow us to get to that issue. I make that request.

Mr. President, I thank the ranking Democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, as well as Senator Reid of Nevada, for coming to the floor today to discuss the agenda of Congress. It is worthy of reflection.

Some of us went home last week after the vote dispirited because this administration was afraid to offer the Iraq reconstruction package as an up-or-down vote. They believed--and I think they were right--they couldn't pass it. So many Members of Congress had so many questions and reservations, the only way it could pass was to combine it with the money for our troops. Many of us, looking at this terrible Faustian bargain, had to vote for the bill to support the troops, believing that, frankly, if it were my child, someone near or dear to my family, as it is for so many people in Illinois, I wouldn't want to shortchange the troops one penny. So we ended up passing about $15 or $16 billion in reconstruction for Iraq.

Trust me, stories are already pouring in about some of the questionable contracting that is going on over there. There is real doubt among some as to whether this money will achieve the goal we are seeking. We want peace in Iraq. We want stability. We want our troops to come home. But we want to do it in the right way.

So far, this administration, since the declaration of the military victory, has seen a long string of embarrassments and defeats and setbacks. There have been pretty pictures painted by some on the other side who have gone there, but they can't overcome the reality of every morning's newscast which tells about another soldier being killed or another 10 soldiers being maimed.

I have visited with some of those soldiers who have returned from Iraq. Their lives will never be the same. To say they got by because they were simply wounded is to overlook the obvious. Many of them will carry scars for the rest of their lives because of a policy of this administration which, frankly, has not stood the test of time.

The reason I think it is important to reflect on that is to consider where we are today. Now that we have moved from the issue of Iraq, we are back on an issue which is near and dear to the Republican leadership in Congress as well as to the White House. Take a look at the agenda of this Congress and particularly what we are discussing today. It is an agenda which attempts to slow down the legitimate responsibilities of government directly through Executive orders and indirectly with historic deficits.

Yes, this fiscal conservative, compassionate Republican President has stood by and watched as we have reached record depths in terms of debt in America. Although he can point to a recession which he blames on the previous President, which is fair game in Washington, he can point to a war on terrorism, the fact is, most of this deficit is his own creation.

President Bush's tax policy, his economic plan has been a failure for America's economy. But it has been a dramatic success for those who were praying for a bigger deficit. I don't know who that might be, but if you were looking for a President to deliver the biggest deficit in the history of the United States, this President has done it. That deficit, of course, shortchanges us when we need to really pursue the valuable and vital functions of government.

There are some things which only government can do. I know my friends from the conservative side of the political spectrum hate to concede this point, but there are certain things only government can do. Certainly military defense is one. Defense against terrorism is another. But there are others, and they will come to our attention as we consider the debate before us on a bill related to class action lawsuits.

The agenda of the Republicans in Congress and the President is one that is guided by the naive belief that the balance of power within our Government is outdated. It is an agenda which would close the courthouse doors to ordinary Americans in the name of penalizing trial lawyers but continue to protect the most politically powerful. This is nothing new in government. The people who have the power to line the Halls of Congress with their lobbyists in their three-piece suits and fancy shoes are well represented. They are the voices you hear when you come to vote for a bill.

The voices that are not heard are those of consumers and families and working people who are disadvantaged time and again by these special interests. The Class Action Fairness Act is a special interest piece of legislation designed exclusively to protect those who are wealthy and powerful from even being held accountable in court.

When you look at the options available to us, if you have a President who really doesn't care to work for consumers and working families, and a Government which is unresponsive because of that President or the lack of funds, and a Congress unwilling to address these same issues, there is only one place for an American to turn. That is the court system. So what this Congress tries to do time and time again is to close the doors of the courthouse so that that family, that consumer, that small business, that individual doesn't have a chance to go into the courthouse and ask for justice. They are doing that with this class action bill.

Whether the agenda is driven by the White House, the leadership of the House of Representatives, the committees on the floor of the Senate, the not

so invisible hand of the right-wing agenda is busily at work. We see it in the nominees sent up for lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary, men and women who are not even close to the center stripe of political thinking, in the hopes that if you cannot close the courthouse door, make sure there is a judge on the bench who will rule consistently on behalf of the wealthy and powerful in America.

Some will say what I am saying sounds a lot like class warfare. I can recall what Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in America, told us a few weeks ago. He came to a luncheon on Capitol Hill and spoke to a group of Senators and talked about President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. This wealthy man from Omaha, NE, said, ``Some people say this is class warfare.'' He said, ``I want to tell you something. It is true, and my class is winning the war.''

That is a fact. They have won the war with the President's tax cuts. They will continue to win the war when it comes to closing the courthouse doors. The agenda is being driven by President Bush and his gang of compassionate conservatives. It is not just this issue of litigation and tort reform. It stretches in so many directions. This is an administration that wants to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge rather than to demand that automobile manufacturers in Detroit make more fuel-efficient cars, which they can do. The technology is available. But this administration would much rather invade a pristine wildlife refuge set aside by President Eisenhower 50 years ago than pick up the phone and say to the Big Three in Detroit that you have to do better. We need more fuel-efficient cars and we are going to support legislation to make it happen.

That shows you where they are coming from. They would much rather drill in a wildlife refuge than to ask for more fuel efficiency from the automobile manufacturers. This is an administration that cuts education funding for schoolchildren to pay for tax benefits for the wealthiest people in America. It is an administration that would restrict background checks on gun purchasers while protecting gun manufacturers from liabilities. Rather than to make certain that we keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal records or a history of mental illness, they say instead, in the name of a second amendment, we cannot ask those questions and, if we do, we cannot keep the records long enough for law enforcement to use them. It is a constitutional right as far as they are concerned under the second amendment.

Yet when it comes to gun manufacturers making defective products and dangerous products and selling them, this administration falls over backward in an effort to protect them from any liability in court, this administration which would cap the compensation of injured victims of medical negligence, medical malpractice, and never question the insurance companies that continually make mistakes and charge the most outrageous premiums. Now we are forced to debate a bill that divides instead of unifies us.

It is especially troubling at a time when so many appropriations bills have not even been considered in the Senate and we are going to work on this bill for special interest groups. The majority leader brought this bill before us instead of an appropriations bill. Here we are after October 1, at a time when we should have passed all of our appropriations bills, but instead of addressing the immediate needs of Government, we are going to address the immediate needs of the special interest groups.

I find it interesting that the bill before us is not the bill that passed the Judiciary Committee, which I served on a little earlier this year. There is a provision back in the bill called a mass tort provision. I will not go into all the details of it other than to tell you the special interests have won again. There was a bipartisan motion in the Judiciary Committee--I am not sure there was debate--to delete a section of the bill for so-called mass tort actions. It was a motion by Senator Specter, a Republican, and Senator Feinstein, a Democrat. It was removed without controversy.

Guess what happened. That bill was thrown away. The bill before us today reinstates this prohibition against mass tort actions. That is fundamentally unfair, and we knew that. The special interest groups prevailed again.

How fair is the Class Action Fairness Act before us? It is not about fairness or justice. It is about protecting the powerful against legal challenges from the little guy. Who wants this bill? Who wants this class action bill? I will tell you those who line up on the side of this bill. It is the major tobacco companies, including Philip Morris, which is sick and tired of being sued by those who have been damaged by their deadly tobacco products. They have come to the Republican Congress and prevailed on them to make it more difficult for the victims of those tobacco products to come to court. So the tobacco companies want this bill to pass. Gun manufacturers, understanding their exposure to liability by selling defective guns, selling them in quantities where they knew or should have known they would fall in the hands of criminals, don't want to be sued in court anymore. Even though the death rate in America--on the streets of Chicago, New York, and Washington--continues to climb from gun murders, this bill says the victims are going to have a tougher time suing the gun manufacturers.

Those who pollute want this bill. Those involved in environmental pollution are less likely to be sued because of this bill.

Others include the pharmaceutical companies, every insurance company in America that I know of, the National Association of Manufacturers, and Financial Services Roundtable. The list of special interest groups is very lengthy.

There is another group on the other side who oppose this bill--an interesting coalition. Listen to those who have come out in opposition to the bill. The first name on the list may be the most curious. It is Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist. Why? Because this bill shifts a lot of class action lawsuits from State courts to Federal courts. Chief Justice Rehnquist understands that the Federal courts are not in a position to deal with these lawsuits. He said this is a bad bill; it is bad for the administration of justice in America. He is not a bleeding heart when it comes to consumer cases. His precedents and rulings will speak for themselves. But he says this bill is bad, and he is right.

Then the list of organizations--which I will not read--is two pages long. These groups are a clear indication of why it should not be passed. I will say generically that many of the leading medical groups, including the American Cancer Society, the Heart and Lung Society, many leading environmental groups in America, and almost every one of the major consumer groups in America, say this is a bad bill. It will keep ordinary Americans from having their day in court.

I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record.

National Organizations Opposed to Federal Class Action Legislation

This is a classic battle between the biggest companies in America, that don't want to face legal responsibilities, and the most vulnerable people in America, who have no other recourse but the courts. Consumers, environmentalists, gun control advocates, and civil rights champions often turn to the class action process of our civil justice system because the Government--beholden to the special interest groups and the corporate agenda--simply is unwilling to take on these same big corporations.

Unfortunately, when you pit these two sides together on Capitol Hill, consumers don't have a chance. This bill is a clear indication of that.

The bill is fundamentally unfair and unnecessary. How can you be sure it is only the plaintiffs who are guilty of abusing forum shopping but never the defendant? That is the argument being made. They say we have to restrict the people who can bring lawsuits in court.

The argument on the other side is that there are so many frivolous lawsuits. The honest answer is that there are some frivolous lawsuits, and there always will be in a system open for any individual to file a lawsuit. On the other hand, we know many of these lawsuits--and I will recount several later on--give clear indications and evidence of the fact that many people who are sued in class action lawsuits have a real responsibility to the consumers and the American people that they don't meet.

I am concerned when they tell me the bill will restrict their ability to fight for rights of consumers and victims of corporate malfeasance, and I hope the sponsors can carry their burden in explaining to the American people why they believe this bill will not tilt the advantage to the corporate defendants.

To the extent there are abuses in the class action process, it should be addressed with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer, which this bill does. If the problem is concentrated only in a handful of State courts, the solution isn't to remove every case to Federal court. That is what this bill does.

The American Tort Reform Association, which represents all of the special interest groups that would close the courthouse doors, obviously championed this bill. They released a study recently which I find amazing and, in a way, offensive.

In their report, entitled, ``Bringing Justice to Judicial Hellholes 2002,'' this organization identified 13 counties or cities that they define as ``judicial hellholes,'' because they supposedly attract lawsuits from around the Nation to plaintiff-friendly courts.

What does that mean? If you are a lawyer in some part of the country and want to file a class action suit, this association argues that you can shop around to find the friendliest judges who will certify your class. That is the first step in a class action suit. The court has to basically certify under State law whether you can gather together the individuals you call your ``plaintiffs' class'' to sue a defendant. They argue that in some parts of America it is more likely to be certified than not. They characterize those as judicial hellholes. One of them is near and dear to me because it is in my home State, in Madison County, IL. I was born in St. Clair County, the adjoining county. I am familiar with Madison County and most of the people who practice law there and the judges on the bench.

Well, with all of their valiant and well-funded national research, the American Tort Reform Association came up with about a dozen ``hellhole'' counties, and a few more they call ``honorable mentions.''

That is about a total of 20 counties they have identified out of over 3,000 counties in the United States and more than 18,000 cities, villages, and towns--20 problem counties out of 21,000 cities and counties. That is fewer than .0001 percent of all the counties and cities in the country.

Clearly, if that is where the problem lies, with 20 places, why would we pass Federal legislation to affect every county and every city in America? Yet the solution the sponsors seek is exactly that.

Let me speak for a moment about the real story of Madison County because it has been recounted over and over by the advocates of tort reform as an outrageous, out-of-control situation.

It is said there have been hundreds of consumer class action cases filed in the last few years and rarely are any not certified for trial. That is what the American Tort Reform Association says. Yet while the number of filings increased, the number of consumer class action certifications in that county has actually declined over the last 2 years.

State judges, including those in Madison County, are disposing of frivolous consumer class action cases by refusing to certify them for trial. Moving them to Federal court simply transfers the responsibility for making that determination.

Let me give some numbers so we can get a feel for one of these judicial ``hellholes'' from the groups that advocate this legislation.

Madison County, IL: Consumer class actions filed--1999, 12; 2000, 39; 2001, 60; 2002, 76; 2003, 44 as of July 2.

Let's go back for each of those years and find out how many were actually certified to go forward and be tried. In 1999, 12 were filed, 6 were certified; in 2000, 39 filed, 14 certified; in 2001, 60 filed, 2 certified; in 2002, 76 filed, 1 certified; in 2003 so far, 44 filed, none certified.

Does this sound like a situation out of control? The sum total of all the class action lawsuits for these 5 years so far is 23 over 5 years-- 23 class action lawsuits in Madison County, IL, the so-called judicial ``hellhole.'' Frankly, the arguments made on the floor just are not borne by the facts.

Additionally, of 166 verdicts that were reached in all cases filed in Madison County, 55 resulted in no monetary verdicts to plaintiffs. Only 11 verdicts in the 166 cases tried resulted in verdicts in excess of $1 million. The median verdict for all cases in Madison County, IL, is $28,649.

If there are problems in any jurisdiction or any State, they can be solved there. In Alabama, for example, one of the favorite targets for criticism by tort reformers, the State supreme court reprimanded a few State judges who had certified numerous classes.

In Mississippi, another jurisdiction frequently mentioned by supporters of class action reform, the State legislature recently repealed Mississippi's venue and joinder statutes, making it more difficult to bring mass tort claims.

Removing these cases to Federal court does not solve the problem. In fact, it is going to heap more of a burden and demand for more specialization and responsibility on our Federal courts, many of which are already overburdened.

I see my colleagues are on the floor. I am going to take a few minutes to point out the kinds of lawsuits about which we are talking.

When the average person hears ``class action lawsuit,'' they may not have an idea of what it is about. I would like to give a few examples of class action lawsuits and understand, I hope, for a moment that those who are coming to the floor trying to restrict the rights of plaintiffs to come into a class and file

a lawsuit have to face the reality of the history of class action legislation. We will find in these cases some recurring themes, but the most recurring theme is this:

The plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit were usually damaged a very slight amount or in a very limited way individually or as families, but when you take together the sum total of all the damage done by the defendant, it becomes substantial. If someone--Senator Leahy used this example in committee--if someone overcharges a person 2 cents a gallon for gasoline so that each time they fill up they lose 40 cents, there is not a great loss to an individual. But when you put that together in terms of the millions of people buying gasoline, one can understand that if the defendant corporation has been guilty of fraud or wrong dealing, they have made millions of dollars at the expense of 40 cents a fill-up of individual consumers. So class action lawsuits bring all these consumers in one group against a corporation that may have harmed them only a slight amount individually.

Let me give some examples. Foodmaker, Inc., the parent company of Jack-in-the-Box restaurants, agreed to pay $14 million in a class action settlement in the State of Washington. The class included 500 people, mostly children, who became sick in early 1993 after eating undercooked hamburgers tainted with E. coli. The victims suffered from a wide range of illnesses, from more benign sicknesses to those that required kidney dialysis. Three children died. The settlement was approved in 1996. So 500 individual families, instead of suing Jack-in- the-Box and its parent company Foodmaker, came together as a class because that corporation was selling products so tainted and adulterated that it led to death and serious illness--500 people, $14 million, but deaths were involved in the process.

Let me give another example. General Chemical of Richmond, CA. On July 26, 1993, the chemical oleum, a sulfuric acid compound, leaked from a railroad tank car. The leak caused a cloud to spread directly over North Richmond, CA, a heavily populated community. Over 24,000 people sought medical treatment because of that leak. General Chemical entered into a $180 million settlement with 60,000 northern California residents who were injured and sought treatment for the effects of that pollution. Individual plaintiffs received up to $3,500.

What is the likelihood that if you personally or a member of your family ended up going to a hospital or a doctor and had $500 or $600 or $1,000 in medical bills that you would turn around and hire a lawyer and sue General Chemical responsible for that illness in your family? I don't think the likelihood is very strong. But when they brought together the 60,000 people who were damaged because of this environmental leak of a sulfuric acid compound, the company agreed to pay $180 million to some 60,000 people.

Let me give another example. Beech-Nut Corporation, and its parent company Nestle, were accused of deceptive business practices, guilty of selling--listen to this--Beech-Nut and Nestle were found guilty of selling sugar water labeled as pure apple juice for infants. After passing blame back and forth between companies and suppliers, they eventually agreed to settlements of $3.5 million to reimburse consumers who unknowingly fed their babies sugar water instead of apple juice. Is that the kind of thing that merits a lawsuit? In an individual situation you may ask, How sick is the baby?

The bottom line is, these companies were trying to make money by deceiving parents into believing they were selling a nutritious product and ended up paying $3.5 million because of it.

Class action lawsuits by consumers who as individuals would never have a day in court, but coming together finally found justice in their State courts, a justice which is threatened by the so-called class action fairness bill which is before us today.

There was a class action lawsuit brought against Ford Motor Company for defective ignition systems in millions of cars that stalled on highways, and Mobile Corporation paid a $14 million settlement because of a class of residents in New Orleans who, after a fire at a Mobile Oil refinery and scattered debris sent volatile and hazardous compounds in the air, were forced to evacuate. The settlement was $13.4 million to those exposed to this pollution from the Mobil Oil refinery.

It was a class action lawsuit against a corporate giant. How many of those individual families would stand together seeking justice? In this case, they did stand together successfully. Individually would they have gone to court? Highly unlikely.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa paid a $14.6 million settlement in three class action lawsuits because of fraudulent billing practices. Blue Cross apparently negotiated secret discounts with hospital and providers and failed to pass those along to those who should have received them--their customers. The list goes on and on.

I see several of my colleagues on the floor. I will close and say I am sure we are going to return to this issue in a short time. I ask my colleagues in the Senate who may not have practiced law, who may not be familiar with class action lawsuits to please do the following: Read these cases. Understand class action lawsuits are not always frivolous ideas.

I can recall some that were. There was a lawsuit brought by a class, not certified, for all the people who bought Milli Vanilli records, and then came later to learn that those two people were not even singing on the records. To me, that is a joke, a bad one. It is a fraud on the public but certainly not deserving of a class action suit.

How can one compare that to companies that sell tainted and adulterated food, to companies that deceive parents about the nutritious value of the foods they sell, or companies that are engaged in pollution that endangers the lives of individuals? Those companies need to be held accountable.

This bill tries to absolve them from liability, to move the cases to Federal court, to make it more difficult to push the classes together, and make it more difficult to recover. These are real live stories of ordinary families and people who will ultimately lose if this bill passes.

I hope the Senate has the good sense to stop this in its tracks, stand up for consumers and working families who need a voice in this Chamber even if they cannot afford a lobbyist in the hallway.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the current business before the Senate?

I thank the Chair.

The Chair has indicated that the Senate is presently considering the class action bill; therefore, I would think it appropriate for me to add a title to the remarks I am about to make, a title which would be as follows: ``Protecting the People's Interests Instead of the Campaign Interests.''

This morning, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Mueller briefed Senators, and I am told that he indicated that al-Qaida cells are operating in the United States and that multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible before the November elections.

Now, I have been listening, as I sat home with my sick wife, to talk about an amendment to the Constitution. I have been married now more than 67 years to a coal miner's daughter, and I have been listening to all of the wrangling that has been going on on this floor. I therefore felt it appropriate to make these few remarks, especially in the light of what I am told Secretary

Ridge said; namely, credible reporting now indicates that al-Qaida is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our Democratic process.

Just a month ago, the Attorney General announced that he had credible intelligence from multiple sources that al-Qaida plans to hit the United States hard in the next few months.

In the weeks following the Madrid railway bombing, the Washington Post reported that the President informed the Republican congressional leadership that he was all but certain that terrorists would attempt a major attack on the United States before the November elections.

Why are we wrangling over this political bill? Why not be talking about protecting the people of the United States and their properties against such an al-Qaida attack? It would seem to me that should have priority over politics.

Your lives, the people out there who are watching this Senate floor through those electronic lenses, your lives, we are told, are at stake. Then why do we have before this Senate this class action bill? Why not talk about the people's lives that are at stake? The administration says the people's lives are at stake and that we may expect multiple attacks. What a sinister threat we are obviously facing in this country. What are we doing on this floor? Wrangling, wrangling, wrangling over a class action bill. That is not going to sit very well with the American people, I don't believe, once they stop and think about it.

It would also be appropriate at this point, although it isn't very common that it is done on this floor--the Holy Bible is probably not something that one should carry onto the floor of the Senate, but I am going to read just two verses of Scripture from the book of St. Luke, chapter 13. These two verses are the sixth and seventh verses:

He [meaning Jesus] spake also this parable; A certain man

had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and

sought fruit thereon, and found none.

Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold,

these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and

find none: cut it down;--

Cut it down--

why cumbereth it the ground?

I believe there is a day of reckoning coming and it isn't afar off, when the American people are going to look at this fig tree and say: These 3 years I come looking for fruit on this fig tree and I found none, cut it down. They are going to say that to this administration, to this White House. These 3 years--these 3 years--behold, these 3 years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none.

Where are all the wranglers? The people of this country are going to render a reckoning to those who are in the leadership in this country and they are going to say: Behold, these 3 years I came here seeking fruit on this tree and found none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

Just a few weeks ago, the 9/11 Commission released interim reports concluding that the terrorists who are intent on doing us harm are cunning and agile. These reports also indicate that our Government agencies were not prepared to deter or respond to such attacks. I fear that we are still not prepared to deter or respond to such attacks. Despite the threats, despite the dangers, despite even today's warnings from Secretary Ridge, the Senate this afternoon continues to debate legislation to reform the class action lawsuit process.

The Senate has spent 3 days on the bill without a single rollcall vote. Next week it is expected that the Senate will debate a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage.

Now, hear me, listen to that, a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. There are few people in this Chamber who know as much about that subject as I do. My wife and I having been married now 67 years, going on toward 70, if it is the Lord's will.

It is expected that the Senate will debate a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. Well, these are important matters. Nobody would say otherwise. But, frankly, they are not that urgent. They are not life or death issues, but they are the priority for the Senate majority leadership.

I believe there are other, more urgent matters that we should be considering. The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously reported the Homeland Security appropriations bill 3 weeks ago, on June 17. Since June 17, the bill has sat collecting dust. Why are we not debating that bill? I say to the leadership: Why are we not debating that bill?

In response to the Madrid train bombings, both the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee reported bills authorizing new Federal programs to secure our mass transit systems and our rail systems. The Governmental Affairs Committee has reported a bill authorizing first responders grants. The Senate has passed an authorization bill to increase resources for the Coast Guard. But where is the bill? The bill is mired in conference.

Why are we not moving forward on these bills? Why are we piddling around here, talking about a political bill, class action suits--class action suits? In the face of all the dire warnings that this administration, this White House, this Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, this President--all of the dire warnings that we have heard, in the face of that yet we are here piddling around, dawdling, arguing, wrangling over a class action bill. How about that, those of you people out there in the prairies, out there on the rivers and the river valleys, out there in the Rocky Mountains, those of you in Appalachia? How about that? Your life, the lives of your children are at stake.

They say these terrorists are prepared to strike in multiple places and yet the Senate is dawdling, talking about a class action bill.

We only have 2 weeks left after this one. We need to act. Are we going to wait until we go home? Are we going to wait until after the conventions meet? Are we going to wait another 6 weeks and then come back and bring up the appropriations bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security? Is that what we propose to do, daudle? Fiddle-faddle? What is wrong with the Senate?

The Senate is a do-nothing place these days, a far cry from what the Senate has been in the years I have seen go by.

While the Bush administration has consistently promised the American people that they are making this country safe, the facts show the administration has consistently put homeland security on the back burner. Time after time after time, the distinguished Democratic whip who sits on the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, not only a highly respected member of that committee but a very able member of that committee, knows that we have tried time and time and time again to add moneys for homeland security in that committee and here on the Senate floor. And time and time and time again, we have been turned down by a Republican administration and by the Republican leadership of this body. Deny that, if you may. I can furnish chapter and verse regarding the amendments that we have called up trying to bring greater safety to the American people against a terrorist attack, and time and time again those amendments have been defeated on the floor of the Senate.

For this administration, homeland security can wait and wait and wait and then wait. What do they want to do, wait another 6 weeks now until we come back after the August recess and then take up the Homeland Security appropriations bill? Is that the game? What might happen in the meantime?

This administration created a new Department of Homeland Security that rearranges the deck chairs, but it cannot energize that Department with the financial resources that it needs to make America and the American people safer, and many of the resources that are provided to the Department have yet to be spent. Get that. Many of the moneys are still in the pipeline. They have been in the pipeline. They have yet to be spent.

What a dawdling White House.

In response to the terrorist threat, one might have anticipated that the President would have requested the supplemental appropriations for securing our mass transit systems, for inspecting more containers coming into our ports, for increasing inspections of air cargo, or for increasing the number of Federal air marshals. One might have expected that the President would have amended his 2005 budget request

to increase his anemic, 3-percent proposed increase for the Department of Homeland Security. What a shame. What a sad commentary on a White House that plays Russian roulette with the lives of the American people.

Instead, the White House did nothing. Instead, the Department seems satisfied with a go-slow, business-as-usual approach to homeland security.

The Department issued advice to mass transit systems for improving security but provided no funding to increase law enforcement presence or to deploy K-9 teams.

Despite the approach of a busy summer season for airline passengers, the Department of Homeland Security has allowed the number of Federal air marshals to shrink precipitously, and the President's budget would result in even deeper reductions next year.

I have worked with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens of Alaska, year after year, month after month, time after time to increase appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. Senator Stevens and his committee have brought out bill after bill, and we brought bill after bill to the Senate floor over these years. We have joined together hand in hand on many occasions to seek the administration's help and have asked the administration to send up Tom Ridge before the Senate Appropriations Committee to testify back before he became a Secretary and subject to the confirmation of the Senate. Our requests fell upon deaf ears.

Despite concerns about the safety of our borders, the Department, in March, imposed a hiring freeze on Customs officers and Immigration inspectors. Millions of dollars that Congress approved for port security, for bus security, for hazardous materials grants 9 months ago have not been awarded. Millions of dollars that Congress approved in February of 2003, 17 months ago, for the purchase of additional emergency equipment for the 28 urban search and rescue teams have not been spent. Millions of dollars have not been spent.

Having this money sit in Washington, DC, does not make any American citizen any safer.

As a result of the President's decision not to seek supplemental appropriations, the Transportation Security Administration was forced to cut funding for training passenger and baggage screeners and for purchasing equipment for airport checkpoints.

You who listen today, it is your life and the lives of your family members and your neighbors and your friends that are at stake.

As the lines at our airports get longer and longer this summer, our citizens will wonder who is responsible. Who is responsible for this lackadaisical, careless attitude on the part of our government? Where are our government leaders? Where is the Senate? Why is the Senate so mute? That great deliberative body, where is it? Why is it so mute? Why are we today debating a class action bill when our lives are at stake?

It has been 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, tried to blow up an aircraft in flight over the ocean with explosives that he carried onto the aircraft. Are we any closer to deploying systems that could check passengers for explosives? Sadly, sadly, the answer is no, no, no.

It has been over 2\1/2\ years since the Congress passed the USA Patriot Act and set a goal of tripling the Border Patrol and Customs officers on the northern border. Have we met the goal? Sadly, we are 1,428 officers short of the goal.

It has been nearly 3 years since 9/11 when police and firemen in the World Trade Center could not talk to one another on their radios and tragically hundreds of them perished never to rise in this world again.

Are we any closer to providing police and firemen across the Nation with interoperable communications equipment? Sadly, the answer is no.

The EPA has estimated that there are 100 chemical plants in this country--several of them down in southern West Virginia, where one of the greatest chemical complexes in the Western Hemisphere exists. The EPA has estimated that there are 100 chemical plants in this country, each of which if attacked could harm over 1 million people. In February of 2003, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a threat warning that al-Qaida may attempt to launch conventional attacks on nuclear or chemical plants. A year and a half later, has the Department actually hardened the security of the chemical plants? Sadly, that same old refrain: No.

More than 95 percent of the Nation's overseas cargo moves through our ports. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that a 1-month closure of a major U.S. port would cost our national economy $60 billion. We inspect only 9 percent of the cargo containers that come into our ports. There are 361 ports.

In order to help secure the ports, the Coast Guard estimates $1.1 billion is required to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act in the first year and $5.4 billion over 10 years. How much did the President request? The President requested only $46 million for port security grants, a cut of 62 percent.

We need to do more than that. The American people expect more than that. The American people have a right to expect more than that. The American people have a right to expect from this administration, this White House, better consideration, better safety, greater concern.

There is a day of reckoning coming, and it is not far off.

Let me turn to this old book our fathers and mothers read.

A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and

he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

He found none.

Then, said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold,

these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree and

find none; cut it down. Why cumbereth it the ground?

The owner of that vineyard is coming soon, just a few more months. The American people are coming to that vineyard seeking fruit thereon and they are going to say these 3 years we have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and found none. Cut it down.

Listen to that, White House. Cut it down.

On March 11 of this year, terrorists attacked commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 innocent passengers. The President of the United States has not requested a dime for mass transit security. No one is suggesting we set up a passenger screening system at our train stations like we have at airports, but we should be investing in additional guards, better training, additional K-9 teams, better surveillance. Americans use public transportation over 32 million times per workday. The Senate Banking Committee has reported a bill authorizing over $3.5 billion for fiscal year 2005 for mass transit security and the Senate Commerce Committee has reported a bill authorizing $1 billion for rail and Amtrak security. Our citizens deserve to be secure as they travel to work and back home again.

Time and time again over the last 3 years I have offered amendments to provide funding for securing our mass transit systems and the White House consistently called the amendments wasteful or unnecessary spending. We need to do more.

The Hart-Rudman report on the terrorist threat in this country recommended a $98 billion investment in equipping and training for our first responders over the next 5 years, yet the President did not request an increase in first responder funding. Instead, the President has proposed to cut first responder funding in the Department by over $700 million, including a $246 million cut in fire grants, and governmentwide the President is proposing cuts of $1.5 billion. We need to do more, not less. We are living in perilous times. Perilous times. We are a country that faces increasing threats from terrorists right here at home.

As Secretary Ridge was said to have explained to the country this morning, there is a growing concern about a potential terrorist attack before the November election. We are vulnerable, and the continual warnings and calls for vigilance only magnify that vulnerability.

What is our response to the Secretary's warnings in this Senate, in this dear old body which has been my home for almost 46 years? We give whistles to staff in the Capitol and we hope for the best. We sit back and wait and wait and wait on an appropriations bill that is right here that could have been called up days ago. We sit back

and wait and wait on this appropriations bill that would improve Homeland Security. Instead of action, we delay. Instead of action, we call up a class action bill. Instead of action, we get wrangled in political arguing. We delay Homeland Security funds for police officers and firefighters. We delay immediate investments in border security and port security. We say loudly for all the country to hear, Homeland Security can wait.

No, it cannot wait. Homeland Security cannot wait. And remember, there will be a day of reckoning. It will come as surely as I stand here in this place, as sure as the sparks fly upward. That day of reckoning is coming ever near around the corner.

Indeed, the majority leader could have scheduled the Homeland Security appropriations bill this week, but rather than bring up that critical legislation this week the majority chose to go to the class action bill. And once the Senate began consideration of the class action bill, then it was decided that Senators could only offer those amendments the leadership deemed appropriate. Now, how is that? How is that for filling the tree?

Here we are in the middle of July, with 11 more legislative days left before the Senate recesses for the respective party conventions; and that is going to be for 45 days we will recess, take or give a little. So the Senate has acted on exactly one appropriations bill, the Defense Appropriations bill.

Now that is not the fault of the Senate Appropriations Committee. No, you can bet on that. That is not the fault of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

It is said that actions speak louder than words, and I believe that to be true in this case. Given all of the priorities facing this country, the majority leader has said, I am told, the most urgent need the Senate should consider is the class action bill and has further indicated that next week the Senate will consider a constitutional amendment that no one believes has the number of votes needed for adoption. Amend the Constitution of the United States--here it is, folks. I hold it in my hand. Let's just amend it one more time.

Homeland security funding will sit on the sidelines. Is that what the Senate should be about, I ask you, the people out there? This Senate should step back from this folly and put the people's interests first-- the people's business, the people's lives.

I simply do not understand why the Senate is twiddling its thumbs on legislation that could be considered at some other time rather than addressing homeland security issues when it matters most.

I watched them tear the building down,

A gang of men in a busy town;

With a ho-heave-ho, and a lusty yell,

They swung a beam and a sidewall fell.

I asked the foreman, ``Are these men skilled,

And the men you would hire if you had to build?''

He gave a laugh and said, ``No, indeed;

Just common labor is all you need.

I could easily wreck in a day or two

What builders have taken years to do.''

I thought to myself as I went away,

Which of these roles have I tried to play:

Am I a builder who works with care,

Measuring life by the rule and square,

Am I shaping my deeds to a well-made plan,

Patiently doing the best I can?

Or am I a wrecker who walks the town,

Content with the labor of tearing down?

Think about it.

Now, I had not been told about my dear friend's, the chairman's, proposal about taking this up, even though I am the ranking member, actually the senior member of the committee, the only person on that committee who has been on it for 46 years, the senior Democrat in this whole creation here. I was not told about any proposal that my chairman was about to make.

I would be happy to consider any proposal. I want to work with the chairman. I say, why not take up this bill on Monday of next week? Why not? Why not bring this bill up on Monday, and let's have at it? I will leave that question for the leadership. I hope it will receive some consideration.

A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and

he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold,

these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and

find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.