Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Stabenow and Lautenberg to introduce the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees (GRAD) Act.

The percentage of individuals pursuing graduate education has increased dramatically in recent decades as individuals seek the education and skills needed to participate in a technologically complex and global economy. In the last 25 years alone, graduate enrollment in the United States has increased by 39 percent. In the fall of 2000, there were 1.85 million graduate students enrolled in American schools.

The economic benefits of graduate education are significant. The median earnings of workers who possess a graduate or professional degree are more than 3\1/2\ times those of high school dropouts.

Despite the impact of graduate education on individuals' economic well being, and on the economic strength of our national economy as a whole, graduate education is, for many, financially out of reach. In 2001-02 the average graduate school tuition at public institutions was $4,491 and $15,233 at private institutions. In a 2002 borrower's survey, the average debt reported by graduate students was $45,900. This is an astounding figure.

To respond to the need for a highly educated workforce, I have put together a series of proposals that will make graduate education more accessible and affordable to qualified applicants regardless of income level, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act (GRAD). The purpose of the GRAD Act is to encourage students to pursue graduate education and to assist them in affording it.

Specifically, the GRAD Act increases the authorization level of the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program to $50 million and the Jacob Javits Fellowship Program to $35 million. The GAANN fellowship program helps to support graduate study in areas of national need such as chemistry, computer and information science, engineering, mathematics and physics. The Jacob Javits Fellowship Program helps support graduate study in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

To encourage greater participation by minority students in graduate studies, the Act creates the Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program to offer assistance to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. The Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program will help address the important problem of underrepresentation of students from certain minority groups in graduate education.

To help students afford the costs of graduation education, the GRAD Act expands the tax-exempt status of scholarships to treat reasonable room and board allowances as part of permitted higher education expenses. The Act revises the cost of attendance calculations for financial aid for students with dependents to reflect the true cost of living expenses for themselves and their children. The Act increases the amount of earnings students can set aside without having to apply those earnings to the cost of attendance. The GRAD Act also increases the unsubsidized Stafford loan limit for graduate and professional students from $10,000 to $12,500 so they are less likely to have to turn to more expensive private loans.

The Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act will help students meet the financial challenges faced in pursuing graduate studies. The Act strengthens programs that support graduate students in areas of vital importance to our Nation and makes assistance available to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. By helping students to pursue and afford graduate education, the GRAD Act will help individuals, families and the nation as a whole, realize the important benefits of graduate education.

I hope more of my colleagues will join me in support of graduate education by signing on this bill. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that more individuals are able to pursue graduate education and assist our Nation in meeting the challenges faced in a global economy.

Mr. President, it is often said that small things can make a very large difference in our society. That saying certainly fits the subject I have come to speak briefly about this afternoon. That little thing in question that I am talking about is 3\1/8\ inches wide, 2\1/8\ inches long, and no thicker than one's fingernail. But it has a monumental impact on how millions of Americans live their lives each and every day. The object to which I am referring, of course, is the credit card.

We have come a long way from the day in 1950 when the Diner's Club issued the first universal credit card that allowed its holders to use credit at certain very select restaurants in New York City. Today, the credit card has become an indispensable part of how we do business in the United States, and across the globe, for that matter.

For many Americans, the main appeal of the credit card is convenience and flexibility. They allow us to go out and eat, go to a shopping mall, to the movies, and stop off at the grocery store on the way home, without folding a single bill or fumbling for loose change in their pockets. Credit cards allow people to shop for products on the Internet in a matter of seconds.

But for more and more Americans, credit cards serve a very different purpose. As the name implies, these cards provide access to credit. We are living in a time when real wages are failing to keep up with price increases, when health care costs and college tuition are on the rise. Millions of Americans are having difficulty making ends meet. For Americans who are strapped for cash, credit cards are much more than a convenience. They have become the only way they can afford basic necessities, such as food, gas, clothing, and medical care.

These Americans are not paying by credit card because they want to; they are doing so because they have no other choice. It is this function of credit cards that make them so appealing to American consumers, but I must also say it is this function that presents the greatest danger to them as well.

Today, the level of credit card debt in the United States is at record heights. Total consumer debt in America is over $2 trillion. Out of that, $735 billion is credit card debt. The average American household has over $9,000 worth of credit card debt. Let me repeat that. The average family living in the United States has over $9,000 of credit card debt. In comparison, the average family household income is just above $40,000.

Due in large part to credit card debt, more Americans are filing for bankruptcy. Last year, over 1.6 million families declared they were bankrupt. For every one family that actually does file for bankruptcy, there are seven more whose debt suggests that they, in fact, should do the same.

Credit card debt does not affect all Americans equally. It is a growing burden that is disproportionately being borne by middle-income, low-income, and working-poor families. According to a recent report, during the 1990s, on average, the American family saw its credit card debt go up by 53 percent. The debt of middle-class families, those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year, went up 75 percent. For the older Americans, senior citizens, their average credit card debt went up 149 percent. Finally, for very low-income families, those making less than $10,000 a year, credit card debt grew by a shocking 184 percent.

Why is this happening? Why are millions of Americans drowning in credit card debt? There are some who would describe the numbers I just quoted as a matter of personal responsibility, that some Americans are spending way beyond their means and ultimately are paying the price.

I do believe personal responsibility is extremely important, but many of the victims of credit card debt today are not in that state because they bought a home entertainment system, an expensive vacation, or a plasma TV set.

Take Roberto Towler. Roberto was a professional accountant who was very careful to always pay his bills on time. In early 2000 he was forced to take 2 months off from work because of a back injury. The lost salary meant he had much less cash on hand than before. He had no alternative but to use his credit card for toiletries, clothes for his children, and groceries. He eventually was able to return to work and scale back the use of his credit card, but he found himself barely able to pay back his debt. Eventually Roberto was forced to file bankruptcy with $22,000 of credit card debt.

Many Americans have stories just like Mr. Towler. They work hard, they play by the rules, but after a few twists of fate suddenly find themselves in a tremendous debt. For those caught in the quicksand of debt, a credit card appears to be a lifeline. But, in reality, it only pulls them in deeper and deeper.

We often speak of the ill and infirm as living on borrowed time. These people are living on borrowed money.

In the middle of all this are credit card companies. If we demand responsibility from individuals, and we should, and we do demand it, then we also ought to demand it from corporations as well. Responsibility is not limited to those who are consumers alone.

The reason I am here today is because a good deal of the blame for the crisis in credit card debt we are seeing in America lies in the practices of credit card companies.

I am not someone who takes regulatory reform lightly. I am not a believer in regulation that stifles innovation or efficiency. But at the same time, when we see practices that are truly hurting working families around the country, I believe we have an obligation to act. Just what kind of practices are we talking about? Let me spell it out.

Let's start with interest rates. I am not naive about this. I certainly do not expect credit card companies to be terribly benevolent when it comes to interest rates. But what I expect, and what all Americans deserve, is honesty and fairness.

We have all seen print ads and commercials that advertise fantastically low interest rates, sometimes as low as zero percent. But what these commercials don't tell you is that these teaser rates, as they are called, often expire and rise considerably only after a few months.

If you slip up even once by failing to make a minimum monthly payment, your interest rate may go up even faster. Just one mistake can be enough to drive an interest rate up by nearly 30 percentage points. Of course that information is usually hidden in the fine print of a lengthy disclosure statement.

Most Americans would assume that their interest rates will stay low as long as they make their minimum monthly payments. Not so. Today, credit card companies don't just look at the bill that you pay them, they look at your entire financial picture in deciding how high your interest rate ought to be, how high a rate they ought to charge you.

I learned of a doctor in Illinois who had always paid his credit card bills on time and stayed within his credit card limits. Then one day he took a look at his bill and discovered that the interest rate on his credit card had jumped from 6 percent to nearly 17 percent. He asked the credit card issuer, why? The company said that he was now a higher risk.

What was the reason?

He had taken out a mortgage on his new home.

This is incredible to me. There are few things more rewarding to a family than buying their first home. We celebrate home ownership here in America. Apparently for credit card companies it's a reason to celebrate as well, because it's an excuse to charge higher interest rates.

Interest rates, of course, are not the only way credit card companies make money. In recent years, more and more companies have found another way to increase their bottom lines, by assessing exorbitant fees for the most minor of offenses. Miss a payment by a single day and you may be charged $30 or even $40 for that mistake. Gone are the grace periods that gave consumers some reasonable leeway.

Over the past 2 years, the amount of money generated by credit card fees has simply skyrocketed. In fact, the term ``skyrocketed'' may be something of an understatement. In 1996, the fees raised $1.7 billion for credit card companies. That's 1996. Last year the credit card companies raised $11 billion in fees alone, only 8 years later.

You might think that if credit card companies know that someone is a risk they would take some action to limit that person's spending, such as lowering their credit line. Or perhaps they might not issue a card to that person in the first place.

But there is a little secret the credit card companies don't want Americans to know. They are actively soliciting and signing up customers who are tremendous credit risks. They are soliciting these people not in spite of the risk, but because of it.

Contrary to what one might think, customers who cannot afford to pay their bills on time are the credit card companies' best customers--not their worst. Unbelievably, these customers who do pay on time are known within the credit card industry as ``deadbeats.''

Let me repeat that. Those who pay their credit card bills on time are known within the industry as ``deadbeats.'' Why is this? Because when people fail to pay their bills on time, that means more profits for the credit card industry, in the form of more interest charges and penalty fees.

How much more of a profit? Let's say you are the average American, with $9,000 in credit card debt, which is the case today. Let's say you stopped accumulating any more debt and decided you would pay it off by making the minimum monthly payment of 2 percent. Let's say further that your interest rate is 15 percent--which is just about the average today, I might add.

How long would it take you to pay off that debt? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? It would take 39 years to pay off your debt. Over the course of those 39 years, you would pay $14,000 in interest payments alone, in addition to the $9,000 you owe. This is all assuming, of course, that your interest rate wouldn't rise over those years and that you wouldn't be hit with unexpected fees.

Credit card companies know this. They know their greatest chance of financial profit lies in those customers who have the least chance of paying their bills on time. That is why they continue to solicit these customers and that is why those who do pay on time are known within the industry as the deadbeats.

Last year, credit card companies mailed out 5 billion solicitations to about 200 million individuals in the United States. The average person received about one offer every other week. The average household received more than one per week. I guarantee that a great many of these people do not have sparkling credit ratings, yet these companies continue to send out offer after offer, hoping that yet another customer will take the bait.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the July 6, 2004 edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Growing Profit Source for Banks: Fees from Riskiest Card Holders.''

This goes into the topic in greater detail.

What I find most troubling about this trend is that credit card companies have set their sights on the most vulnerable members of our society when it comes to debt--low-income individuals, the elderly, mentally retarded, and most recently, our children.

Go to any college campus in America and you are bound to come across a table where an enthusiastic sales person is offering free T-shirts, or sports bags, or Frisbees--almost anything in exchange for signing up as a credit card customer. According to a report on CBS News, the average college student is offered 8 cards in his or her first semester in college--8 credit cards. By the end of college, the average graduating senior has 6 credit cards in his or her name.

Why are credit card companies targeting college students so frequently? Because of their limited experience with financial matters, students tend to accumulate debt very quickly, and as a result, more and more of our young people are falling deeper and deeper into the financial hole from which they cannot escape.

In 1998, 67 percent of college students had a credit card. Today, 83 percent have credit cards. In 1998, the average college student graduated with $1,800 in credit card debt. Today the average college senior graduates with $3,000 in credit card debt.

I was shocked to learn that the fastest growing segment of our population that is forced to declare bankruptcy is people under the age of 25. Think of

that. The fastest growing group of people declaring bankruptcy are people under the age of 25.

When we think about bankruptcy, we generally envision middle-aged Americans with failed businesses, investments gone bad, perhaps medical bills that have spiraled out of control. The answer is not so. It's college kids, recent graduates.

Some time ago, a piece on ``60 Minutes II'' told a story of one student's circumstance, Sean Moyer. I have told the story on the floor before but I think it deserves being repeated.

Sean's life began to spin out of control as a result of huge debts racked up in 3 years of college. He could not get loans to go to law school, as he dreamed. His parents couldn't afford to pay his way.

Sean Moyer had 12 credit cards and more than $10,000 in debts. He had two jobs, one at the library, another as a security guard in a Holiday Inn, but he still could not pay the collectors who continually harassed him with letters and phone calls. In 1998, Sean Moyer took his own life.

Three years after his son's death, his mother still gets pre-approved credit card offers in Sean's name. According to his mother, one company preapproved Sean for a $100,000 credit card line.

How is the credit card industry doing as a result of these practices? These companies are thriving. Credit Card Management, an industry publication, reported that 2003 was the most profitable year for credit cards since the magazine began tracking the industry in 1992.

What makes matters even more astonishing is that this is happening when interest rates are at an all-time low. Yet, for millions of Americans, the interest rates they read about in the newspapers, those set by the Federal Reserve, bear absolutely no relationship whatsoever to interest rates that appear on their credit card bills.

Still, the industry wants more. In recent years, while they have been encouraging consumers to accumulate debt, credit card companies have simultaneously been lobbying Congress to change bankruptcy laws to make it harder and harder for people to have their debts forgiven. This amounts to a two pronged attack on working families in America--get people into as much debt as possible, and then change the rules of the game so they can't get rid of that debt.

It is time we stood up for consumers. It is time we restored a sense of responsibility to this industry.

I am here today to introduce the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2004, also known as the Credit CARD Act. This bill takes aim at what I consider to be some of the more egregious abuses of consumers by credit card companies.

This bill takes some simple, common-sense steps to stop abusive practices, educate cardholders, and stiffen the penalties on corporations that violate the law.

First of all, I think we can all agree that it is reasonable for a consumer to be clearly notified if his or her interest rates are going up. That is not a radical idea, that is just common sense. My bill would require clear disclosure of any rate changes so there aren't any surprises for the average consumer.

I also don't believe a company should be able to retroactively change the interest rate on debt that already exists. If you want to raise interest rates, fine, but raise them on future debt, not existing debt. Our bill would prohibit any retroactive interest rate changes.

Second, I believe that companies should be rewarding people for responsible card use--not penalizing them. If you pay your bills on time, your interest rate shouldn't go up. If you pay off your balances in full, your company shouldn't be able to charge you any new fees. If you decide to cancel your card, your interest rate shouldn't go up. I am pointing out these facts because that is exactly what happens. My bill would codify all of these common-sense principles into law.

Third, my bill would protect some of the most vulnerable in our society--our Nation's youth--by implementing new requirements for issuing credit cards to people under the age of 21. We are not going to prohibit college students from getting cards, but we are going to make sure that companies can't simply give away cards to millions and millions of students who they know will rack up years and years worth of debt and potentially face bankruptcy and financial ruin before their working lives have barely begun.

If you apply for a credit card and you are under 21, under this bill you will need one of three things: A signature of a parent or guardian who is willing to take responsibility for your debt; information indicating that you have some other means of repaying any debt; or a certification that you have completed a credit counseling course. And if you are a credit card company that offers cards to students under 21, you will be required to comply with these requirements--or face serious penalties.

Finally, this bill requires companies to be honest with consumers by introducing some new disclosure requirements. The most important one is a box--prominently located on every single bill--containing four simple pieces of information: The total balance on your account; your minimum monthly payment; how long it will take to pay your bill if all you pay is the minimum monthly payment; and finally, how much you will have to pay over time--in both interest and principal--if you only make the minimum payments.

The reason for these disclosures is simple, and to many, probably obvious: To allow consumers to know exactly what it means to carry a debt, so they can decide whether or not to do so.

The Credit CARD Act also contains a number of additional disclosure requirements to bring more transparency to an industry that has clearly reaped benefits from the use of fine print and lengthy and confusing policy statements.

We are not asking for much here--only that companies be fair and straightforward with consumers. Let us see some real disclosures so Americans can understand what their bill means, how much they are being charged, and why.

No one wants credit cards to disappear. I certainly believe credit cards are tremendously valuable and worthwhile as long as they are handled responsibly. And no one wants people who need and deserve credit to have no way to get it. But we can't simply stand by as more and more Americans fall deeper and deeper into debt with no way out. We need to take some responsible action so that the credit card can still be a useful financial tool without being a ticket to financial ruin.

If we are going to pass bankruptcy bills in the Senate that demand more responsibility from consumers, shouldn't we demand more responsibility from creditors, as well? This bill, the Credit CARD Act, does just that, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt it.

I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Madam President, last February, I rose before the Senate to draw attention to the fate of three Americans taken hostage by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)--Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, and Thomas Howes. It has been 5 months since then--17 months since Marc, Keith and Tom were captured. Since that tragic day, these Americans and their families have lived in fear, never knowing what tomorrow may bring. I say today what I said then--there must be no higher priority than ensuring that Marc, Keith and Tom return safely home. I commend the actions taken thus far by United States and Colombian officials to find these brave Americans, but I urge them to redouble their efforts.

Marc, Keith and Tom were taken captive when their plane crashed in FARC controlled territory on February 13, 2003. Two individuals, an American pilot, Tom Janis, and a Colombian intelligence officer, were killed by the FARC at the crash site, and Marc, Keith and Tom have remained in captivity since that time. A video documentary released last year containing interviews with the three men dramatically underscores the urgency of their dire situation.

I know that all of our prayers remain with these Americans and their families. As any parent knows, it is impossible to describe the pain these families suffer knowing that their sons are in danger, unable to communicate with them, and uncertain whether they will ever see them again. Marc Gonsalves' mother, Jo Rosano, is a Connecticut

resident. When I met with her in February, I pledged that I would do everything possible to return her son. I stand by that pledge today.

To that end, I have met with President Uribe and Colombian officials and urged them to secure Marc, Keith and Tom's release. President Uribe has assured me that Colombian authorities are working to locate these Americans and that Colombia will not end its search until they are found.

I have likewise urged the Bush administration to provide all necessary assistance to locate and gain the release of Marc, Keith and Tom. During a hearing last year before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I urged William Wood, Ambassador to Colombia, to make their well-being and safe release his highest priority. Ambassador Wood agreed to do so and promised to keep me informed about developments as they occur. I thank him for his efforts to date.

Unfortunately, rescuing these three Americans will not be easy. But while doing so may not be easy, it is essential--it is our duty. We must leave no stone unturned in our efforts to secure their release. And we must make sure that their families know that we have not forgotten their sons and will not rest until we find them. I will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of Marc, Keith and Tom, and I urge the Bush administration and the Colombian government, to do everything in their power to expedite their return.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an initiative that is long overdue. Thanks to the efforts of Senator DeWine, Senator Bob Graham, and to the other cosponsors of the pending measure, the Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity, or HERO Act, of 2004 is finally getting the attention it deserves.

Haiti has endured intense strife over the course of the last 3 years. Most recently, floods have devastated much of the country, and armed gangs have destabilized cities and terrorized rural areas, ultimately forcing the elected president from office.

Although much more support will be necessary in the near future, the HERO Act is an excellent first step in the process of establishing stability and security in Haiti.

Unemployment is a major factor in the instability of the country. More than two-thirds of eligible workers cannot find jobs in the formal economy. The HERO Act begins to address that need by providing living- wage jobs in the apparel industry for thousands of Haitians.

Again, I want to stress how important it is to view this as only the first part of a large program to address the abject poverty and political chaos that has beleaguered Haiti. With this kind of forward- looking initiative, we can help our neighbors to overcome these difficult times. Only through concrete and meaningful U.S. assistance on a scale commensurate with Haiti's needs can be ever hope to reverse the misery, suffering, and hopelessness that have become commonplace in the lives of close neighbors--8 million of them.

I strongly support this legislation and was pleased to be a cosponsor. The people of Haiti have waited too long for the HERO Act to become law. It is time for the United States to demonstrate its concern for its suffering Haitian neighbors. Now that the Senate has acted, I hope that the Bush administration will finally make this a priority and urge the House leadership to act on this measure before the August recess.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement, FTA, which is currently pending before this body. This agreement is the culmination of nearly two years of difficult negotiations and hard work by U.S. and Australian officials. Today we have the opportunity to pass the implementing legislation that would pave the way for formal adoption of this FTA, and when that vote occurs, I intend to support this agreement.

As my colleagues are aware, U.S. exports to Australia totaled over $13 billion in 2003. According to the United States Trade Representative, USTR, Australia is quickly growing as a major destination for U.S. goods. For example, over the past 5 years, the rate of growth for U.S. exports to that nation has increased more than twofold over U.S. exports to the rest of the world. And during these years, aerospace products and parts--a sector vital to U.S. manufacturing and our national security--have been the leading growth category. In 2003, the aerospace sector exported an impressive $2.4 billion in merchandise to Australia.

Since 1999, my home State of Connecticut has witnessed a 72.8 percent increase in the value of its exports to Australia. Trade with that nation directly supports more than 1,800 jobs in Connecticut. Other States have benefited similarly. Indeed, during this same time period, U.S. exports as measured by dollar increases have grown faster in only seven other nations.

But these figures and the potential impact of this agreement are even more striking when one examines the types of items that we export to Australia. I point out to my colleagues that a full 92 percent of U.S. exports to that nation are manufactured goods. I know that I don't need to remind my colleagues that over the past several years, more than two million manufacturing jobs have been lost here in the U.S. More than 30,000 people in my home State of Connecticut have lost jobs in the manufacturing sector.

In a variety of ways, we here in Congress have sought to address the domestic loss of manufacturing jobs and infrastructure. I have worked hard to affect a turnaround in the conditions of this sector--long the lynchpin of the U.S. economy. It doesn't take an economist to realize that this agreement will likely help to strengthen U.S. manufacturing.

That is not to say that a United States-Australia FTA will be a panacea for our manufacturing woes here at home. It will not. But in my view, the steady growth and large manufacturing component of United States-Australia bilateral trade suggest that it will help. For this Senator, that fact is one of the most compelling reasons to support a United States-Australia FTA.

Moreover, it should not go without mention that in 2001, 86 percent of U.S. exports to Australia were from small and medium-sized businesses. That figure--86 percent--amounted to more than 16,000 U.S. firms. If this trend continues, with the passage of this agreement, tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses here in the U.S. also stand to benefit.

Nearly 2 years ago, I voted against final passage of fast track authority

for the President. I did so because I didn't believe that legislation included adequate language making it crystal clear that a primary negotiating objective of future trade agreements must be to ensure that our trading partners live up to internationally accepted labor and environmental standards.

In that context, I believe that Australia is a model of what we should expect from other governments with whom we craft trade agreements. Australia is more than just a staunch ally--it is also a nation that has substantial labor and environmental protections. These protections will help to safeguard the lives of workers globally and the natural resources on which we all depend. Equally as important, they will help to ensure that American workers are given a level playing field on which to compete.

Despite my overall support for this agreement, I feel that it is important to mention one item of concern. As my colleagues are aware, the United States-Australia FTA includes language that would allow prescription drug manufacturers to prevent the reimportation of their products.

We do not currently import drugs from Australia, and that is unlikely to change given that Australian law prohibits the exportation of prescription drugs. So as a practical matter, this provision of the FTA will not affect drug prices in this country. But I want to make it perfectly clear that this should not set a precedent, nor prevent us from adopting a law that would allow drug reimportation in the future. While I will live with this provision in the context of a bilateral agreement with Australia, I do not believe that it should have broader global implications.

This concern aside, I look forward to voting on the implementing legislation for the United States-Australia FTA. I intend to cast my vote in favor of this agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator Lieberman in introducing the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2004. I am pleased that Representative Johnson of Connecticut introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Lower Farmington River is a 40-mile stretch between the Collinsville Dam in Burlington and the Rainbow Dam in Windsor. The flood plains on either side of the river support large amphibian, bird, insect, and reptile populations, with many species that are on the State of Connecticut's list of endangered, threatened and special concern species. Biologists have stated that sections of this stretch of river have regionally and possibly globally significant plant communities, making the river one of the most thriving and diverse ecosystems in Connecticut.

The river is also significant for its cultural heritage. Numerous Tunxis and River Indian tribe archaeological sites are located throughout the flood plain. During the 18th and 19th centuries the river was used extensively as a conduit for commerce and many towns along the river flourished due to complex mill and canal systems associated with the river.

Besides environmental and historical benefits, the Lower Farmington River provides excellent opportunities for recreation including canoeing, kayaking, and rowing. The river also passes through the Tariffville Gorge, which is unique in Southern New England, in that it supports Class II-IV whitewater kayaking twelve months a year and has hosted the Olympic trials.

However, the Farmington River is beginning to show evidence of declining water quality. Designation as a Wild and Scenic River would ensure that the river and surrounding watershed are protected under a locally controlled river management plan, which works to preserve a river's natural and significant resources.

I am confident of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook's significance and community support. The Connecticut towns of Farmington, Simsbury, Bloomfield, Burlington, Canton, Avon, East Granby, and Windsor have joined with the Farmington River Watershed Association in requesting designation as a Wild and Scenic River. Property owners along the river support designation in order to preserve this natural resource that flows by and near their property. Connecticut is a small state, at just over 5,500 square miles, and is densely populated. Our citizens are committed to balancing conservation and growth. That is why this designation is so important. While the state and local groups have done exceptional work so far, this designation would bring in Federal technical assistance and foster coordination among the many concerned groups.

In 1994, a 14-mile stretch of the Upper Farmington River was designated as a Wild and Scenic River and it has been a remarkable success story. Representatives of the five affected towns meet regularly with Federal, State and local organizations to implement a river management plan that all parties adopted. Our legislation proposes to study the feasibility of designating the lower section of the Farmington River and the Salmon Brook as part of the Act. The Wild and Scenic River Program has been a successful public and private partnership to preserve certain select rivers in a free flowing state and the Lower Farmington River and the Salmon Brook are significant natural resources.

I urge my colleagues to support this worthy legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator Lieberman in introducing the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2004. I am pleased that Representative Johnson of Connecticut introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Lower Farmington River is a 40-mile stretch between the Collinsville Dam in Burlington and the Rainbow Dam in Windsor. The flood plains on either side of the river support large amphibian, bird, insect, and reptile populations, with many species that are on the State of Connecticut's list of endangered, threatened and special concern species. Biologists have stated that sections of this stretch of river have regionally and possibly globally significant plant communities, making the river one of the most thriving and diverse ecosystems in Connecticut.

The river is also significant for its cultural heritage. Numerous Tunxis and River Indian tribe archaeological sites are located throughout the flood plain. During the 18th and 19th centuries the river was used extensively as a conduit for commerce and many towns along the river flourished due to complex mill and canal systems associated with the river.

Besides environmental and historical benefits, the Lower Farmington River provides excellent opportunities for recreation including canoeing, kayaking, and rowing. The river also passes through the Tariffville Gorge, which is unique in Southern New England, in that it supports Class II-IV whitewater kayaking twelve months a year and has hosted the Olympic trials.

However, the Farmington River is beginning to show evidence of declining water quality. Designation as a Wild and Scenic River would ensure that the river and surrounding watershed are protected under a locally controlled river management plan, which works to preserve a river's natural and significant resources.

I am confident of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook's significance and community support. The Connecticut towns of Farmington, Simsbury, Bloomfield, Burlington, Canton, Avon, East Granby, and Windsor have joined with the Farmington River Watershed Association in requesting designation as a Wild and Scenic River. Property owners along the river support designation in order to preserve this natural resource that flows by and near their property. Connecticut is a small state, at just over 5,500 square miles, and is densely populated. Our citizens are committed to balancing conservation and growth. That is why this designation is so important. While the state and local groups have done exceptional work so far, this designation would bring in Federal technical assistance and foster coordination among the many concerned groups.

In 1994, a 14-mile stretch of the Upper Farmington River was designated as a Wild and Scenic River and it has been a remarkable success story. Representatives of the five affected towns meet regularly with Federal, State and local organizations to implement a river management plan that all parties adopted. Our legislation proposes to study the feasibility of designating the lower section of the Farmington River and the Salmon Brook as part of the Act. The Wild and Scenic River Program has been a successful public and private partnership to preserve certain select rivers in a free flowing state and the Lower Farmington River and the Salmon Brook are significant natural resources.

I urge my colleagues to support this worthy legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will share a few thoughts on the subject matter at hand. We are shortly going to vote, I believe, on the motion to proceed on the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. I intend to oppose the cloture motion and oppose the underlying constitutional amendment, and I will lay out the reasons why.

First, I believe this constitutional amendment has no place in our founding document because it runs counter to our most sacred constitutional traditions. According to University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, who testified before the Judiciary Committee:

Our constitutional traditions demonstrate that change in

the founding document is appropriate on only the most rare

occasions--most notably, to correct problems in governmental

structure or to expand the category of individual rights. The

proposed amendment does not fall into either of these

categories.

For example, the first 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights guaranteed such liberties as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, the protection of private property, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Other amendments corrected problems in the structure of Government such as limiting the number of terms a President could serve or providing for the direct election of Senators.

In fact, the only time the Federal Constitution was amended not to expand an individual right or to respond to structural concerns was to establish prohibition and then repeal it. That is the only example in the last 228 years.

If the proposed Federal marriage amendment is adopted and we are to deny rather than confer rights upon individuals, I believe it will be a step backward for all Americans concerned with the Constitution and the intended purpose of it. It would be difficult to imagine what our Federal Constitution would look like today if we had adopted constitutional amendments at the rate they are being currently proposed.

I point out that as of June 15, 2004, 61 constitutional amendments have been introduced in this Congress alone. In the last decade, 460 constitutional amendments have been offered. Even more startling is that 11,000 have been offered since the first Congress convened in 1789. That is the bad news. The good news is only 27 of those constitutional amendments have actually been adopted since 1789.

Some of these proposed constitutional amendments were controversial and divisive when proposed, and clearly discredited when viewed through the prism of historical perspective. There have been constitutional amendments to divide the country into four Presidential districts with a President elected from each, renaming the country ``the United States of the World,'' and even allow for the continuance of slavery.

If all of the proposed constitutional amendments were adopted, our founding document would resemble a Christmas tree--a civil and criminal code rather than a constitution--and the United States would be a very different nation indeed.

The Framers therefore had it right when they made the Constitution extremely difficult to amend. It is a process that ought to be very well thought out and extremely deliberate. That is why of the more than 11,000 proposals to amend the Constitution, only 27 have been adopted.

The Constitution was not intended to be subject to the passions and whims of

the moment. It dilutes the meaning of having a constitution in the first place if it is easy to amend, not to mention the fact that a lengthy constitution would be exceedingly difficult to interpret and enforce.

The Federal Constitution was construed to withstand incessant meddling and provide a stable framework of Government in the future. Certainly there must be a major crisis at hand. At the very least, the hurdle must be passed that we face a crisis.

Certainly I am willing to listen to those who say the crisis we face on this issue of same-sex marriage is so compelling that we must do something about it, and the only way we can address this crisis is by amending the Constitution of the United States. In my view, however, there is no crisis. It is a sham argument.

First, there has been no successful challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. I want to direct the attention of my colleagues to this chart. Courts that have upheld Federal right to same-sex marriage, zero; States forced to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, zero; churches forced to perform same-sex marriages, zero; discriminatory amendments to the U.S. Constitution, zero.

Where is the crisis? There is no crisis. This is merely a political issue for some in the majority party who want to raise a question where frankly the problem is nonexistent.

Therefore, I think the issue of a Federal Marriage Amendment is certainly not ripe at all, nor is there a ``crisis'' as some of my colleagues would have us believe.

It is unfortunate that the majority party of the Senate does not share James Madison's view that the Constitution is to be amended ``only for certain great and extraordinary occasions.'' What is ``the great and extraordinary occasion'' that warrants taking this radical action today? The majority party has scheduled votes on two constitutional amendments prior to the August recess. Neither of these amendments, which concern same-sex marriage and the burning of the American flag, falls within our constitutional traditions. They have absolutely nothing to do with expanding individual rights or responding to structural concerns. They have absolutely everything to do with scoring political points before an election.

In addition, there has not been a markup or any consideration of these amendments by the full Judiciary Committee. It is extraordinary that the entire Senate would be considering amending the Constitution without the amendments having gone through the normal legislative process. In fact, of the 19 constitutional amendments considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee since 1978, all but two have been fully debated by the Judiciary Committee. The Senate considered the two that did not go through the Judiciary Committee only by unanimous consent.

Here we are taking the exceptional route of avoiding that process. Most surprisingly, the majority party is paying lip service to its cherished principle of federalism. Since the founding of our Nation, marriage has been the province of the States, and in my view it should continue to be a State issue. Yet the Federal Marriage Amendment would deprive States of their traditional power to define marriage and impose a national definition of marriage on the entire country.

According to Yale professor Lea Brilmayer, States now have wide latitude to refuse recognition of marriages entered into in other States without offending the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. She argues that ``entering into a marriage is legally more akin to signing a marriage contract or taking out a driver's license'' as opposed to a judicial judgment, the latter of which is entitled to Full Faith and Credit. Courts have therefore not hesitated to apply local public policy to refuse to recognize marriages entered into in other States.

In addition, 49 out of 50 States allow marriage only between a man and a woman. The one holdout, Massachusetts, is currently working its way through this contentious issue in its State constitutional amendment process. For Congress to step in and dictate to 49 States how they ought to proceed in this matter runs counter to the States rights principles that many hold so dear.

I am hopeful cooler heads will prevail on this issue and the Senate will turn its attention to more pressing concerns. Having been through the process last week of trying to reform the class action system, which we spent only some 48 hours on, we have some 8.2 million out-of- work Americans; 4.5 million Americans working part time because they cannot find a full-time; almost 2 million private sector jobs lost since January of 2001; 35 million Americans living in poverty; 12 million children living in poverty; 25 million Americans who are hungry or on the verge of hunger; 43 million Americans without health insurance.

How about spending a couple of days trying to address one of these issues? And yet here we are consuming the remaining days of this session of Congress on an issue where there is absolutely no crisis.

As I pointed out earlier, looking at this chart once again very quickly, there have been no successful challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. No court has upheld the Federal right to same-sex marriage. No state is forced to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. And no church is forced to perform same-sex marriages.

This issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It is a waste of our time. We ought to be dealing with far more serious issues.

My hope is that my colleagues, when a vote occurs in a few short minutes on cloture, will vote no on cloture. Let's get back to the business of what the Senate ought to be dealing with--namely, the pressing issues that our country needs to address on a daily basis. This is not one of them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Bingaman to jump-start school success for low-income children. Today we are introducing the Sandy Feldman Kindergarten Plus Act of 2004.

Sandy Feldman, the President of the American Federation of Teachers, stepped down today after decades of public service. If there is one goal to which Sandy has dedicated herself over the years, it is the education of our Nation's children.

Sandy is the product of New York City's public schools. She knows what great promise public education holds for our Nation. But, she also knows that all too often, we don't give our schools the resources they need to be able to live up to that promise.

While I've worked with Sandy for many years, I've been particularly privileged to work with her in the area of early childhood education. It was Sandy who developed the concept for this Kindergarten Plus legislation and Sandy who spent countless hours developing the details to ensure that the initiative would work in a diverse array of communities.

Although Sandy is leaving the AFT, I know she will continue fighting for our Nation's children, and for mothers, fathers, and teachers across this Nation. I look forward to her continued counsel and advice on education issues and other issues of importance to families.

The Kindergarten Plus legislation we are introducing today will offer competitive grants to States to provide children below 185 percent of the poverty line with a transitional kindergarten during the summer before kindergarten formally begins and a transitional first grade during the summer between kindergarten and first grade.

Why an extra four months of kindergarten for these children? The answer is simple. Because too many low income children today enter kindergarten unprepared for the year ahead, far behind their wealthier peers in both academic and social skills.

According to a recent survey, 46 percent of kindergarten teachers report that at least half of their class or more has specific problems with entry into kindergarten. Yet, kindergarten is critical in preparing children to succeed in elementary school, especially for children at-risk of academic failure.

There is no panacea, no magic wand to erase the deficiencies that too many low income children have in entering kindergarten on par with their more economically well-off peers. It is simply not possible in a two month period before kindergarten begins or in a nine-month half day pre-kindergarten program to wipe away the advantages that wealthier children have had in their first five years of life that result in the skill set with which they enter kindergarten.

We can, however, do a better job of preparing less fortunate children for school. We can expose them to classroom practices and routines and the expectations for kindergarten behavior and protocol. We can introduce them to concepts and help them understand that classrooms have rules. We can expose them to literature, story time or circle time. We can help them understand that books are made up of printed words and that words are made up of individual letters. We can ask them questions to help develop their critical thinking skills, like what do you think will happen next in the story? Why? We can offer them ``show and tell'' to develop their oral language skills and ability to speak out loud in sequential sentences.

Many children enter kindergarten with these skills. But, many do not. During the school year before a child is eligible to enter kindergarten, about 75 percent of children in families with more than $75,000 in income participate in some type of center-based program, compared to 51 percent of children in families with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000.

The numbers are much more stark when looking at the children of mothers who dropped out of high school. Recent data shows that about 74 percent of 3, 4, and 5 year old children whose mothers graduated from college were enrolled in a center-based program compared to only 42 percent of 3, 4, and 5 year old children whose mothers did not complete high school.

How does this translate to children? Some children know how to follow directions and some children do not. Some children transition well between activities as part of a daily routine, some children do not. About 85 percent of high income children, compared to 39 percent of low income children, can recognize letters of the alphabet upon arrival in kindergarten. About half the children of college graduates can identify the beginning sounds of words, but only 9 percent of the children whose parents didn't complete high school can recognize the beginning sounds of words.

Of equal concern, kindergarten teachers report that about 80 percent of children whose mothers graduated from college persist at a task and are eager to learn whereas only about 60 percent of the children whose mothers have not graduated from high school persist at a task and are eager to learn.

What we know from the research is that children can enter kindergarten better prepared to learn. We may not be able to close the gap between low income children and their wealthier peers, but we can certainly narrow it considerably.

Our bill would provide states with resources to offer a transitional kindergarten during the summer before kindergarten begins. This would enable local school districts to offer a jumpstart on kindergarten with smaller class sizes during the summer. Before all kindergarten eligible children arrive, K+ children would have an introduction to kindergarten. The same opportunity would be part of the program for the summer between kindergarten and first grade.

The introductory period would enable school districts to target low income children who may never before have participated in a center- based program such as Head Start or state pre-k, or nursery school. They could target low income English language learners or low income children who participated in Head Start or state pre-k who could continue their progress during the summer.

About 65 percent of mothers with children under age 6 are in the workforce today. Every day, about 13 million preschoolers, including 6 million infants and toddlers, are in some type of child care arrangement. What we are trying to do with this bill is to pull out low income children who would be eligible to enter kindergarten in the fall and offer them a summer enrichment period as an introduction to kindergarten. It might be that a local Head Start or community-based organization's preschool would continue to operate their programs during the summer. However, these are local decisions made by school districts that apply for and receive K+ funding.

It should be clear that the K+ program would operate as a supplement to existing programs, most of which follow the school calendar. In fact, children who participate in a high quality early learning program during the summer before kindergarten are not eligible to participate in K+ to avoid duplication of efforts and scarce resources.

In the National Academy of Sciences report, ``From Neurons to Neighborhoods: the Science of Early Childhood Development'', numerous recommendations are made to improve the foundation with which children enter school. The report points out that with so many parents working today, the burden of poor quality and limited choice in child care rests most heavily on low income working families whose financial resources are too high to qualify for subsidies or Head Start yet too low to afford market prices for quality child care.

It is the children of the working poor who are very much at risk of beginning kindergarten behind their wealthier and poorer peers. Yet, it is these children in addition to poor children who are most likely to enter kindergarten behind their wealthier peers, unprepared for the year ahead.

Supporting the K+ program is the American Federation of Teachers, AFT, the Parent-Teacher Association, PTA, the Council of Great City Schools, the Society for Research in Child Development, SRCD, the Children's Defense Fund, and Easter Seals.

We urge you to join us as cosponsors of this legislation and help give low income children a jump-start on school success.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the bill and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Bingaman to jump-start school success for low-income children. Today we are introducing the Sandy Feldman Kindergarten Plus Act of 2004.

Sandy Feldman, the President of the American Federation of Teachers, stepped down today after decades of public service. If there is one goal to which Sandy has dedicated herself over the years, it is the education of our Nation's children.

Sandy is the product of New York City's public schools. She knows what great promise public education holds for our Nation. But, she also knows that all too often, we don't give our schools the resources they need to be able to live up to that promise.

While I've worked with Sandy for many years, I've been particularly privileged to work with her in the area of early childhood education. It was Sandy who developed the concept for this Kindergarten Plus legislation and Sandy who spent countless hours developing the details to ensure that the initiative would work in a diverse array of communities.

Although Sandy is leaving the AFT, I know she will continue fighting for our Nation's children, and for mothers, fathers, and teachers across this Nation. I look forward to her continued counsel and advice on education issues and other issues of importance to families.

The Kindergarten Plus legislation we are introducing today will offer competitive grants to States to provide children below 185 percent of the poverty line with a transitional kindergarten during the summer before kindergarten formally begins and a transitional first grade during the summer between kindergarten and first grade.

Why an extra four months of kindergarten for these children? The answer is simple. Because too many low income children today enter kindergarten unprepared for the year ahead, far behind their wealthier peers in both academic and social skills.

According to a recent survey, 46 percent of kindergarten teachers report that at least half of their class or more has specific problems with entry into kindergarten. Yet, kindergarten is critical in preparing children to succeed in elementary school, especially for children at-risk of academic failure.

There is no panacea, no magic wand to erase the deficiencies that too many low income children have in entering kindergarten on par with their more economically well-off peers. It is simply not possible in a two month period before kindergarten begins or in a nine-month half day pre-kindergarten program to wipe away the advantages that wealthier children have had in their first five years of life that result in the skill set with which they enter kindergarten.

We can, however, do a better job of preparing less fortunate children for school. We can expose them to classroom practices and routines and the expectations for kindergarten behavior and protocol. We can introduce them to concepts and help them understand that classrooms have rules. We can expose them to literature, story time or circle time. We can help them understand that books are made up of printed words and that words are made up of individual letters. We can ask them questions to help develop their critical thinking skills, like what do you think will happen next in the story? Why? We can offer them ``show and tell'' to develop their oral language skills and ability to speak out loud in sequential sentences.

Many children enter kindergarten with these skills. But, many do not. During the school year before a child is eligible to enter kindergarten, about 75 percent of children in families with more than $75,000 in income participate in some type of center-based program, compared to 51 percent of children in families with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000.

The numbers are much more stark when looking at the children of mothers who dropped out of high school. Recent data shows that about 74 percent of 3, 4, and 5 year old children whose mothers graduated from college were enrolled in a center-based program compared to only 42 percent of 3, 4, and 5 year old children whose mothers did not complete high school.

How does this translate to children? Some children know how to follow directions and some children do not. Some children transition well between activities as part of a daily routine, some children do not. About 85 percent of high income children, compared to 39 percent of low income children, can recognize letters of the alphabet upon arrival in kindergarten. About half the children of college graduates can identify the beginning sounds of words, but only 9 percent of the children whose parents didn't complete high school can recognize the beginning sounds of words.

Of equal concern, kindergarten teachers report that about 80 percent of children whose mothers graduated from college persist at a task and are eager to learn whereas only about 60 percent of the children whose mothers have not graduated from high school persist at a task and are eager to learn.

What we know from the research is that children can enter kindergarten better prepared to learn. We may not be able to close the gap between low income children and their wealthier peers, but we can certainly narrow it considerably.

Our bill would provide states with resources to offer a transitional kindergarten during the summer before kindergarten begins. This would enable local school districts to offer a jumpstart on kindergarten with smaller class sizes during the summer. Before all kindergarten eligible children arrive, K+ children would have an introduction to kindergarten. The same opportunity would be part of the program for the summer between kindergarten and first grade.

The introductory period would enable school districts to target low income children who may never before have participated in a center- based program such as Head Start or state pre-k, or nursery school. They could target low income English language learners or low income children who participated in Head Start or state pre-k who could continue their progress during the summer.

About 65 percent of mothers with children under age 6 are in the workforce today. Every day, about 13 million preschoolers, including 6 million infants and toddlers, are in some type of child care arrangement. What we are trying to do with this bill is to pull out low income children who would be eligible to enter kindergarten in the fall and offer them a summer enrichment period as an introduction to kindergarten. It might be that a local Head Start or community-based organization's preschool would continue to operate their programs during the summer. However, these are local decisions made by school districts that apply for and receive K+ funding.

It should be clear that the K+ program would operate as a supplement to existing programs, most of which follow the school calendar. In fact, children who participate in a high quality early learning program during the summer before kindergarten are not eligible to participate in K+ to avoid duplication of efforts and scarce resources.

In the National Academy of Sciences report, ``From Neurons to Neighborhoods: the Science of Early Childhood Development'', numerous recommendations are made to improve the foundation with which children enter school. The report points out that with so many parents working today, the burden of poor quality and limited choice in child care rests most heavily on low income working families whose financial resources are too high to qualify for subsidies or Head Start yet too low to afford market prices for quality child care.

It is the children of the working poor who are very much at risk of beginning kindergarten behind their wealthier and poorer peers. Yet, it is these children in addition to poor children who are most likely to enter kindergarten behind their wealthier peers, unprepared for the year ahead.

Supporting the K+ program is the American Federation of Teachers, AFT, the Parent-Teacher Association, PTA, the Council of Great City Schools, the Society for Research in Child Development, SRCD, the Children's Defense Fund, and Easter Seals.

We urge you to join us as cosponsors of this legislation and help give low income children a jump-start on school success.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the bill and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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.

Madam President, I want to take some time to describe what was a very lengthy and worthwhile effort some 10 months ago to come up with a compromise proposal which is the substance of S. 2062, the legislation now before the Senate. I will do that in a moment.

Before doing so, I want to express my great disappointment at the process which the majority Leader has chosen. As my colleagues know, we worked very hard last October and November trying to come up with a compromise to give the class action reform bill an opportunity for consideration before the Senate. It is now the middle of July. In fact, this bill initially was to be brought up as the first item of business in January. For one reason or another, over the past number of months, this bill has not been brought forward until now.

I regret that deeply. Having served here for over a quarter of a century, I know that in a Presidential election year, the likelihood of getting something done becomes less and less. So those who set the agenda have to bear some responsibility, in a sense, for the situation we now find ourselves in procedurally.

Having worked on this very hard for a long time, and now finding myself in a situation where we are being told at this hour that the only amendments we can consider are ones that will be approved by the majority, is highly offensive to me and it ought be to any Member of this body.

This measure is very important. There are a lot of other important measures that the Senator from Massachusetts mentioned, all of which I support and with which I agree. But in this legislative body that the Framers founded some 220 years ago, the idea that we are not going to even agree to a process that would allow for a limited number of germane and nongermane amendments to be offered, is to in effect deny the Senate the opportunity to work its will.

Even before a single amendment has been offered, the Majority Leader has decided to fill up the amendment tree. In effect, he has precluded all Senators from offering amendments unless he deems them worthy to be offered. That includes, of course, Republican Senators as well as Democratic Senators. I also add that the Majority Leader has done this without any basis. As I have said, not a single amendment has yet been offered. This tactic is like a doctor prescribing a remedy for a perfectly healthy patient.

Last evening, I looked at the number of amendments filed. There were some 13 amendments filed. Most of them are germane amendments. There were several nongermane amendments. The Democratic leader offered a proposal of 10 germane amendments and 5 nongermane amendments on either side, with time limits. I am quite confident the authors would be willing to agree to a time agreement. I suspect that with a universe of 30 amendments, about half of them maybe would fall even before being offered. But the idea that we could not set parameters around the consideration of a bill this important I find rather breathtaking. After all, this how the Senate operates.

I floor managed with the Senator from Texas a number of years ago the securities litigation reform bill, which was another so-called tort reform bill. We spent 11 days on the floor of the Senate. Numerous amendments were offered to that piece of legislation. The then-majority leader, Senator Dole, threatened on a couple of occasions to file a cloture motion but never did. He allowed the Senate to work its will on that legislation. That is what ought to be done here as well. The fact that there has been an offer to limit the amount of time and the number of amendments ought to be embraced by the Majority Leader, not rejected by him.

I am a cosponsor of this bill and I care about it. If I am going to be confronted with voting on cloture Friday and cutting off debate, then take me off the bill right now. If you want to kill the bill, you can do it today, if that is the intention of the majority. I spent almost a year helping to write this bill, but I will not stand here today and deny Members of this body, under limited time agreements, to offer some ideas that the Senate can either accept or reject and move forward.

This is an important piece of legislation, but it is not so important to this

Member that we would deny this institution the right to be able to do its business under the rules and procedures that have been provided for more than two centuries ago.

Obviously, there are problems. Some of these nongermane amendments may be adopted. Maybe germane amendments would be adopted that would cause some of us not to be able to support the bill. That is the risk you run in a legislative body. There are 100 of us, as coequals, who have the right to offer our ideas to legislation. Unlike in the other body down the corridor, nongermane amendments can be offered in the Senate. That is how the Senate functions.

There is a risk, obviously, that this bill will get complicated. But the idea that we are going to shut off the possibility of these ideas being offered ought to be offensive to every Member, even those who support the legislation. If it can happen here, it can happen on a bill you support or oppose for one reason or another.

I am terribly disappointed that I am looking at a procedural situation that I warned about, which is that if you didn't provide adequate time for Members to be able to offer amendments--even amendments not particularly helpful in the eyes of some of my colleagues--you run the risk of undercutting the legislation. Maybe that is what the majority wants to do anyway, on the assumption that those groups outside who support the underlying bill will blame those of us who are willing to shut down the debate and, if not, give us an opportunity to let the Senate work its will. That is a false hope. I believe people are much smarter than that. They understand that if you don't let the Senate work its will, even under time constraints and amendments that are being limited in number, you do a great bit of damage to this institution.

It is late in the year, but I believe we have a good bill here. I want to describe it briefly, if I may. We have worked on an excellent compromise that a majority of colleagues here can support.

First of all, I am a very strong supporter of class action as a procedural device. Class action lawsuits have provided individuals of modest means the ability to band together to achieve systemic change when they could not have done so individually. In fact, important legal developments in such areas as civil rights, sex discrimination, and environmental protection have been the result of class action lawsuits.

But there is considerable evidence from courthouses across the country that class actions are being abused. Procedural rules that are designed to decide fair and just outcomes for individual plaintiffs and defendants are not being followed in too many cases. As a result, the class action system is not working, in my view, the way it was intended, and justice is not being served.

Madam President, I am also one who has supported and opposed various tort reform measures. I suggest that what we are talking about here is more court reform than tort reform.

For example, I opposed medical malpractice reform, not because I don't think we ought to do something about it, but it was a poorly crafted bill.

I also opposed liability protection for gunmakers. By the way, most manufacturers of firearms reside in my State, but the idea that we are going to exclude an entire industry from litigation was highly offensive to me.

I opposed liability protection for manufacturers of the so-called MTBE, which pollutes ground water. I supported a patient's right to sue their HMOs and insurance companies, which are a major industry in my State. Obviously, I helped write and helped to support the securities litigation reform, uniform standards, Y2K legislation, and the terrorism insurance bill.

So I don't fall into a category here of being for whatever is titled ``tort reform,'' supporting it or opposing it. I have a record that I believe is one of balance and support of those ideas and efforts that truly were designed to try to improve a litigation system. That is the background of my own voting record.

I will give you a history in terms of this compromise. On October 22 of last year, the Majority Leader sought to proceed to an earlier class action measure, S. 1751. The vote on that motion to proceed was 59 to 39, which is 1 vote short of the required number to invoke cloture.

At the time of that legislation, I voted no on invoking cloture, and I did so with some reluctance. I noted that, while I supported some reform of class action procedures, I could not support S. 1751. I also expressed concern about whether there would be any meaningful opportunity for Senators to negotiate changes in that bill in a bipartisan fashion.

I told colleagues in October of last year that reaching an agreement on class action reform required us to roll up our sleeves to get it done. Many long hours of painstaking negotiations were ahead of us. As an author of the securities litigation reform bill, the uniform standards legislation, terrorism insurance, and the Y2K bill, I know that principled compromise could be reached on class action reform as well.

I argued at the time, and my sentiment still holds true today, that ``the American people deserve better. We are not working together as often as we should on critical questions. If we do not do it, then we do a great disservice to the American people.''

Subsequent to the vote in October 2003, I joined with three of my colleagues in sending a letter to the Majority Leader on November 14. In that letter, we outlined the specific policies that we believed needed to be addressed in a class action bill that would garner the necessary votes to pass in this body.

In November of last year, Senators Schumer, Landrieu, and I entered into discussions with Senators Frist, Hatch, and Grassley. Those negotiations resulted in the compromise that is before us today.

I do believe this legislation is a significant improvement over the earlier bill considered by the Senate last year. When Senator Schumer, Landrieu, and I sent our letter to the Majority Leader, we asked for five changes in that legislation:

No. 1, we wanted to ensure that the jurisdictional provisions keep truly local cases in State courts.

No. 2, we wanted provisions on mass tort actions to be as precise as possible.

No. 3, we wanted to prevent the potential for repeated removal and remand between State and Federal courts, the so-called ``merry-go-round effect.''

No. 4, we wanted to provide appropriate compensation to those plaintiffs who take the risk of coming forward.

And No. 5, we wanted stronger provisions on abusive coupon settlements.

We got those changes and more. In fact, we asked for those 5 changes, and yet we got 12 improvements to the bill as originally proposed.

I am pleased to say that the compromise we reached last year is a measured, bipartisan response that fixes many aspects of our broken class action system. In addition, it strikes the appropriate balance between protecting Americans' access to the courthouse while ridding the class action system of its most egregious abuses.

I want to emphasize at the outset that this bill is a fragile, carefully-crafted compromise. There are some who will argue the bill goes too far, and others will tell you it does not go far enough. I happen to believe it achieves the right balance. It may not be perfect, but I think it is a good balance overall.

Having entered into a good-faith agreement with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want to see the compromise preserved both on the Senate floor and in conference. No statement has been made by the Democratic leader that he is opposing the appointment of conferees on this bill. Part of the agreement was that the compromise we reached in the Senate would be the one approved by the House in conference. If that was not the case, then those of us who agreed vote on the motion to proceed would reserve the right to filibuster the conference report. We certainly continue to hold that view.

S. 2062 reforms the current class action system in a number of meaningful ways. Let me go through them if I can rather quickly.

First, it addresses the issue of coupon settlements which constitutes one of the greatest abuses in our courthouses today. Here the plaintiffs receive coupons, or a token payment, for a discount off their next purchase while

their attorneys pocket millions of dollars in fees.

It is not only the plaintiff attorneys who benefit from these coupon settlements, but the defendants benefit as well. For example, the average redemption rate in a settlement involving food and beverage coupons have been between 2 and 6 percent. As a result, the purpose of these coupon settlements has changed. They no longer serve class members but defendant and plaintiff attorneys instead.

The original class action bill brought to the Senate last year in October only provided for greater judicial scrutiny of such coupon settlements. Senators on the Judiciary Committee who opposed the bill rightly argued that ``reforms with real teeth were needed to end worthless coupon settlements in class action cases.''

We agreed with their view. The compromise does a much improved job of reining in these coupon settlements by pegging the lawyers' fees to the value of the coupons actually redeemed by class members or on the reasonable value of the legal work actually performed by the counsel in the litigation. As a result, there will be a strong incentive to resist easy settlements and fight for an outcome that is truly fair and equitable to the plaintiffs.

Another important consumer protection enshrined in the compromise bill concerns the payment of so-called bounties. The earlier legislation included a provision that prohibited settlements that allow one member of a plaintiff class from receiving a higher settlement award than other members of that class.

On its face, such a provision might seem innocuous. After all, it appears to confirm the notion that all plaintiffs should be treated equally and fairly. However, the bounties provision in the original bill would have unintentionally created a significant problem. While it makes sense for all plaintiffs' class members to be treated equally in many cases, in some other instances it is more appropriate for some class members, particularly class representatives, to receive larger awards than others in the same class. For example, in a class action designed to prevent the wrongful discharge of employees, it would be appropriate for those who have already been fired, for instance, to receive larger settlements than those who are merely threatened with being fired.

Furthermore, in many cases, the named plaintiffs--the people whose names appear on the papers filed with the court--are subjected to harassment, angry phone calls, hate mail, even death threats. Anybody who has seen Julia Roberts' movie ``Erin Brockovich'' or the earlier Meryl Streep movie about the life and death of Karen Silkwood will recall that being a named plaintiff in a lawsuit against a company that employs many people can be a very unpopular thing to do. It often takes courage to stand up for what one believes is right, and unfortunately those who have the courage to do the right thing are sometimes attacked, ridiculed, and ostracized.

If the bounty provision in the earlier bill were to have remained in the compromise, it would have simply stripped away any incentive for individuals to come forward and protect the rights of the class. Under current Federal law, a class representative in a successful class action can be rewarded for taking the initiative to fight unlawful discrimination. Most class members choose to sit on the sidelines and reap the benefits of the case when it is finished. Class representatives, on the other hand, take an active role in their cases, and they do so not only for themselves but to obtain justice for others in similar situations. Under the earlier bill, the courts would not have been able to recognize the special efforts or contributions made by class representatives.

We have listened to the civil rights community which was strongly opposed to the bounties provision in the original bill. The compromise deletes this provision, which will ensure that the courtroom doors remain open for those plaintiffs willing to serve as class representatives.

The compromise bill also responds to the concerns of the Federal Judicial Conference and others about the class settlement notice provisions in the earlier measure. The provision in the original legislation was intended to provide clear and simpler notices to class members regarding proposed class settlements. However, we heard from the Federal Judicial Conference that the notice requirements, while well intentioned, would have actually been too burdensome and too complicated to implement.

According to the Judicial Conference Rules Committee, these notice requirements would have ``undermined the bill's stated objectives by requiring notices so elaborate that most class members [would] not even attempt to read them.'' In addition, they would have conflicted with the December 1, 2003 amendments to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are similarly intended to guide the form and content of settlement and certification notices provided to class members. The compromise, therefore, deletes the confusing notice provisions in the earlier bill and simply enacts the recommendations of the Judicial Conference. Yet another compromise in this legislation.

At the very heart of the compromise are provisions concerning when interstate class actions can be removed to Federal court. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, out-of-State litigants are protected against the possibility of prejudice of local courts by allowing for Federal diversity jurisdiction when the plaintiffs and the defendants are from different States.

Title 28, section 1332(a) of the United States Code specifies the current requirements that must be met for an out-of-State litigant to claim Federal diversity jurisdiction and have his or her case heard by a Federal court. First, every member of the class must be seeking damages in excess of $75,000, including interest and costs. Second, there must be complete diversity; that is, every named member of the class must be a citizen of a different State than every defendant in the same litigation.

Walter Dellinger, the former Solicitor General during the Clinton administration, noted that when Congress first drafted the diversity jurisdiction statute, the class action system as we know it today did not exist at all. In the years since its enactment, however, the law has been interpreted to exclude most nationwide class actions from Federal court.

For example, Dellinger remarks that the requirement for complete diversity can easily be avoided by the simple expedient of including at least one named plaintiff and defendant that share a common State citizenship.

With regard to the amount in controversy requirement, Mr. Dellinger contends that a class action can easily be configured to ensure that at least one class member does not satisfy the minimum amount, or by seeking $74,999 in recovery on behalf of each and every plaintiff and class member.

As a result, attorneys bringing class actions can manage to avoid Federal court all together, and have the case tried in a State court, often in the county of their choosing, even though the total amount at stake might exceed hundreds of millions of dollars and have true multi- State national implications. This practice is commonly known as ``forum-shopping.'' While it is in concept a long-standing part of our law, it has become a growing problem in the United States.

Under S. 2062, the bill now before us, the current rules for diversity jurisdiction are carefully adjusted so that certain large multiparty cases, namely, those that are truly nationwide in scope, affecting many or even all States at once, will be litigated in the Federal courts rather than in the courts of just one State or county. In other words, the compromise would bring the class action process closer to the Framers' intent by allowing cases that are multi-State or national in scope, where the risk of local biases are the greatest, to be heard in Federal court and not in State court.

Specifically, the Federal district court will have original jurisdiction over any class action with more than 100 members if the following two requirements are met. First, the aggregate claims must exceed $5 million, rather than each and every class member must exceed $75,000 in alleged damages. Second, rather than requiring every member of a class be a citizen of a different State than every defendant, S. 2062 allows for Federal jurisdiction if any class member is a citizen from a

different State from any defendant. Again, the purpose of these changes is to ensure that more substantial multi-State class actions are heard in Federal court.

Could I finish? I only have a limited amount of time, and I apologize, and I will get through this statement.

These moderate changes to the Federal diversity statute were included in the original legislation that came before the Senate last October. Under the compromise, however, we further refine these provisions to address two important concerns that were not fully taken into account in the earlier bill. I want to especially commend Senator Feinstein of California for her leadership in helping to clarify these issues, both during the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of the earlier measure and in the discussions that led to this compromise.

First, the compromise responds to concerns that the original bill did not adequately address the handful of small, rural State courts that have increasingly become a magnet for more and more nationwide class actions. Such ``magnet jurisdictions'' have tended to have lax class certification requirements, and have been less than rigorous in reviewing proposed settlements. In fact, one of the most flagrant abuses of the current class action system occurs when lawyers ``forum shop'' that is, invent an injured class and then file a national class action in a ``magnet jurisdiction'' where the judges are more likely to lend a sympathetic ear.

Perhaps the most famous of these so-called ``magnet jurisdictions'' is Madison County, IL. According to a 2001 study in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the per capita rate of class action filings was almost twice that of the second-ranking jurisdiction in the United States. In recent years, the study found that class action filings in Madison County increased by 1,850 percent during the period between 1998 and 2001.

Although the population of Madison County is only 250,000, it ranks third nationwide in the number of class actions filed each year, behind only Los Angeles County, CA and Cook County, IL.

I am limited on time, I say to my colleague. When I get through this, I will be glad to respond.

I will come back to the Senator.

Even more astounding is the data reported in the January 11, 2004 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which discovered that in anticipation of Congress reforming class action procedures, the number of class actions filed in Madison County Circuit Court rose to an all-time high.

Yet it is not only the sheer numbers of filings in Madison County that is so astonishing. What is so surprising is that many of these class actions have little connection to the county. In fact, sometimes only a few class members actually came from that particular jurisdiction. Even the Illinois Supreme Court has noted the congested dockets in this court and declared ``the congestion is aggravated by the presence of [nonresident] cases that have little or no connection to Madison County.''

For example, a recent case that found its way to Madison County involved a purported class action on behalf of 30 million customers who claimed to be injured by Sears in connection with an allegedly deceptive tire balancing service. Only one plaintiff, a Madison County resident, was named, and only one Sears automotive repair shop was actually located in Madison County. The class action, however, sought to certify a nationwide class, allegedly subject to the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, despite the fact that the vast majority of class members and the vast majority of Sears locations have no connection to Illinois at all, much less to Madison County.

Madison County has especially been a magnet for asbestos cases. In fact, Madison County led the Nation 2 years ago in the number of mesothelioma cases filed. In most of these cases, however, the plaintiffs did not live in Madison County, were not exposed to asbestos in Madison County, and were not treated for any asbestos-related illnesses in Madison County.

For example, in a recently decided case, an Indiana resident claimed that he was exposed to asbestos at the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, IN. He sued U.S. Steel, which is based in Pennsylvania, in Madison County. Despite the total lack of connection to the local forum, the case proceeded to trial and a Madison County jury awarded him $50 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages.

Clearly, such practices need to be curtailed in any meaningful reform of the class action system.

Again, I emphasize I am a strong supporter of class action. Class action litigation is critically important, but when these things get out of control, then we have to get them back on track again.

There are many more examples of national class actions implicating hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars being decided by Madison County judges because of its reputation as a magnet court. That means that the laws of Madison County, Illinois on everything from insurance policy to consumer fraud to environmental protection are being imposed on the residents of the other 49 states, despite the fact that many of those States have adopted different legal views.

The compromise bill specifically addresses this serious problem. It includes language not in the earlier bill to clarify when a Federal court can exercise its jurisdiction if between one-third and two-thirds of the proposed class members and all primary defendants are citizens of the same State.

Specifically, the compromise authorizes Federal courts to consider any ``distinct nexus'' or connection between the forum where the action was brought and the class members, the alleged harm, or the defendants. The purpose of this provision is to require Federal judges to consider whether the interstate class action has any relationship to the jurisdiction where it is brought. If there were no such connections, as in the case of many of the class actions filed in Madison County, the Federal judge would then have the discretion of moving the case to Federal court. Such a provision would therefore rein in the blatant forum shopping that is so prevalent in Madison County and other magnet jurisdictions today.

The other improvement to the Federal diversity statute that the compromise bill makes concerns the so-called ``local class action exception.'' The purpose of this exception is to ensure that State courts can adjudicate class actions that are truly local in nature, and they should have that right.

Under the original bill, Federal jurisdiction would not have been extended to those cases in which two-thirds or more of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants were citizens of the State in which the suit was filed. Such cases would have remained in State court, since virtually all of the parties in such cases would have been local, and local interests therefore presumably would have predominated.

There were concerns raised in the earlier bill, however, that class actions with a truly local focus may be moved to Federal court because of the presence of an out-of-State defendant necessary to prosecuting the action.

The compromise responds to these concerns by further refining the criteria as to when a class action is to remain in State court. First, under our proposal, there must be a primarily local class--that is, more than two-thirds of the class members should be citizens of the forum State. Second, there must be at least one real local defendant. Third, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or related conduct of all of the defendants must have occurred in the forum State. Finally, there must be no other class actions having been filed in the previous 3 years based on the same or similar allegations against any of the defendants. Again, these provisions respect State sovereignty by ensuring that class actions of a truly local nature are kept at the State level, while complex class actions with nationwide implications are heard in Federal courts.

I want to briefly respond to some of the concerns raised about the jurisdictional provisions in the bill. Critics of

this legislation have claimed that the measure would sweep most if not all State class actions into Federal court, where overburdened and unsympathetic judges would let them wither and die.

I believe that such concerns are largely misplaced. First, as I noted earlier, we included provisions in the compromise to ensure that State prerogatives are respected. These provisions--namely, the ``local class action exception'' and the ``distinct nexus'' language--are intended to keep truly local cases in State court.

In fact, the compromise leaves in State court a wide range of class actions, such as those in which all the plaintiffs and defendants are residents of the same State; those with fewer than 100 plaintiffs; those involving less than $5 million; those in which a State government entity is the primary defendant; those brought against a company in its home State in which two-thirds or more of the class members are also residents of that State; and shareholder class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty.

What the compromise does target for Federal jurisdiction, however, are those nationwide or multistate class actions that are filed in magnet courts such as Madison County, IL. While I respect the views of those who assert that State courts are appropriate forums for such cases, I must respectfully disagree. In my view, such large, multistate or nationwide class actions are precisely the kinds of cases that are most appropriately tried in Federal court. I believe that the provisions we included in the compromise are quite discriminating about which class actions will be removed to Federal court and which will remain in State court.

Second, critics of the legislation have argued that Federal courts are so overburdened that they do not have the resources to handle class actions formerly assigned to State court judges. Again, these concerns are unfounded. The real workload issues are not in the Federal courts but in the State courts, where the average State court judge is assigned three times as many cases as his or her Federal counterparts. According to the Court Statistics Project, State court judges are assigned over 1,500 new cases each year. In contrast, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts finds that each Federal court judge was assigned an average of 518 new cases during the 12-month period ending September 30, 2002.

Third, I also want to be perfectly clear on one further matter. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that would alter any individual's right to seek redress for his or her injury. It does not grant defendants any new defense. Consumers can bring the same exact claims as they are bringing now. Civil rights, environmental, and employment claims are in no way precluded. The only issue that this bill would address is whether it is more appropriate for a State or Federal court to adjudicate those same rights, and I believe that we have struck the appropriate balance in making this determination.

I want to now return to the other provisions in the compromise that represent significant improvements over the earlier legislation.

We have clarified the date when the plaintiff class could be measured. The compromise makes clear that citizenship of the proposed class members is to be determined on the date plaintiffs filed the original complaint. If there is no Federal jurisdiction over the first complaint, however, citizenship is to be determined when plaintiffs serve an amended complaint or other paper indicating the existence of Federal jurisdiction.

The original bill had been silent on when class composition could be measured, which caused some concern that a court would have to constantly reconsider jurisdiction as the contours of the class changed. I believe that the compromise has adequately addressed this matter, and has provided much needed clarity to determining class composition.

Another provision in the earlier bill that caused great difficulty would have required Federal courts to dismiss class actions if the court determined that the case did not meet Rule 23 requirements. The bill provided that the class action complaint may be amended and refiled in State court, but that the new complaint would be subject to removal again if it met Federal jurisdictional requirements. Thus, even if a State court subsequently certifies the class, it could be removed again and again, creating a judicial merry-go-round between Federal and State court.

The compromise stops the merry-go-round altogether. It eliminates the dismissal requirement, giving Federal courts discretion to handle Rule 23-ineligible cases appropriately. Potentially meritorious suits will therefore not be automatically dismissed simply because they fail to comply with the class certification requirements of Rule 23.

The original bill would have also allowed the removal of a case at any time to Federal court even if all other class members wanted the case to remain in State court. In June 2003, 106 professors of constitutional law and civil procedure wrote to Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle expressing their concerns over this provision. They argued that:

[It] 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 can be hidden, to remove a case on the eve of a

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

or even years before the case can be tried in Federal courts.

We listened to the concerns of the law professors and deleted the provision in the original bill allowing plaintiffs to remove class actions. We also retain current law permitting individual plaintiffs from opting out of class actions. The compromise would therefore make a real difference in curbing abuse of the removal process by various counsel.

Two further improvements in the compromise are also worth mentioning.

First, we responded to concerns that the ``mass actions'' provisions in the original legislation were too broad. The earlier bill would have treated all mass actions involving over 100 claimants as if they were class actions.

Under the compromise, only more substantial claims in a mass action-- namely, those that would meet the normal jurisdictional amount requirement of $75,000 for individual actions--will be subject to Federal jurisdiction.

In addition, we change the ``single sudden accident'' exception to exclude from Federal jurisdiction mass actions in which all claims arise from an ``event or occurrence'' that happened in the State where the action was filed and that allegedly resulted in injuries in that State or in a contiguous State. The purpose of this change is to allow a much broader range of truly local cases to remain in State courts.

The compromise also clarifies that there is no Federal jurisdiction under the mass action provision for claims that have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

Second, the original bill would have allowed defendants to seek unlimited appellate review of Federal court orders remanding cases to State courts. If a defendant requested an appeal, the Federal courts would have been required to hear the appeal and the appeals would have taken months or even years to complete.

The compromise would obviate the potential for workload problems and long delays in two important ways. First, it would give the appellate courts the discretion to conduct reviews at their discretion. Presumably, Federal courts would refuse to hear an appeal unless it presented novel issues or where a district court has clearly abused its discretion. Second, it requires such appeals to be heard on an expedited basis by establishing tight deadlines for completion of any appeals so that no case can be delayed more than 77 days, unless all parties agree to a longer extension.

Finally, the compromise is in no way retroactive--that is, it will not upset or alter in any way cases filed before enactment, should in fact the bill be signed into law. Unlike other litigation reform bills considered by this Congress on guns, medical malpractice, and MTBE, the compromise does not shut the courtroom door on anyone. Instead, it will just direct them to a Federal rather than a State courthouse.

These changes I have discussed represent a fair and a balanced compromise. They constitute a significant improvement over the earlier class action reform legislation brought before the Senate last October.

I want to reemphasize my long-held view that a strong class action system can ultimately serve as a force for good. It can be used to hold companies accountable for significant violations that may result in a small monetary charge for one victim. It can also be harnessed to allow large groups to seek redress for civil rights and other harms where they could not have done so individually. In short, the class action system is the great equalizer in the American judicial system.

Yet nobody can deny that the class action system is being seriously abused. As The Washington Post editorialized last year:

No area of the United States civil justice system cries out

more urgently for reform than the high stakes extortion

racket of class actions.

In addition, an excellent Newsweek article published last December entitled ``Lawsuit Hell: How Fear of Litigation is Paralyzing our Professions'' noted that such lawsuits are:

. . . changing and complicating the lives of millions of

American professionals in ways that confound common sense and

cast a shadow over a system that can, at its best, offer

people relief and redress from legitimate grievances.

Even former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger commented that such evidence of class action abuses in State and county courthouses:

. . . gives me great concern that the rights of truly injured

individual plaintiffs, as well as the rights of corporate

defendants, have fallen victim to manipulation, and even

evasion, of settled rules--rules that, no less than financial

disclosure laws, are intended to ensure openness and

accountability, as well as fundamental fairness, in the

judicial resolution of major disputes with national

consequences.

Ultimately, the real losers of a broken class action system are not businesses or consumers. Rather, it is the American public's overall confidence in the legal system that will suffer unless a sensible class action reform package, such as that contained in the compromise, is enacted into law.

Bipartisan legislation addressing the class action system's most egregious abuses is long overdue. This carefully balanced compromise that is now before the Senate will make a real difference in reducing the abuse and manipulation of the class action system. It would restore class actions to their original noble purpose as a force for positive change in society, and I urge my colleagues not to let this golden opportunity be squandered.

I know time is getting short. My colleague from Illinois was here, and he would like to be heard on this matter.

Let me return to where I started. I spent a lot of time on this measure. I think we have written a very good bill. I would not claim that this bill is perfect. There are some colleagues who fundamentally disagree with me on this issue, and I respect their views.

What I cannot tolerate, however, is the procedure under which this bill is going to be considered. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle with whom I worked very closely, if you constrain this institution's ability to offer either nongermane or germane amendments to this bill, then this Senator will not be able to support the motion to invoke cloture.

We failed to invoke cloture by only one vote last October. Although I care about this bill very much, I care far more about the Senate and how we do our business. It is going to disappoint me terribly to have to vote against cloture. But if you constrain the ability of Members of this body to offer specific amendments, then this Senator is going to have to wait for another day to fully consider this measure.

There are many people across this country who believe we put together a good compromise, but I am not going to vote for a compromise that doesn't allow the Senate to work its will on this important matter.

I realize my time has expired.

I am.

Madam President, before he leaves the Senate floor, I commend my colleague from Ohio for his excellent statement.

I agree with him that this is an important piece of legislation. I have spent a good part of a year, along with

my good friend and colleague from Delaware, and others--the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer--working to try to put together a responsible bill on class action reform. We have done that with this proposal.

I regret the fact that nearly eight months after we forged a compromise on class action reform, we have just begun to deal with this issue. I had hoped the legislation would have come up earlier in the year when there would have been more time available to consider it.

I was pointing out to my colleagues earlier, as someone who managed and wrote the securities litigation reform bill, that we spent almost 3 weeks on the floor of the Senate debating that bill. At the time, Bob Dole was the majority leader of the Senate. We had countless amendments that were offered, both relevant and nonrelevant amendments. Never once was cloture invoked. Never once did someone fill up the amendment tree so as to limit who could offer what amendments. You didn't have to get permission, in effect, to offer your amendment. It was a contentious debate from time to time, but ultimately the will of the Senate prevailed. The legislation was adopted.

But I also point out, interestingly, the securities litigation reform was the only bill that President Clinton vetoed that was ultimately overridden by both the House and the Senate. It became the law of land.

It was a lengthy process, but it was a good process. I think the debate was healthy. It was complicated, but nonetheless I believe the legislation ultimately proved to be worthwhile.

I cite that example because here we are now in a situation where before any amendments were offered--and we went on this bill almost 24 hours ago--we were told last night by the majority there would be no votes last evening. We have been in session since about 9 o'clock this morning. There have been no amendments offered one way or the other because we have an amendment tree that is filled up, and you must get permission to bring up an amendment.

Madam President, this is the U.S. Senate. I have served here for a quarter of a century and I have rarely seen this kind of procedural tactic being used on a bill that enjoys a strong majority of support. I believe we have at least some 62 supporters of this bill. The idea that we are not going to allow amendments to be brought up unless approved by the majority runs counter to everything this institution stands for.

Now I know that some of these nongermane amendments are uncomfortable. There are people who are against them, although in several instances they have strong bipartisan support. For example, the legislation dealing with immigration reform has been offered by Senator Craig of Idaho and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. Also the reimportation issue on drugs. I will be the first to admit it, but I think an overwhelming majority of our colleagues are either cosponsoring or supporting that legislation. Even in the other areas, we have had a limited amount of time to bring up some of these issues.

But I believe we can get time agreements on some of these amendments if we stay in today, if we stay in tomorrow, if we stay in Friday, if we work longer hours, and if we come back on Monday or Tuesday. I believe we could adopt this important legislation, and we would either accept or reject a number of these other nongermane amendments. But to go through now the second day with nothing being done on a bill that many would argue is one of the most important pieces of legislation from the business community perspective is inexcusable. I want the business community to know what is happening here because I am sure the allegations are going to be made that somehow the minority is trying to stop this legislation. That is anything but the case.

We probably could have dealt with five, six, or seven amendments on the floor of the Senate today. I am told there are only 13 filed amendments on this bill. In effect, we probably could have almost concluded action on this legislation instead of stonewalling to make sure some amendments are not going to be debated and heard. We stop everything from happening so a good piece of legislation that a lot of people have worked long and hard on to get right may be denied an opportunity to be heard. That is wrong, Madam President.

Now, again, I know voting on nongermane amendments is not something we are terribly excited about here. It is the U.S. Senate though. In the U.S. Senate, we allow nongermane amendments--absent a unanimous consent agreement or filing cloture--to be considered by this body. So even before a single amendment is debated here, the majority is now invoking rules and procedures that limit the ability of this institution to be heard. I regret that deeply.

I was fearful this would happen. I am sort of mystified as to why it is happening. The majority, at least among their members, are more supportive of the class action reform bill.

There are a number of Members on this side who are supporting this legislation, but the bulk of the support comes from the majority side. I am mystified as to why the majority would not be pushing us to bring up our amendments, agree to time limits, and then vote on the amendments one way or the other and move the bill forward. But that is not the case.

So we find ourselves now at the close of business on this day. We voted on one judge yesterday, and that is it. Now we are about to go into Thursday. We will be leaving, I presume, sometime around noon on Friday and probably won't come back until next Tuesday. We have about 30 legislative days left around here to consider all matters before the elections of the fall. If my colleagues sense some frustration in this Senator's voice, it is because I am frustrated.

I regret having spent as much time on the bill only to find out in the end we can't even get amendments to be brought up to debate. Instead, we have to agree ahead of time what amendments are going to be brought up. Those rules exist in the House of Representatives. The rules of the Senate are very different. This body is the antithesis of the House of Representatives, and for good reason. That has been the way this institution has functioned for two centuries.

On important legislation such as this, to invoke House rules to apply in the Senate is unfortunate. As important as this bill is, how this institution functions, in my view, is far more important. Senators have the right to be heard. Because one day, not too distant in the future, the very Senator who today is trying to stop a debate may be the one seeking one. And so be careful what you wish for when you set precedents or establish procedures that may be repeated at times when you may find yourself on the other side of the political equation.

For all of those reasons, I am frustrated that this important bill many of us have spent a lot of time on may be close to death. We may not be able to enact it. That is unfortunate that we are getting to that point with this bill, despite all the efforts that have been made, where we may not get a chance to even debate it, much less act on it.

I hope the leadership will listen to those who want to bring up some amendments, and see if we can't work out some time agreements and move forward. If that is not the case, the idea that somehow the Senate as an institution would have to take a back seat to some procedural hurdles the majority would want to impose on the minority is not worth giving up. As important as this bill is, how the Senate operates is more important to this Senator. I will be most reluctant, but nonetheless I want my colleagues to know if it comes down to making a decision about supporting a bill I have helped write or abandoning procedures in the Senate, I will protect this institution over this bill, as much as I would like to see this bill enacted.

I am not going to sit here and support a set of procedures which deny my colleagues an opportunity to be heard. I wouldn't support an unlimited right that goes on for days with endless amendments. I know when I am being gamed. I know when I am being taken advantage of. That is not the case at this point at all, not even close to being the case.

My hope is wiser heads will prevail, that voices who care about this legislation would be heard, and that we could move to consideration of this legislation in the normal course of business,

on how we normally function when matters such as this emerge, where there is a division of thought and there are differences of opinion.

There are those who feel strongly about not adopting this legislation. I understand that. But there are also those in the majority who would like to see it adopted. To suggest somehow we are going to prohibit those who would disagree with the bill an opportunity to be heard on other matters on this legislation is a wrong set of procedures to be followed.

Despite the fact my name is on this bill and I am proud of the fact it is--I think it is a good bill and we did a good job writing this compromise--and as much as I would like to see S. 2062 become the law of the land, I am not about to turn my back on an institution that allows Members to be heard and their ideas to be debated. As important as this bill is, it is not as important as maintaining the integrity of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation with my colleague, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-UT.

This legislation will provide the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands the opportunity to put a design of their choice on the reverse side of a quarter coin. These jurisdictions were inadvertently excluded from the 50 States Quarter Commemorative Coin Program Act, Public Law 105-124, that gave each State the same right in 1997.

As part of the 50 State Quarter Program, over twenty-two billion quarter coins representing 27 states have been minted. All the coins are minted according to the year each State ratified the Constitution of the United States or were admitted into the Union. Although States have appropriate latitude, there are limitations as to what can be used as a design.

According to Public Law 105-124, the Secretary of the Treasury has the final approval of each design. The law gives clear guidance as to what is an acceptable design concept. Suitable design concepts include State landmarks, landscapes, historically significant buildings, symbols of State resources or industries, official State flora and fauna, State icons, and outlines of States. Among the examples of suitable coins already in circulation year New York's Statue of Liberty, Missouri's depiction of Lewis and Clark as they paddled down the Missouri River with the Gateway Arch in the background, and North Carolina's first successful airplane flight.

The District of Columbia has been the unfortunate target of acts of terror, yet citizens of the District have no one who can cast a vote in Congress on policies to protect their security. Citizens of Washington, D.C., pay income taxes just like every other American. In fact on a per capita basis, District residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have absolutely no say in how high those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be spent.

This legislation is a reminder of the importance of including all Americans in the symbols of American citizenship. The residents of the District are American citizens, despite their lack of voting representation in the Congress.

I believe that the least that we can do is allow the residents of the District of Columbia, as citizens of the United States, to commemorate the symbols of their own jurisdiction.

The 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act of 1997 states that ``Congress finds that it is appropriate and timely to honor the unique Federal Republic of 50 States that comprise the United States; and to promote the diffusion of knowledge among the youth

of the United States about the individual states, their history and geography, and the rich diversity of the national heritage'' and to encourage ``young people and their families to collect memorable tokens of all of the States for the face value of the coins.''

I believe that it is of significant importance to America's youth to better understand and honor the rich, vibrant history of our nation's capital and territories, as well as that of our states. I urge my colleagues to support this meaningful legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation with my colleague, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-UT.

This legislation will provide the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands the opportunity to put a design of their choice on the reverse side of a quarter coin. These jurisdictions were inadvertently excluded from the 50 States Quarter Commemorative Coin Program Act, Public Law 105-124, that gave each State the same right in 1997.

As part of the 50 State Quarter Program, over twenty-two billion quarter coins representing 27 states have been minted. All the coins are minted according to the year each State ratified the Constitution of the United States or were admitted into the Union. Although States have appropriate latitude, there are limitations as to what can be used as a design.

According to Public Law 105-124, the Secretary of the Treasury has the final approval of each design. The law gives clear guidance as to what is an acceptable design concept. Suitable design concepts include State landmarks, landscapes, historically significant buildings, symbols of State resources or industries, official State flora and fauna, State icons, and outlines of States. Among the examples of suitable coins already in circulation year New York's Statue of Liberty, Missouri's depiction of Lewis and Clark as they paddled down the Missouri River with the Gateway Arch in the background, and North Carolina's first successful airplane flight.

The District of Columbia has been the unfortunate target of acts of terror, yet citizens of the District have no one who can cast a vote in Congress on policies to protect their security. Citizens of Washington, D.C., pay income taxes just like every other American. In fact on a per capita basis, District residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have absolutely no say in how high those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be spent.

This legislation is a reminder of the importance of including all Americans in the symbols of American citizenship. The residents of the District are American citizens, despite their lack of voting representation in the Congress.

I believe that the least that we can do is allow the residents of the District of Columbia, as citizens of the United States, to commemorate the symbols of their own jurisdiction.

The 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act of 1997 states that ``Congress finds that it is appropriate and timely to honor the unique Federal Republic of 50 States that comprise the United States; and to promote the diffusion of knowledge among the youth

of the United States about the individual states, their history and geography, and the rich diversity of the national heritage'' and to encourage ``young people and their families to collect memorable tokens of all of the States for the face value of the coins.''

I believe that it is of significant importance to America's youth to better understand and honor the rich, vibrant history of our nation's capital and territories, as well as that of our states. I urge my colleagues to support this meaningful legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the lamentable situation in Haiti. After suffering political upheaval and widespread violence over the last few months, the Haitian people are now facing even more desperate circumstances.

During the last 2 weeks of May, floods devastated major sections of Haiti and parts of the Dominican Republic. The death toll in Haiti has reached nearly 2,600 people not including the missing and medical personnel expect that number to climb higher as the waters recede and reclamation efforts become possible.

In the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe, aid workers, Haitian officials, and foreign troops--including U.S. soldiers scrambled to prevent the crisis from worsening. They have been delivering emergency supplies of food and water, building temporary housing, and working to prevent the spread of disease.

I am concerned, however, by reports that the efforts are sorely under-funded

and risk being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the disaster. Doctors are struggling to combat outbreaks of malaria and dengue, and the New York Times reports that aid workers were using mules for transportation, since the U.S. military is no longer airlifting aid to isolated communities. The U.S. Agency for International Development has pledged $50,000 in emergency aid, but we ought to do much more.

I wish I could say that the devastation was solely an act of nature, but it was not. Had these same rains fallen over Florida, the damage would have been much less severe and the death toll would be in the single digits instead of the thousands.

As my esteemed colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, described in his statement on June 1st, Haiti's economic underdevelopment exacerbated the effects of the flooding. Widespread deforestation of hillsides meant that, when the rains came, there was nothing to hold the soil in place. The subsequent landslides devastated many of the villages. And without roads and emergency services, there was no way to evacuate the Haitians who were caught in the path of the floods.

Yet the devastation is not over. For the tens of thousands of Haitians who were left homeless, whose crops were destroyed, and whose communities were razed by the floodwaters, the next few months will be a struggle between life and death.

It pains me to say that the floods are only the most recent setback for a country already struggling to overcome economic and social crises. Haiti, by most measures, is the poorest country in the hemisphere with nearly 80 percent of its population living in abject poverty. The life expectancy has fallen to 52 years and more than 6 percent of Haitians are infected with the HIV virus.

In recent years Haiti has become a major trans-shipment point for cocaine trafficking. The State Department, in its annual Narcotics Control Strategy Report, describes Haiti as, ``a key conduit for drug traffickers transporting cocaine from South America to the United States.'' Sadly, more than half of all Haitians are unable to participate in the formal economy, and, as a consequence, many of these people turn to the illegal drug trade as a source of income.

This influx of drug money into Haiti has further eroded the rule-of- law. Corruption now seems endemic in even the highest levels of government and private enterprise.

Not all the news from Haiti is bad, however. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister [Gerard] Latortue while he was visiting Washington. I was impressed by his vision for Haiti, and encouraged by the efforts he has made since his appointment to stabilize the country. During our meeting, Prime Minister Latortue emphasized the need for major improvements in infrastructure, particularly in the power sector. He also stressed to me the urgent need for capacity-building amongst government institutions which cannot carry out their responsibilities without the trained personnel and resources to do so.

Unfortunately the Bush Administration has been extremely slow to respond to Prime Minister Latortue's requests for aid. President Aristide was deposed in late February, but it wasn't until late May-- nearly 3 months later--that the Administration finally cobbled together a $160 million aid package for Haiti--$60 million of which was already in the pipeline before the February departure of President Aristide. I'm afraid that the amount they have allotted, about $20 per Haitian, is too little, too late.

This lukewarm response only continues a trend in the Bush administration's policy toward Haiti. Since 2000, the U.S. Government has taken a shameful, hands-off approach to Haiti, turning its back on a growing crisis. After the Bush administration facilitated President Aristide's removal, citing his incompetence as the justification for supporting the involuntary departure of an elected president, one would have hoped that there was some sense of obligation on the part of the administration to do right by the Haitian people. Sadly, that sense of obligation is minimal at best, even in the face of the natural disaster that has recently befallen the Haitian people.

So what should the U.S. response be to the political, economic, and social crises in Haiti? Should we continue the hands-off approach of the Bush administration? Or, should we offer Haiti a hand up? I believe that we have a special obligation to help Haiti, and I'm offering three proposals for how we can do that.

First, we should halt the removal of the 1,900 U.S. troops currently stationed in Haiti. Prime Minister Latortue has asked that we extend the U.S. military presence, fearing that U.S. troops are the only ones capable of dissuading further violence. The original decision to depart upon the arrival of the Brazilian-led UN Peacekeeping force was made before last month's flooding--and before the destabilizing effects of the current humanitarian crisis.

Let me take a moment here to talk about the security situation. Many have speculated about the re-establishment of the Haitian Army. Because this is ultimately a question for the Haitian people to answer-- especially in light of the Haitian Army's history of abuses--I believe that the decision should be left for the next elected government to address. Given the scarcity of resources and the absence of a specific national security mission, I for one believe that reestablishing the army is a luxury that Haiti can ill afford. In any event, the current caretaker government should concern itself with establishing domestic stability and security, preparing for elections, and, most critical of all, working to end the current humanitarian crisis.

The Bush administration can help the LaTortue government move forward with its stated agenda by working with the international community and the Haitian National Police to establish the rule of law. Clearly reestablishing security requires that we step up efforts to disarm all the various illegal armed groups. So far less than 200 arms have been rounded up. And the focus seems to be solely on Aristide supporters, not the armed thugs who have perpetrated a reign of terror throughout the countryside for the last nine months.

Next, in accordance with the resolution agreed upon by the Organization of American States, we must undertake to foster full restoration of democracy in Haiti. Our first obligation is to get to the bottom of allegations that the United States participated in the ouster of President Aristide. The OAS has just begun an investigation into the matter, and we should cooperate fully to dispel any myths or redress any errors.

My last proposal is for a $1 billion emergency aid package for Haiti over the next 4 years. If we are willing to devote hundreds of billions of dollars for the endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq--half a world away--doesn't it make sense for us to devote a fraction of that amount to assist one of our nearest and most impoverished neighbors? Announcing a multiyear aid package, we demonstrate our commitment to the Haitian people and also serve as an example for others in the international community to offer up multiyear assistance packages as well. As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in March, getting it right in Haiti this time, ``means keeping international attention and resources engaged for the long haul.''

It is long past time for the United States to address the mounting crisis in Haiti. It is time for us to offer the Haitian people a hand up. Toward that end, I believe that this body should give serious consideration to making a down payment on the $1 billion aid proposal for Haiti in the FY 2005 Appropriations process when the Senate deals with this legislation. Only through concrete and meaningful U.S. assistance on a scale commensurate with Haiti's needs can we ever hope to reverse the misery, suffering, and hopelessness that have become commonplace in the lives of close neighbors--8 million of them.