Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me be very clear about this. I feel passionately about competition and concentration-based issues.

Last Congress I introduced the Packer Ban, the Transparency Act, which requires packers to purchase pigs and cattle for slaughter from the cash market daily, the 20-10 bill, which limits any packer which owns more than 20 million head of pigs to slaughtering less than 10 million vertically integrated pigs, and a bill to eliminate mandatory arbitration clauses from production contracts, similar to legislation we passed for car dealers.

I feel strongly that we need to empower producers through legislation based on leveling the playing field, but this resolution is not how we should accomplish that goal.

By supporting this resolution we are taking a protectionist position instead of encouraging free trade. We might delay the importation of 900,000 feeders, but ultimately we are potentially putting our entire export market at risk, including the Japanese market.

In the world we lead by example, and if our example is tied to the precautionary nature of this resolution, expect the world to potentially follow suit.

The decision by USDA to re-open the border has been construed as a ``rush to judgment''. That could not be further from the truth.

The truth of the matter is that we have an obligation to look at the science of the issue and if the science dictates, we should re-open the border. That is where we are today. If someone this morning can demonstrate to me that the science USDA has relied on is faulty, I would be the first person to say we should not move forward, but science must dictate our course, not political will.

Mr. President, I oppose the Schumer amendment. This is an issue that just needs more time for us to determine whether there is an abuse that needs to be addressed. We need to ensure that this amendment doesn't have unintended consequences. For instance, it doesn't define the term ``asset protection trust'' and therefore we aren't even sure what we are being asked to vote on. Further, it not only covers asset protection trusts, but also covers ``similar trusts.'' Until we have had time to really understand whether this is a loophole, and if it is, how to close it in a way that doesn't harm innocent third parties.

In addition, this issue is even more complex because it implicates 50 different State laws. We don't know enough at this point about how it works. This would override at least some State laws, like the homestead cap would. I think it is important to look at this issue, have a hearing and consult with senators whose States might be uniquely affected. Be sure, however, that my opposition to this amendment doesn't mean that I will not ultimately find that this issue needs to be addressed at some future date. I think that all the work we have done on this bill, the compromises we have reached should not be disrupted by this last-minute proposal that has not been well thought out.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a soldier who has fallen in service to his country in Iraq. SSG Eric Steffeney of the 18th Ordnance Company died on the 23rd of February near Tuz, Iraq, when an undetected explosive detonated while he cleared the road of landmines. He was 28 years old and is survived by his mother, Annette, his father, Gary, his wife, Theresa, and their three children, Benjamin, Caitlin, and Dennis.

Staff Sergeant Steffeney grew up in Waterloo, IA, where he attended West High School. He graduated from high school early and enlisted in the Army when he was 17 years old. Initially serving as a paratrooper, Staff Sergeant Steffeney eventually joined the Army's bomb squad because he thought it would be more challenging. He was finishing his second tour of duty when he was killed.

Staff Sergeant Steffeney was described as a quiet, loyal, and responsible man who was a good soldier and an all-American boy. Indeed, it is the dedicated and courageous people such as SSG Eric Steffeney who embody the ideals of this great country best and, through the way they lived and gave their lives, keep her people standing proud and strong. I ask all of my colleagues to remember with pride and appreciation this soldier. I give my condolences to the family and friends of Staff Sergeant Steffeney who have felt this loss most deeply. I offer my most sincere gratitude and respect to SSG Eric Steffeney. This country is forever indebted to him and his colleagues for the sacrifices they have made to uphold the ideals which we treasure most as Americans.

staff sergeant william t. robbins

Mr. President, America is a nation of sports fans and sports players. In fact, it is hard to imagine something more influential in today's society than athletics. As children, we grow up emulating our favorite players in the backyard. Year in and year out we watch and hope that this is the year our favorite team makes it to the Super Bowl, the World Series, or the Big Dance. And every 4 years we watch in pride and tally the medals as American athletes compete in the Olympic games.

Every day millions of young people from across the country share the same dream of one day playing in the big leagues. But the reality is that most will never get the chance. In an average year, there are approximately 2 million high school boys playing football, baseball, and basketball. Another 68,000 men are playing the sports in college and 2,500 are participating at the major/professional level. In short, only 1 in 736, or 0.14 percent will ever play professional sports.

With that kind of competition, compounded by the lure of fame, endorsements and multi-million dollar contracts, an increasing number of young athletes are giving in to the seduction of performance enhancing drugs hoping to gain an edge on their peers. And what can you expect when some of the biggest superstars in sports have been found using steroids as a way to improve their performance. But, unlike better athletic gear, better nutrition, and better training, injecting and ingesting performance enhancing drugs as a shortcut to the big leagues jeopardizes the health and safety of young athletes and cheapens the legitimacy of competition.

In an effort to combat the use of performance enhancing drugs at the youth and amateur sports level, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Biden, Senator McCain and Senator Stevens in introducing legislation to authorize continued Federal funding for the United States Anti-Doping Agency, USADA. As the anti-doping agency for the United States Olympic movement since 2000, USADA is responsible for ensuring that U.S. athletes participating in Olympic competition do not use performance enhancing drugs. Through its efforts, USADA is establishing a drug free standard for amateur athletic competition. This is achieved through testing, research, education, and adjudication.

USADA conducts nearly 6,500 random drug tests on athletes annually and has made anti-doping presentations to over 3,000 athletes and coaches last year alone. Over the last 2 years, USADA has worked to prevent U.S. Olympic athletes who have used banned substances from participating in the Olympic Games. But for the efforts of USADA, it is possible that more than a dozen elite U.S. athletes would have participated in the Athens Games last Summer and potentially embarrassed the U.S. once their drug use was exposed. USADA also works to fund research, including more than $3 million in grants for anti- doping research over the past 2 years, which is more than any other anti-doping agency in the world. The research and testing standards serve as models for other amateur athletic associations who wish to protect the health of their athletes and the fair competition of sport.

To date, the Federal Government has provided approximately 60 percent of USADA's operational budget, with the remainder of the agency's budget provided by the U.S. Olympic Committee and private funding sources. With continued support and proper funding, USADA could expand and improve upon the programs for anti-doping that already exist and continue to enhance the credibility of U.S. athletes in the eyes of the international sports community.

While the issue of anabolic steroids has received a great deal of national and international attention in the context of professional sports, the importance of stopping steroid abuse extends far beyond the track, baseball diamond, or football field. Instead our focus should be on the health and future of our children. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation to set the standard for free and fair competition.

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

Mr. President, America is a nation of sports fans and sports players. In fact, it is hard to imagine something more influential in today's society than athletics. As children, we grow up emulating our favorite players in the backyard. Year in and year out we watch and hope that this is the year our favorite team makes it to the Super Bowl, the World Series, or the Big Dance. And every 4 years we watch in pride and tally the medals as American athletes compete in the Olympic games.

Every day millions of young people from across the country share the same dream of one day playing in the big leagues. But the reality is that most will never get the chance. In an average year, there are approximately 2 million high school boys playing football, baseball, and basketball. Another 68,000 men are playing the sports in college and 2,500 are participating at the major/professional level. In short, only 1 in 736, or 0.14 percent will ever play professional sports.

With that kind of competition, compounded by the lure of fame, endorsements and multi-million dollar contracts, an increasing number of young athletes are giving in to the seduction of performance enhancing drugs hoping to gain an edge on their peers. And what can you expect when some of the biggest superstars in sports have been found using steroids as a way to improve their performance. But, unlike better athletic gear, better nutrition, and better training, injecting and ingesting performance enhancing drugs as a shortcut to the big leagues jeopardizes the health and safety of young athletes and cheapens the legitimacy of competition.

In an effort to combat the use of performance enhancing drugs at the youth and amateur sports level, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Biden, Senator McCain and Senator Stevens in introducing legislation to authorize continued Federal funding for the United States Anti-Doping Agency, USADA. As the anti-doping agency for the United States Olympic movement since 2000, USADA is responsible for ensuring that U.S. athletes participating in Olympic competition do not use performance enhancing drugs. Through its efforts, USADA is establishing a drug free standard for amateur athletic competition. This is achieved through testing, research, education, and adjudication.

USADA conducts nearly 6,500 random drug tests on athletes annually and has made anti-doping presentations to over 3,000 athletes and coaches last year alone. Over the last 2 years, USADA has worked to prevent U.S. Olympic athletes who have used banned substances from participating in the Olympic Games. But for the efforts of USADA, it is possible that more than a dozen elite U.S. athletes would have participated in the Athens Games last Summer and potentially embarrassed the U.S. once their drug use was exposed. USADA also works to fund research, including more than $3 million in grants for anti- doping research over the past 2 years, which is more than any other anti-doping agency in the world. The research and testing standards serve as models for other amateur athletic associations who wish to protect the health of their athletes and the fair competition of sport.

To date, the Federal Government has provided approximately 60 percent of USADA's operational budget, with the remainder of the agency's budget provided by the U.S. Olympic Committee and private funding sources. With continued support and proper funding, USADA could expand and improve upon the programs for anti-doping that already exist and continue to enhance the credibility of U.S. athletes in the eyes of the international sports community.

While the issue of anabolic steroids has received a great deal of national and international attention in the context of professional sports, the importance of stopping steroid abuse extends far beyond the track, baseball diamond, or football field. Instead our focus should be on the health and future of our children. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation to set the standard for free and fair competition.

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

Mr. President, I speak today in remembrance of an Iowa soldier who has fallen in service to his country. Specialist Dakotah L. Gooding, a member of the C Troop, 5th Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, died on the 13th of February in Balad, Iraq when his vehicle overturned into a canal. He was 21 years old.

SPC Gooding grew up in Keokuk, IA and eventually moved to the Des Moines area. He attended the Scavo Alternative School and Lincoln High School. In the fall of 2000, at the age of 17, Dakotah fulfilled a life-long dream of joining the U.S. Army, following in the footsteps of many family members. He had served in the United States and Korea before going to Iraq. SPC Gooding came to Iraq as part of an Army Special Security Force that helped with voter protection in the recent historic democratic elections.

A cousin mentioned that SPC Gooding knew he had a mission to protect those around the world and those at home. SPC Gooding's mission was a noble one, and he carried it out with the courage and dignity that are so characteristic of our American soldiers. For his dedication and sacrifice, Dakotah deserves our respect and admiration. For family and friends who have felt this loss most deeply, I offer my sincere sympathy. My prayers go out to his wife, Angela, his mother, Judith, his two sisters, and his many other family and friends.

May we always remember with pride and appreciation Specialist Dakotah L. Gooding and all those Americans who have gone before him in service to their country.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing a bill I proposed in the last Congress to help prepare new teachers to recognize and meet the needs of gifted and talented students. According to the federally funded National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, the large majority of gifted and talented students spend at least 80 percent of their time in a regular education classroom. Of course, gifted students are not gifted only 20 percent of the time. They are gifted all the time. Unfortunately, the lack of teacher preparation means that gifted students are not being challenged during much of the time they spend in the classroom. Their educational needs are not being met.

Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about the needs of gifted children. You might say, ``Why should we worry about these children? They

are the smart ones that the teacher doesn't have to spend so much time on.'' First of all, I'm not talking about your average straight A student who maybe learns the material easily, but much the same way as other students in the classroom. What makes a child gifted and talented is not how well the child does in school, but how he or she learns. A straight A student may or may not be gifted and a gifted student may not always get good grades in school. Gifted and talented children actually have a different way of looking at the world. They tend to have distinct approaches to learning and interacting socially, and they frequently learn at a different pace, and to different depths, than others their age. The bottom line is that gifted and talented children have unique learning needs that need to be met in order for them to achieve to their potential.

To illustrate this point, I would like to remind the Senate of an example I first cited two years ago while speaking on another piece of legislation related to gifted and talented students. It concerns a young elementary school student from Iowa City named Jose. Jose was not putting much effort into his schoolwork and was getting bad grades. He was a good kid but he also had a tendency to act up in class. He got along with his classmates, but didn't have many friends. Jose's teacher was frustrated and couldn't figure out what to do with him. Still, Jose's parents saw in him a real hunger for learning and had his IQ tested over the summer. It turns out that what the teacher saw as behavior problems or a lack of work ethic were really symptoms of a gifted student who was not being properly challenged. Jose started leaving his regular classroom a couple of times a week to work with a teacher who was trained in meeting the needs of gifted students. As a result of the added stimulation he received, Jose started to enjoy school more, made friends with his gifted peers, and began to succeed with his regular school work.

Jose was fortunate that his parents were so perceptive and were able to have him assessed privately. However, not all parents are in a position to recognize the signs of giftedness or to advocate for their child's needs. Even in schools where there are active gifted and talented programs, many students go unidentified. Moreover, even with pull-out programs like the one I described that supplement the classroom experience and other strategies like grade skipping, it is inevitable that many gifted students will spend much of their time in a regular classroom with non-gifted students of the same age but far different ability levels. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that all classroom teachers should have at least a basic knowledge about how to recognize and meet the needs of gifted and talented students in their classrooms. However, a national survey of third and fourth grade teachers by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented found that 61 percent of teachers had no training whatsoever in teaching highly able students.

Only one State currently requires regular classroom teachers to have coursework in gifted education. Some of the techniques used in classrooms to accommodate gifted kids include differentiated curriculum, cluster grouping, and accelerated learning. The time to make sure teachers have the necessary knowledge is when prospective teachers are in their pre-service teacher training programs. If teachers aren't exposed to information and strategies to meet the needs of gifted students in their pre-service training, they may never acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. With the Higher Education Act due for reauthorization, this is the perfect opportunity to encourage schools of education and States to take a greater look at how they can improve teacher preparation programs to integrate instruction on the unique needs of gifted learners.

Title II of the Higher Education Act already contains grants designed to enhance the quality of teacher preparation programs. My bill would simply add allowable uses to these existing grants to provide an incentive for states and teacher training programs to incorporate the needs of gifted and talented students into teacher preparation and licensure requirements. I should point out that this change would not cost the taxpayers any additional money.

Under current law, Title II State grants are awarded directly to States and are to be used to reform State teacher preparation requirements. The law lists seven potential reforms under the allowable uses for grant funds. The first three allowable uses include: strengthening state requirements for teacher preparation programs to ensure teachers are highly competent in their respective academic content areas, reforming certification and licensure requirements with respect to competency in content areas, and providing alternatives to traditional teacher preparation programs. My legislation would add another allowable use, referencing these three reforms, to encourage states to incorporate a focus on the learning needs of gifted and talented students into reforms of state requirements for teacher preparation programs, reforms of state certification and licensure requirements, or new alternative teacher preparation programs. In addition, my bill would add a new allowable use so that States could use grant funds to create or expand new-teacher mentoring programs on the needs of gifted and talented students. This way, new teachers could learn from veteran teachers about how to identify classroom indicators of giftedness and provide appropriate instruction to gifted students.

My bill would also add language to the Partnership Grants, which provide funds to partnerships among teacher preparation institutions, school of arts and sciences, and high-need school districts to strengthen new teacher education. These grants come with three required uses, including reforming teacher preparation programs to ensure teachers are highly competent in academic content areas, providing pre- service clinical experience, and creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development. One allowable use for which a partnership may use funds is preparing teachers to work with diverse populations, including individuals with disabilities and limited English proficient individuals. To this section, my legislation would add gifted and talented students. Recognizing that every teacher could have gifted students in his or her classroom, my bill would also add a new allowable use so that teacher preparation programs could use the funds to infuse teacher coursework with units on the characteristics of high-ability learners. In other words, the idea is not to require additional courses, but rather to discuss how to accommodate for the needs of gifted students throughout the teacher preparation curriculum when new teachers are learning how to present lessons.

Again, my bill does not create a new grant program and doesn't cost any more money. It simply provides an incentive through existing grant programs to encourage States and teacher preparation programs to make sure that new teachers have the skills they will need to identify and meet the unique needs of the gifted and talented students who will be in their classrooms. I think we all recognize how important a quality teacher can be in helping a student achieve. This is no less true with gifted and talented students. Having a teacher that is equipped to meet the unique needs of gifted students can mean the difference between a child hating school and a child loving school; a child falling behind, and a child succeeding beyond all expectations. When a gifted child is left behind, the loss of human potential is doubly tragic. Gifted and talented children are a national resource that we must nurture now for our nation's future. This modest step could reap rewards for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in this investment in our future.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing a bill I proposed in the last Congress to help prepare new teachers to recognize and meet the needs of gifted and talented students. According to the federally funded National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, the large majority of gifted and talented students spend at least 80 percent of their time in a regular education classroom. Of course, gifted students are not gifted only 20 percent of the time. They are gifted all the time. Unfortunately, the lack of teacher preparation means that gifted students are not being challenged during much of the time they spend in the classroom. Their educational needs are not being met.

Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about the needs of gifted children. You might say, ``Why should we worry about these children? They

are the smart ones that the teacher doesn't have to spend so much time on.'' First of all, I'm not talking about your average straight A student who maybe learns the material easily, but much the same way as other students in the classroom. What makes a child gifted and talented is not how well the child does in school, but how he or she learns. A straight A student may or may not be gifted and a gifted student may not always get good grades in school. Gifted and talented children actually have a different way of looking at the world. They tend to have distinct approaches to learning and interacting socially, and they frequently learn at a different pace, and to different depths, than others their age. The bottom line is that gifted and talented children have unique learning needs that need to be met in order for them to achieve to their potential.

To illustrate this point, I would like to remind the Senate of an example I first cited two years ago while speaking on another piece of legislation related to gifted and talented students. It concerns a young elementary school student from Iowa City named Jose. Jose was not putting much effort into his schoolwork and was getting bad grades. He was a good kid but he also had a tendency to act up in class. He got along with his classmates, but didn't have many friends. Jose's teacher was frustrated and couldn't figure out what to do with him. Still, Jose's parents saw in him a real hunger for learning and had his IQ tested over the summer. It turns out that what the teacher saw as behavior problems or a lack of work ethic were really symptoms of a gifted student who was not being properly challenged. Jose started leaving his regular classroom a couple of times a week to work with a teacher who was trained in meeting the needs of gifted students. As a result of the added stimulation he received, Jose started to enjoy school more, made friends with his gifted peers, and began to succeed with his regular school work.

Jose was fortunate that his parents were so perceptive and were able to have him assessed privately. However, not all parents are in a position to recognize the signs of giftedness or to advocate for their child's needs. Even in schools where there are active gifted and talented programs, many students go unidentified. Moreover, even with pull-out programs like the one I described that supplement the classroom experience and other strategies like grade skipping, it is inevitable that many gifted students will spend much of their time in a regular classroom with non-gifted students of the same age but far different ability levels. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that all classroom teachers should have at least a basic knowledge about how to recognize and meet the needs of gifted and talented students in their classrooms. However, a national survey of third and fourth grade teachers by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented found that 61 percent of teachers had no training whatsoever in teaching highly able students.

Only one State currently requires regular classroom teachers to have coursework in gifted education. Some of the techniques used in classrooms to accommodate gifted kids include differentiated curriculum, cluster grouping, and accelerated learning. The time to make sure teachers have the necessary knowledge is when prospective teachers are in their pre-service teacher training programs. If teachers aren't exposed to information and strategies to meet the needs of gifted students in their pre-service training, they may never acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. With the Higher Education Act due for reauthorization, this is the perfect opportunity to encourage schools of education and States to take a greater look at how they can improve teacher preparation programs to integrate instruction on the unique needs of gifted learners.

Title II of the Higher Education Act already contains grants designed to enhance the quality of teacher preparation programs. My bill would simply add allowable uses to these existing grants to provide an incentive for states and teacher training programs to incorporate the needs of gifted and talented students into teacher preparation and licensure requirements. I should point out that this change would not cost the taxpayers any additional money.

Under current law, Title II State grants are awarded directly to States and are to be used to reform State teacher preparation requirements. The law lists seven potential reforms under the allowable uses for grant funds. The first three allowable uses include: strengthening state requirements for teacher preparation programs to ensure teachers are highly competent in their respective academic content areas, reforming certification and licensure requirements with respect to competency in content areas, and providing alternatives to traditional teacher preparation programs. My legislation would add another allowable use, referencing these three reforms, to encourage states to incorporate a focus on the learning needs of gifted and talented students into reforms of state requirements for teacher preparation programs, reforms of state certification and licensure requirements, or new alternative teacher preparation programs. In addition, my bill would add a new allowable use so that States could use grant funds to create or expand new-teacher mentoring programs on the needs of gifted and talented students. This way, new teachers could learn from veteran teachers about how to identify classroom indicators of giftedness and provide appropriate instruction to gifted students.

My bill would also add language to the Partnership Grants, which provide funds to partnerships among teacher preparation institutions, school of arts and sciences, and high-need school districts to strengthen new teacher education. These grants come with three required uses, including reforming teacher preparation programs to ensure teachers are highly competent in academic content areas, providing pre- service clinical experience, and creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development. One allowable use for which a partnership may use funds is preparing teachers to work with diverse populations, including individuals with disabilities and limited English proficient individuals. To this section, my legislation would add gifted and talented students. Recognizing that every teacher could have gifted students in his or her classroom, my bill would also add a new allowable use so that teacher preparation programs could use the funds to infuse teacher coursework with units on the characteristics of high-ability learners. In other words, the idea is not to require additional courses, but rather to discuss how to accommodate for the needs of gifted students throughout the teacher preparation curriculum when new teachers are learning how to present lessons.

Again, my bill does not create a new grant program and doesn't cost any more money. It simply provides an incentive through existing grant programs to encourage States and teacher preparation programs to make sure that new teachers have the skills they will need to identify and meet the unique needs of the gifted and talented students who will be in their classrooms. I think we all recognize how important a quality teacher can be in helping a student achieve. This is no less true with gifted and talented students. Having a teacher that is equipped to meet the unique needs of gifted students can mean the difference between a child hating school and a child loving school; a child falling behind, and a child succeeding beyond all expectations. When a gifted child is left behind, the loss of human potential is doubly tragic. Gifted and talented children are a national resource that we must nurture now for our nation's future. This modest step could reap rewards for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in this investment in our future.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am glad we are now finally considering S. 256, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. Although a few amendments were accepted during the Judiciary Committee markup a couple weeks ago, and we did that to accommodate Democratic Members, this bill is practically identical to the conference report that both the House and Senate conferees signed

in the 107th Congress, minus the poison pill abortion amendment.

Many of my colleagues know I have been working on this bill for quite some time now and that there has always been strong bipartisan support for passing bankruptcy reform. I started working on bankruptcy issues in the mid-1990s, and I did that with my colleague, then-former Senator Heflin of Alabama. We served together as either chairman or ranking member of the Administrative Oversight Subcommittee for a period of, I believe, 12 years.

During this period of time, we created what became known as the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. We held numerous hearings in the subcommittee on various topics dealing with the subject of bankruptcy reform.

In the 105th Congress, Senator Durbin and I passed out of the Senate a bankruptcy bill by a vote of 98 to 1, but it never got to conference.

In the 106th Congress, Senator Torricelli and I worked closely and negotiated many compromises. We were able to vote out of the Senate a Grassley-Torricelli bill by a vote of 83 to 14. The Senate then approved the bankruptcy conference report by a vote of 70 to 28. Mr. President, 53 Republican Senators and 17 Democratic Senators voted for that conference report, but President Clinton pocket-vetoed the bill, and although we had the votes to override it, we were, unfortunately, not to have that opportunity. That is what a pocket veto is all about.

In the 107th Congress, I introduced, with Senator Biden, the same language of the conference report agreed to by both the House and Senate in the previous 106th Congress.

We passed the bankruptcy bill by a strong bipartisan vote of 85 to 13, with further changes made to address concerns of Democratic Party members. We went to conference with the House and reached an agreement on a conference report. During that conference committee, numerous amendments were negotiated with Democrats who opposed the bill. We negotiated in good faith, but the inclusion of what has become known as the Schumer abortion language ultimately proved to be unacceptable to the House and we were not able to get to the finish line.

The Senate tried to address the bankruptcy bill in the 108th Congress. The House passed the conference report language without the abortion provisions, but the Senate never took it up. In addition, the House amended a Senate bill with a bankruptcy bill and requested a conference, but Senate Democrats denied us the ability to have a conference on that bill.

So after three Congresses, we are here again in the 109th Congress trying to pass bankruptcy reform. My Democratic colleagues, Senator Carper and Ben Nelson, have joined me, as well as Senators Hatch, Sessions, and others, on this bill, S. 256, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. The bill continues in the tried and true spirit and tradition of this bill being bipartisan, so we do have that bipartisan support on its introduction, and from the votes we have had on amendments today, it looks like that bipartisanship is still going to hold. So I hope my colleagues will not be fooled when longstanding opponents to this bill, even though they may never number more than 15, vociferously claim that the bankruptcy bill is really controversial and really unnecessary because those statements, made by the very small number of people in this body who do not think we need to do anything on bankruptcy reform, everything they are saying is far from the truth.

I note that throughout the years, we really bent over backward in trying to accommodate Democratic Senators' concerns with the bill's process, even in this Congress. I do not think that it is any surprise to anyone that my position is that the bankruptcy bill is still very much simply unfinished business after all of these compromises throughout now the fourth Congress. This bill has passed both the House and the Senate a total of 11 times between these two Houses of Congress. It is about time that we get the job done now. Hence, simply unfinished business, even though some of my colleagues will try to make this be a totally brand-new debate, just like we were starting over with the purest bill that I would prefer, but because purest bills never get through the Senate, it takes bipartisanship.

We are where we are because of compromise and unfinished business, and hopefully we will move this bill to the House and to the President, somewhat I hope a repeat of what we did 3 weeks ago with the class action tort reform bill. That is why at the beginning of this Congress I reintroduced the bipartisan conference report that was arrived at in the 107th Congress with only one change, and that change is to leave the poison pill of the Schumer abortion language out of it.

Remember that this compromise that I introduced in this year, the 107th Congress, minus the Schumer amendment, otherwise is exactly the same language negotiated when the Democrats had a majority. It was two Congresses ago when Senator Jeffords changed from being a Republican to an Independent, sitting with the Democrats. They took over the Congress, and it is that Democratic Senate that negotiated this agreement for the Senate. That is the bill we are working on now as the underlying provision.

The Schumer abortion language that tanked the bill in the House, in the 107th Congress, is left out. Other than that, the bill was basically the exact same language that Senate Members, both Republican and Democrats, have supported.

The reason I did this is because we had reached many carefully crafted compromises and had a good bipartisan product. I did not think that we had to go through committee this time because this bill had been done so many times before, but Majority Leader Frist insisted that it go through regular order. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing and markup on this bill.

So my colleagues are clear, the committee accepted five amendments to further accommodate Democratic members. The committee also defeated a number of other amendments that were clearly offered to open issues and weaken the bill.

I would like to make my position crystal clear. We have all cooperated and compromised at great length in order to enact this legislation that fixes an unfair bankruptcy regime, provides new consumer protections, helps children in need of child support, and makes other necessary reforms to a system that is often open to abuse. I do not believe there is any need to reopen this bill and to disrupt those many compromises we have already reached with our Democratic colleagues, and more importantly with the House of Representatives.

I hope this clarification on the history and procedural process of the bill will show that, one, the bill is a bipartisan effort; two, that we have been working on bankruptcy reform for too long and have gone over all the fine points of the bill in great detail; and, three, that we have bent over backward to allow a fair process to move forward with this bill.

I discussed the merits of this bankruptcy reform bill. There is broad public support for reforming our bankruptcy system. The vast majority of people believe that individuals who file for bankruptcy protection should be required to pay back some of their debt if they have the ability to do so, and that is precisely what this bankruptcy bill attempts to do.

Most people think it should be more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy. Most Americans are tired of paying for high rollers who game the current bankruptcy system and its loopholes to get out of paying their fair share. Most people recognize that too many people are filing for bankruptcy. Too many people are gaming the system, and the numbers are up in historically high proportions in recent years that prove that. Bankruptcy filings were at an alltime high even during the boom years of our economy. Opponents to the bill act as if there is nothing to worry about, but the fact is we have a bankruptcy crisis on our hands.

I want to visit with my colleagues about how this bill will change the way bankruptcy is being treated. Simply put, bankruptcy is a court proceeding where people get their debts wiped away. Every time a debt is wiped away through bankruptcy, somebody loses money. Of course, that is common sense, and when somebody who extends credit has their obligations wiped away in bankruptcy, they are forced to make a decision. Should this loss simply be

swallowed as the cost of doing business or are prices raised for other customers to make up for another's losses?

Presently, when individuals file for bankruptcy under chapter 7, a court proceeding takes place and their debts are simply erased. But every time a debt is wiped away through bankruptcy, someone loses money. When someone loses money in this way, he or she has to decide to either assume that loss as a cost of business or raise the price for other customers to make up for that loss.

When bankruptcy losses are infrequent, lenders maybe are able to swallow that loss. But when they are frequent, lenders need to raise prices for other consumers to offset their losses. These higher prices translate into higher interest rates for future borrowers. The result of the bankruptcy crisis is that hard-working, law-abiding Americans have to pay higher prices for goods and services because somebody else did not make good on their obligations to pay. This bill would make it harder for individuals who can repay their debt to file for bankruptcy under chapter 7. This would lessen, then, the upward pressure on interest rates and prices. It is only fair to require people who can repay their debts to pull their own weight. But under current bankruptcy law, an individual can get full debt cancellation in chapter 7 with no questions asked.

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 asks the very fundamental question of whether repayment is possible by an individual. It is this simple: If repayment is possible, then he or she will be channeled into chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code which requires people to repay a portion of their debt as a precondition for limited debt cancellation. In other words, people who have the ability to pay will not get off scot-free anymore.

This bill does this by providing for a means-tested way of steering people who are filers, who can repay a portion of their debts, away from chapter 7 bankruptcy. This test employs a legal presumption that chapter 7 proceedings should be dismissed or converted into chapter 13 whenever the filers earn more than the State median income and can repay at least $6,000 of his or her unsecured debt over a 5-year period of time.

In calculating a debtor's income, living expenses are deducted as permitted under IRS standards for the State and locality where the debtor lives. Legitimate expenses such as food, clothing, medical, transportation, attorney's fees, and charitable contributions are taken into account in this analysis, as provided under Internal Revenue Service guidelines.

Moreover, a debtor may rebut the presumption by demonstrating special circumstances. So the means test takes into account a debtor's income, a debtor's expenses, and allows a debtor to, even beyond that, show special circumstances which would justify adjustments to the means test.

In this way, the bankruptcy reform bill preserves the principle of a fresh start for people who have been overwhelmed by medical debts or sudden, unforeseen emergencies. As stated by the Government Accounting Office, the bill allows for the 100-percent deductibility of medical expenses before examining repayment ability. The bill preserves fair access, then, to bankruptcy for those people who are truly in need.

So that I am crystal clear, people who do not have the ability to repay their debt can still use the bankruptcy system as they would have before. This bill clearly provides that people of limited income can still file under chapter 7 and get that fresh start. There is a specific safe harbor built in for these individuals, so their debts can be wiped away, as is done right now.

I point this out because so often during this debate it is going to be pointed out to you, inaccurately, that somehow poor people are not getting that opportunity for a fresh start. So I want to repeat: There is a safe harbor for poor people. But the free ride is over for people who have higher incomes, and who can repay their debt.

Personal responsibility has been one of the main themes of the bankruptcy reform bill, going back to my first introduction. But even before that, since 1993, the number of Americans who declared bankruptcy has increased, would you believe it, over 100 percent. While no one knows all the reasons underlying the bankruptcy crisis, the data shows that bankruptcies increased dramatically during the same timeframe when unemployment was low and real wages were at an all-time high.

I believe the bankruptcy crisis is, in fact, a moral crisis. People have to stop looking at bankruptcy as a conventional financial planning tool, where honest Americans have to foot the bill for those who do not pay their honest debt. It is clear to me that our lax bankruptcy system must bear some of the blame for the bankruptcy crisis. A system where people are not even asked whether they can pay off their debts obviously contributes to the fraying of the moral fiber of America. Why should people pay their bills when the system allows them to walk away with no questions asked? Why should people honor their obligations when they can take the easy way out through bankruptcy?

I think the system needs to be reformed because it is fundamentally unfair. This bill will promote personal responsibility among borrowers and create a deterrence for those hoping to cheat the system. This bill does more than provide for a flexible means test that gives judges discretion to consider the individual circumstances of each debtor in order to determine whether they truly belong in chapter 7. It also contains tough new consumer protections. But the opponents of this bill do not seem to realize that. So I want them to pay attention as I describe new procedures to prevent companies from using threats to coerce debtors into paying debts which could be wiped away once they are in bankruptcy.

The bill requires the Justice Department to concentrate law enforcement resources on enforcing consumer protection laws against abusive debt collection practices. It contains significant new disclosures for consumers, mandating that credit card companies provide key information about how much they owe and how long it will take to pay off their credit card debts by only making the minimum payment. That is a very important consumer education for every one of us.

Consumers will also be given a toll-free number to call where they can get information about how long it will take to pay off their own credit card balances if they only pay the minimum payment. This will educate consumers and improve consumers' understanding of what their financial situation is.

Credit card companies that offer credit cards over the Internet will be required for the first time ever to fully comply with the Truth In Lending Act, so claims that this bill is unbalanced are off base.

Moreover, the bill makes changes which will help particularly vulnerable segments of our society. Child support claimants are given a higher priority status when the assets of a bankruptcy estate are distributed to creditors.

Here again, I make crystal clear that the bankruptcy bill makes significant improvements for child support claimants. This bankruptcy bill does not hurt them, as opponents of the bill are trying to claim. In fact, the organization, the very organization that specializes in tracking down deadbeat dads, feels this bill will be a tremendous help in collecting child support.

The people on the front lines say the bankruptcy bill is good for collecting child support. An example: The bill provides that parents and State child support enforcement collection agencies are given notice when a debtor who owes child support or alimony files for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy trustees are required to notify child support creditors of their right to use child support enforcement agencies to collect outstanding amounts due.

In addition, the bill requires creditors to provide the last known address of debtors owing support obligations upon the request of the custodial parent.

The bill goes further--requiring that the identity of minor children be protected in bankruptcy proceedings.

Concerns expressed by opponents to the bill about this being a flawed part of it just don't hold water.

The bill also makes great strides in cracking down on very wealthy individuals who abuse the bankruptcy system. If you listen to our critics, you might get the impression that the homestead exemption is a giant loophole that this bill does not deal with, and that we are busy protecting the rich.

The GAO looked at the question of how frequently the homestead exemption is abused by wealthy people in bankruptcy. The GAO found that less than 1 percent of bankruptcies filed in States where there are unlimited homestead exemptions involve homesteads over $100,000. That means 99 percent of bankruptcy filings were not abusive.

This is not a loophole at all. In fact, the provision in this bill with respect to homestead is a significant improvement from current law. There is a Federal cap on homestead exemptions in current law.

Under the current bankruptcy law, the debtors living in certain States can shield from their creditors virtually all of the equity in their home. Consequently, some debtors relocate to these States to take advantage of the mansion loophole provisions that are, in most cases, in their constitution. This bill would take a strong stand against this abuse by requiring that a person be a resident in a State for 2 years before he can claim the State's homestead exemption. Current requirements can be as little as 91 days.

The bill further reduces the intent for abuse by requiring a debtor to own the homestead for at least 40 months before he can use State exemption law. Current law doesn't have any such requirement.

Furthermore, the bill would prevent individuals who have violated security laws or individuals who have engaged in criminal conduct from shielding their homestead assets from those whom they have defrauded or injured. Specifically, if a debtor was convicted of a felony, violated a security law, or committed a criminal act intentionally, or engaged in reckless misconduct that caused serious physical injury or debt, the bill overrides State homestead exemption laws and caps the debtor's homestead at $125,000 as the amount that would be protected.

To the extent that the debtor's homestead exemption was obtained through the fraudulent conversion of nonexempt assets during the 10- year period preceding the filings of the bankruptcy case, this bill requires such exemption to be reduced by the amount attributable to the fraud.

These homestead provisions were delicately compromised between those who believe that the homestead should be capped through Federal law--I am one of those--or others who are uncomfortable with a uniform Federal cap which may violate their own State constitution.

So, please, tomorrow when this debate is conducted on changing this provision that has been so carefully worked out over a period of at least two Congresses, don't believe it when people say we have a gaping loophole. The homestead provisions in the bankruptcy bill will substantially cut down on the abuses that might be referred to.

I would like to talk about another thing this bankruptcy bill does which is so important for those of us who represent agricultural States. This bill makes chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, which gives essential protections to family farmers, a permanent chapter in the Bankruptcy Code. The bill enhances these protections. It makes more farmers eligible for chapter 12. The bill lets farmers in bankruptcy avoid capital gains tax. This is very important because it will free up resources to be invested in farming operations that otherwise would go down the black hole of the Internal Revenue Service. Farmers need this chapter 12 safety net.

In addition, the bankruptcy bill will for the first time create badly needed protections for patients in bankruptcy hospitals and nursing homes. Let me provide an example of what could happen right now without the patient protections contained in this bill.

At a hearing I held on nursing home bankruptcies, I learned about a situation in California where a bankruptcy trustee just showed up at a nursing home on a Friday evening and evicted the residents of that nursing home. The bankruptcy trustee didn't provide any notice whatsoever that this was going to happen. There was absolutely no chance for the nursing home residents to be relocated. The bankruptcy trustee literally put these elderly people out on the street and changed the locks on the doors so that they couldn't get back into the nursing home. The bankruptcy bill will prevent this from ever happening again. These are protections that we will be giving these deserving senior citizens for the first time.

The truth is that bankruptcies hurt real people. It isn't fair to permit people who can repay to skip out on their debts. Yes, we must preserve fair access to bankruptcy for those who truly need a fresh start. This bill does not in any way compromise that century-old principle of our Bankruptcy Code.

This bankruptcy reform act does that--it guarantees a fresh start. It lets those people who can pay their debts live up to their responsibilities as well.

Let us restore the balance. Let us pass this bill. This bill is a product of much negotiation and compromise over three Congresses. It is fair, it is balanced, but, more importantly, it is a bill that once got to President Clinton and he pocket-vetoed it. This bill that passed by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress is long overdue legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation but, more importantly, help us defeat amendments that are opening all of the carefully crafted compromises that we worked on over the last 3 to 4 years.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier today, Senate Bill 470 was introduced. I am pleased to sponsor the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2005, with Senator Dodd. I am co-sponsoring this legislation as part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety agency. Enactment of this bill will be a meaningful step toward greater transparency and accountability in clinical trials and the scientific process.

The Food and Drug Administration earned its prized reputation through decades of good work on behalf of the American people. The FDA's drug approval process has long been considered the ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.'' However, the Vioxx disaster and its aftermath have shaken the public's confidence. American consumers demand and deserve assurances that the medicines in their cabinets are safe. The health and safety of the public must be the FDA's first and only concern. Unfortunately, reforms at the FDA are necessary to place that mission front and center once again.

I began my oversight of the FDA last year in response to concerns about the reluctance of the FDA to provide information to the public about the increased suicidal risks for young people taking anti- depressants. Last November, I chaired a groundbreaking hearing on drug safety, the FDA and Vioxx. That hearing and other critical drug safety concerns of the past year highlighted the need for reforms and more stringent oversight of the FDA.

Sometimes congressional scrutiny of agency mismanagement can lead to necessary reforms. Sometimes an agency will act on its own to enhance its credibility. I have been pressing for reforms--both administrative and legislative--to bring about greater responsiveness and transparency at the FDA. The risks and benefits of prescription drugs should be readily available to patients and doctors seeking to make informed decisions.

The FACT Act will expand www.clinicaltrials.gov to create a publicly accessible national data bank of clinical trial information comprised of a clinical trial registry and a clinical trial results database. The legislation will foster transparency and accountability in health- related intervention research and development and ensure that the scientific community and the general public have access to basic information about clinical trials. Importantly, the FACT Act will maintain clinicaltrials.gov as a registry for patients and physicians seeking information about ongoing clinical trials for serious or life- threatening diseases and conditions. The legislation will also prevent companies from withholding clinically important information about their products.

The FACT Act will maintain a clinical trial registry accessible to patients and health care practitioners seeking information related to ongoing clinical trials for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions; establish a clinical trials results database of all publicly and privately funded clinical trial results regardless of outcome that is accessible to the scientific community, health care practitioners, and members of the public; require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make internal drug approval and safety reviews publicly available; build on the successful model of www.clinicaltrials.gov, which was established in 1997. The web site will continue to be run by the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health, with assistance from the FDA; apply to clinical trials for drugs, biologics, and medical devices. All trials must be registered in the database in order to obtain approval from a U.S. Institutional Review Board; require that foreign trials that are submitted to the FDA or used in advertising to U.S. physicians be registered in the database at the time of submission; require that researchers promptly disclose the objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of funding, and anticipated timeline of clinical trials. The bill's standards will meet all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on September 8, 2004; mandate that the results of clinical trials be available to doctors and patients. Recognizing that the peer review process is the best safeguard for scientific accuracy, the bill provides time for researchers to publish their results. The disclosure of important trial results satisfies the recommendation of the American Medical Association; establish strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill will provide for civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day for sponsors who refuse to comply. Monetary penalties will be earmarked for studies that compare clinical therapies; provide authority to audit the completeness and accuracy of the information in the registry; and ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to correct false or misleading statements about the results of clinical trials.

Later this month I will also introduce legislation to establish an independent office of drug safety in the Food and Drug Administration. Today's legislation is an important step toward reforming the FDA. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, earlier today, Senate Bill 470 was introduced. I am pleased to sponsor the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2005, with Senator Dodd. I am co-sponsoring this legislation as part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety agency. Enactment of this bill will be a meaningful step toward greater transparency and accountability in clinical trials and the scientific process.

The Food and Drug Administration earned its prized reputation through decades of good work on behalf of the American people. The FDA's drug approval process has long been considered the ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.'' However, the Vioxx disaster and its aftermath have shaken the public's confidence. American consumers demand and deserve assurances that the medicines in their cabinets are safe. The health and safety of the public must be the FDA's first and only concern. Unfortunately, reforms at the FDA are necessary to place that mission front and center once again.

I began my oversight of the FDA last year in response to concerns about the reluctance of the FDA to provide information to the public about the increased suicidal risks for young people taking anti- depressants. Last November, I chaired a groundbreaking hearing on drug safety, the FDA and Vioxx. That hearing and other critical drug safety concerns of the past year highlighted the need for reforms and more stringent oversight of the FDA.

Sometimes congressional scrutiny of agency mismanagement can lead to necessary reforms. Sometimes an agency will act on its own to enhance its credibility. I have been pressing for reforms--both administrative and legislative--to bring about greater responsiveness and transparency at the FDA. The risks and benefits of prescription drugs should be readily available to patients and doctors seeking to make informed decisions.

The FACT Act will expand www.clinicaltrials.gov to create a publicly accessible national data bank of clinical trial information comprised of a clinical trial registry and a clinical trial results database. The legislation will foster transparency and accountability in health- related intervention research and development and ensure that the scientific community and the general public have access to basic information about clinical trials. Importantly, the FACT Act will maintain clinicaltrials.gov as a registry for patients and physicians seeking information about ongoing clinical trials for serious or life- threatening diseases and conditions. The legislation will also prevent companies from withholding clinically important information about their products.

The FACT Act will maintain a clinical trial registry accessible to patients and health care practitioners seeking information related to ongoing clinical trials for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions; establish a clinical trials results database of all publicly and privately funded clinical trial results regardless of outcome that is accessible to the scientific community, health care practitioners, and members of the public; require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make internal drug approval and safety reviews publicly available; build on the successful model of www.clinicaltrials.gov, which was established in 1997. The web site will continue to be run by the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health, with assistance from the FDA; apply to clinical trials for drugs, biologics, and medical devices. All trials must be registered in the database in order to obtain approval from a U.S. Institutional Review Board; require that foreign trials that are submitted to the FDA or used in advertising to U.S. physicians be registered in the database at the time of submission; require that researchers promptly disclose the objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of funding, and anticipated timeline of clinical trials. The bill's standards will meet all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on September 8, 2004; mandate that the results of clinical trials be available to doctors and patients. Recognizing that the peer review process is the best safeguard for scientific accuracy, the bill provides time for researchers to publish their results. The disclosure of important trial results satisfies the recommendation of the American Medical Association; establish strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill will provide for civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day for sponsors who refuse to comply. Monetary penalties will be earmarked for studies that compare clinical therapies; provide authority to audit the completeness and accuracy of the information in the registry; and ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to correct false or misleading statements about the results of clinical trials.

Later this month I will also introduce legislation to establish an independent office of drug safety in the Food and Drug Administration. Today's legislation is an important step toward reforming the FDA. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, it has come to my attention that S. 306 includes a provision to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act. As chairman of the committee, I am obligated to point out that the Finance Committee has primary jurisdiction over title XVIII, as amended. The provision in S. 306 that is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee amends title XVIII relating to Medicare supplemental policies. I ask Chairman Enzi to acknowledge that the Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over title XVIII of the Social Security Act and ask that he endeavor to consult on matters before the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee that touch on the Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction.

In order to avoid unnecessary confusion as to the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee or further delay in the consideration of this bill, I would agree to accommodate your request to withhold any objection to the Senate's consideration of S. 306 with the acknowledgment that this provision and title XVIII generally are in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. This does not represent any waiver of jurisdiction on the part of the Finance Committee on this subject.

I ask the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Enzi, whether he would agree to this request.

I agree and will also endeavor to consult with the Senator on matters before the Senate Finance Committee that are in the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee.

Mr. President, the American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny.

Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms reap most program benefits. The reality is over 72 percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers. There is good reason to be critical of our farm programs.

What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit small- and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices

and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm.

The Senate has agreed, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote during the 2002 farm bill debate and two Senate Budget Committee markups that targeting Federal assistance to small- and medium-sized family farmers is the right thing to do.

It has been my hope since the 2002 farm bill conference committee dropped the payment limit amendment that Congress would establish legitimate, reasonable payment limits similar to S. 667, the payment limits bill we introduced last session.

While we have not yet achieved our ultimate goal, no one can question that the votes have been there for payment limits. Unfortunately, a two-thirds majority in the Senate hasn't been enough to protect this issue in conference. But times are clearly changing thanks to the President's support for payment limits in his budget proposal.

The legislation we are introducing today adopts the President's proposed cap of $250,000, while maintaining other concepts from S. 667 that the President has embraced like limiting the subterfuge surrounding the three-entity rule, curtailing the use of generic certificates, and developing a measurable standard to determine who should and should not be receiving farm subsidies.

I look forward to working with Senator Dorgan again on this issue. With the President's support I believe we will have success.

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

Mr. President, the American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny.

Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms reap most program benefits. The reality is over 72 percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers. There is good reason to be critical of our farm programs.

What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit small- and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices

and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm.

The Senate has agreed, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote during the 2002 farm bill debate and two Senate Budget Committee markups that targeting Federal assistance to small- and medium-sized family farmers is the right thing to do.

It has been my hope since the 2002 farm bill conference committee dropped the payment limit amendment that Congress would establish legitimate, reasonable payment limits similar to S. 667, the payment limits bill we introduced last session.

While we have not yet achieved our ultimate goal, no one can question that the votes have been there for payment limits. Unfortunately, a two-thirds majority in the Senate hasn't been enough to protect this issue in conference. But times are clearly changing thanks to the President's support for payment limits in his budget proposal.

The legislation we are introducing today adopts the President's proposed cap of $250,000, while maintaining other concepts from S. 667 that the President has embraced like limiting the subterfuge surrounding the three-entity rule, curtailing the use of generic certificates, and developing a measurable standard to determine who should and should not be receiving farm subsidies.

I look forward to working with Senator Dorgan again on this issue. With the President's support I believe we will have success.

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

Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act, which we passed last week and which is set to be considered in the House this week. This little bill that Senator Kohl and I first introduced back in the 105th Congress is finally at the finish line. Little did I know it was going to take five Congresses to get it done. But we had to do it. The abuses in the class action system are real, and this is a good first step at fixing some of them.

Although the Class Action Fairness Act was always a bipartisan bill, we had to negotiate numerous compromises to garner enough support to defeat a filibuster here in the Senate. In the end, this bill is a good example of what we can accomplish when we work together in a bipartisan fashion. The final passage vote of 72 to 36 is proof positive of that.

So I am pleased that we are on the verge of getting class action reform to the President's desk. There are many

colleagues that I would like to thank in the Senate for their leadership and support--Majority Leader Frist, Republican Whip McConnell, Chairman Specter, Senator Hatch, Senator Sessions, Senator Kohl, and Senator Carper. I also want to thank their staff as well for a job well done--Allen Hicks, Eric Ueland and Sharon Soderstrom with the majority leader; John Abegg and Kyle Simmons with Senator McConnell; Harold Kim, Michael O'Neill and David Brog with Chairman Specter; Kevin O'Scanlin with Senator Hatch; William Smith and Cindy Hayden with Senator Sessions; and John Kilvington with Senator Carper. I would like to acknowledge in particular Jeff Miller with Senator Kohl, who worked closely with my staff on this bill over the years. Finally, I would like to thank Rita Lari Jochum, my Judiciary Committee chief counsel, who has worked on this bill since 1998, and whose legal skills and determination were instrumental in getting this bill passed in the Senate.