Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Feingold's amendment which would add a provision to the bill requiring the Federal courts to consider remand motions in class actions within a set timetable. This amendment needs to be rejected because it is unnecessary.

There is not any evidence that the Federal courts are particularly slow in dealing with class actions, or specifically that they are slow relative to remand motions. In fact, there is evidence that the Federal courts move more quickly than State courts in considering these motions because they always consider jurisdictional issues first. Senator Feingold cites three examples of delay to support his amendment, but I do not think that is enough to start placing strict time limits on court procedure. I think that Senator Feingold is in search of a problem that does not really exist.

Also, the amendment could make it hard for judges to issue fair rulings in complicated class action cases because judges would be forced to make rushed decisions. This deadline may be too stringent and inflexible to deal with complex cases, where sometimes several remand motions are considered jointly in order to conserve judicial resources. These motions may require hearings, and the timeframe provided in Senator Feingold's amendment may not be enough time for a court to schedule a hearing and consider all the evidence.

I also understand that Federal judges who have learned of this possible time limitation on deciding these kinds of motions are concerned that it would place an unreasonable restriction on their ability to fairly decide cases. The Judicial Conference sent a letter opposing a previous iteration of Senator Feingold's amendment that was more stringent that the current language. However, this amendment still puts significant time constraints on Federal judges that could prove to be too stringent.

So there just is not any evidence that there is a problem with remand motions in class action cases that requires this time limitation that Senator Feingold is proposing. This is just an attempt to weaken the bill. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have been working on this legislation for five Congresses, and I would like to get this legislation to the President without any amendments. We have heard from the highest levels of the House of Representatives that if we can pass this bill without amendments, we will be able to get it to the President without going to conference; in other words, the House will adopt it the way we do.

I don't know how many times I would like to have heard that in the House of Representatives. I don't know when I have ever heard that in my entire career. I hope everybody in the Senate has a strong heart. If I didn't have a strong heart, I wouldn't say that. And if I heard it, I wouldn't believe it. I would pass out if the House was going to take something the Senate did without question. We ought to grab the ball and run with it.

Regardless of the merits of the amendment by the Senator from Arkansas, I hope we can defeat that amendment. This amendment would exclude this language from the bill: ``Any action brought by or on behalf of the Attorney General of any State.''

I ask my colleagues not to be fooled. Although this amendment sounds good, and there was a good presentation made by the authors of the amendment, it is potentially harmful and could lead to gaming by class action lawyers. I will explain what I mean by gaming.

First, before I do that, in my judgment, the amendment is not necessary. I will explain. State attorneys general have authority under the laws of every State to bring enforcement action to protect their citizens. Sometimes these laws are parens patriae cases, similar to class actions in the sense that the State attorney general represents the people of that State. In other instances, their actions are brought directly on behalf of that particular State. But they are not class actions; rather, they are very unique attorney general lawsuits authorized under State constitutions or under statutes.

One reason this amendment is not necessary is because our bill will not affect those lawsuits. Our bill provides class actions under that term ``class action'' as defined to mean any civil action filed in a district court of the United States under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any civil action removed to a district court that was originally filed under State statute or rule authorizing an action to be brought by one or more representatives as a class action.

The key phrase there is ``class action.'' Hence, because almost all civil suits brought by State attorneys general are parens patriae suits, similar representative suits or direct enforcement actions, it is clear they do not fall within this definition. That means that cases brought by State attorneys general will not be affected by this bill.

The supporters of this amendment say it is necessary because State attorneys general can bring class actions and those cases might become removable to Federal court. That possibility does not make this amendment necessary. That is because State attorneys general are not required to use class actions to enforce their State laws. If State attorneys general want to recover on behalf of their citizens, they can always bring actions as parens patriae suits under statutes that authorize representative actions or even as direct enforcement actions. Again, such lawsuits will not be subject to this bill.

In addition, our bill has been drafted so as to distinguish between solely truly local class action lawsuits and those that involve national issues. That compromise, which was not part of my original bill, was reached with Senator Feinstein on the home State exception provision as well as further compromises made with Senators Dodd, Schumer, and Landrieu, dealing with the local controversy exception. As a result of these compromises, they will keep then truly local cases where they ought to be--in State court.

Another concern with this amendment is that it is worded in such a way to exclude class actions, not just by State attorneys general but also, in their words, on behalf of State attorneys general. The way this provision is drafted would allow plaintiffs' lawyers to bring class actions and simply include in their complaint a State attorney general's name as a purported class member, arguably to make their class action completely immune to the provisions of this bill. Plaintiffs' lawyers could simply ask State attorneys general to lend their name to a class action lawsuit so as to keep them in the State court.

That creates a very serious loophole in this bill. We should not risk creating a situation where State attorneys general can be used as pawns so that crafty class action lawyers can avoid the jurisdictional provisions of this bill. Our bill would put an end to class action abuses without diminishing the ability of State attorneys general to protect their citizens in State court. This is another way for lawyers to keep cases in State courts.

This is what this bill is all about, to make sure that cases that have national significance are not determined by some county judge in one of our 50 States that end up having national implications. Those cases should be in Federal court and, for the most part, under our legislation will be.

This amendment would seriously create a loophole in the reforms we are trying to accomplish with this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, when I spoke prior to Senator Pryor's amendment, I made a pitch that I want to repeat about the opportunity we have now, after four Congresses--this is the fifth Congress--to get this bill to the President. It has passed the House so many times, and we have never been able to get it to finality in the Senate. We have the House in position now, even after all of these compromises we have made which have diluted the bill more than I would have liked to have done, of passing a bill the leadership in the House of Representatives tells us they will take the way we pass it and send it to the President as long as there are no changes, and this assurance about no changes comes from two standpoints.

One, in the previous Congress we made compromises to get Democratic votes with the idea that once those changes were made and we got this bill through the Senate, they would not be changed in the House. We also got the assurance from the House that they would not change it, even though the House has passed much stronger legislation a couple of times. So there is an assurance in this body for people who would rather not pass strong legislation but they know there needs to be some changes in class action regime, to make some modest changes, and make sure that what they agree to will be what gets to the President, and then the House saying now for a new Congress they will pass this legislation without amendment.

So every Democrat who has made a compromise with us so we can get this bill behind us can be satisfied that they will not be nickeled and dimed to death.

Obviously, not all Democrats are satisfied with this sort of agreement and that is their right as individual Senators to try to change it more. But as I said before, any changes in this bill negate both promises that have been made. It means the promise to go through the House will not be kept because the bill has been changed in the Senate, and then for those Senators who got the assurance from me that this bill would not be changed in the House so that they were not nickeled and dimed away with their compromises are going to lose the opportunity of getting what they want without the assurance that somewhere else in the legislative process, probably conference, there might be a much stronger bill than they want.

This bill was originally introduced in the 105th Congress, then the 106th Congress, then the 107th Congress. We moved it in the 108th Congress. Now we are here in the 109th Congress. Almost everybody seems to believe there is some reform that needs to be done in the class action tort regime. This bill is it.

Now we have amendments. We defeated the amendment of Senator Pryor. We had an amendment by Senator Bingaman that we were going to deal with, that would have destroyed this compromise. There must have been a belief on the part of the people behind the Bingaman amendment that it would not go, so instead of the Bingaman amendment we have in front of us a Feinstein modification of the Bingaman amendment.

I am in the same position I was with the amendment of Senator Pryor, asking people to defeat the Feinstein-Bingaman amendment. I will be very precise why that needs to be done. But the substance of the amendment and my arguing against the substance of the amendment should not carry as much weight with my colleagues as my pleading with them that we defeat all amendments because this bill has been compromised to satisfy a supermajority of Senators--not a bare majority, a supermajority.

So I take this opportunity to speak out against the Feinstein- Bingaman ``choice of law'' amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Pure and simple, this amendment blows a hole in the bill and guts the modest reforms we are finally going to be able to get to the President.

This amendment would require the Federal courts to certify a class that does not meet basic class action requirements. In addition, what the amendment does is a contravention of the requirements of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which rule says you have to have similar law in fact in order to certify a class. The net result of this amendment is that it would require Federal judges to hear dissimilar claims that do not belong together as a class action, and would not be allowed to proceed as a class action under current law. Requiring courts to subclass does not make this amendment any better.

This amendment would require Federal judges to not follow the requirements for certifying class under rule 23. Why do the proponents of this amendment want to do that? They have given reasons for their amendment and I think, whether this is their intention or not--and I should not question the motives of people--but the end result is perpetuating the abuses that were already seen in the magnet courts, these infamous judicial hellholes which have been referred to. I remember only one out of dozens throughout the country, but one was in Madison County, IL.

The purpose of class actions is obvious: to enable courts to decide large numbers of similar claims and to do it fairly and to do it in an efficient manner. Different claims cannot be pulled together as a class action because that would be unfair and it would violate the due process rights of both plaintiffs and defendants. But the Feinstein- Bingaman amendment would require judges to do just that. As you know, that is exactly what the problem is all about, what our bill was trying to correct: judges certifying classes that should never have been certified in the first place. Rules are in place as to what should or should not be certified,

and the Feinstein-Bingaman amendment blows those rules off. The efficiency and the rationale of that rule should not be followed.

The Federal courts should undertake a review to determine whether multistate class actions involving State law claims should be certified. They need to determine that the legal claims are sufficiently similar to warrant class certification. Most State courts make the same kind of determinations as well. The magnet State courts, on the other hand, do not make this determination and that is why they certify huge classes that involve claims that are completely dissimilar, to the detriment of both plaintiff and defendant. That ends up being a due process problem.

In addition, this amendment before us ignores how diversity jurisdiction works, and it eviscerates the reforms that are contained in our bill.

Another argument for this amendment by Senator Feinstein and Senator Bingaman is allegedly that Federal courts refuse to certify nationwide class actions. That sort of presumption is plain wrong. That is not the case. There are numerous examples of where Federal courts have certified multistate class actions based on State law claims. There is not a rule against nationwide class actions. Federal courts do certify nationwide class actions where the laws that govern the claims are similar.

Class actions are also certified when the plaintiffs' lawyers organize the claims in a manner so that they may be litigated fairly, even under differing State laws, where they appropriately organize the claims into subclasses. But this amendment does not give the courts any choice to determine whether it is appropriate to subclass.

So for a third time during this period that I am standing, I remind my colleagues again about the extensive efforts on the part of Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, Senator Hatch of Utah, and this Senator from Iowa, getting to this version of the Class Action Fairness Act. No one can question that we negotiated in good faith with our colleague Senator Feinstein, as well as our colleagues Senators Dodd, Schumer, and Landrieu, to make changes to address concerns they had about the original bill introduced.

The bill we have now will keep many class actions in State court under the Feinstein home State exception. That was accepted in committee, way back there in early 2003, in the 108th Congress. Also under the local controversy exception we crafted with Senators Dodd, Schumer, and Landrieu, that will stay in State court.

So I hope I get us back in an understandable way, and what people think is rational after all these compromises, so that there is no further need to change this bottom-line compromise. Again, the purpose of this amendment is to gut the modest, commonsense reforms contained in this bill. This is an attempt to legitimize the class action abuse we have been seeing in the magnet State courts. It is an attempt to legalize the problem by putting it into the rule.

All I can say is, that is not all right. It is not OK. If we are serious about putting a stop to class action abuse, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter by Walter Dellinger.

Mr. President, there is no loophole in this bill. This amendment would force the Federal courts to certify dissimilar and unmanageable claims, which is the problem occurring in certain magnet State courts right now. This is a fairness and a due process problem. This is not really a compromise at all. It defeats the purpose of the bill.

The amendment tells courts to ignore State law and forget about fairness just so a class can be certified. It would require courts to subclass even where it would be unwieldy and impractical.

If you want to stop the abuses and pass class action reform, you will oppose this amendment. This underlying bill is the compromise.

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

Mr. President, we are in our second day of debate on the important Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Because of my responsibilities as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I have not had a chance to participate in the debate of a bill that I have been the sponsor of going back to the 105th Congress. It is a pleasure for me to participate and anticipate the passage of this legislation.

It is about time that the Senate gets this bill done and gets it to the President. Of course, I am very pleased that Majority Leader Frist sees this as an important enough issue to move so early in the 109th Congress. I also thank Chairman Specter, as new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for getting this class action bill through committee so very quickly. I hope we can move expeditiously with few or no amendments, pass this bill, and have the President sign it, which we are sure he will.

My colleagues will recall that in the 108th Congress, Senator Frist brought the class action fairness bill to the floor in October 2003, but we were not able to proceed to the bill. We lost the vote on cloture on the motion to proceed by just a one-vote margin; in other words, 50 votes as opposed to the 60-vote supermajority that cloture takes.

After that vote, I worked with Senator Hatch, who was then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and our lead Democratic cosponsors, Senators Kohl and Carper, to modify the bill to address concerns that were raised by three Senators and maybe others, but I remember specifically Senators Dodd, Landrieu, and Schumer. Then we reintroduced the Class Action Fairness Act in February 2004 as a new bill with a new number, S. 2062. It contained the compromise language that we worked out with Senators Dodd, Landrieu, and Schumer. Senator Frist then attempted to bring up the bill last July. Unfortunately, we were once again denied the ability to close debate on the bill, and we lost, again, a cloture vote. This was because Senators wanted to offer nongermane amendments--amendments, as you know, Mr. President, that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the underlying bill. This was particularly disappointing to me after all of the hard work we had done to reach an acceptable compromise with several Democrats. We could have passed the bill in the 108th Congress, but raw politics got in the way.

Now is the time to get this bill done. We have reintroduced the language contained in last year's bill, a compromise worked out with Senators Dodd, Landrieu, and Schumer. That is what is now before us in S. 5, the very same bill. We made no changes to last year's bipartisan compromise. So I hope we can stop having politics interfere with this bill and pass what is a relatively modest bill that will help reform a class action regime that has gotten to be very bad, which ends up most of the time serving no one except the lawyers who bring these class action suits.

I would like to give some background on the need for this very important legislation. Everyone has heard about the abuses going on with the current class action system. These problems undermine the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants. Class members often do not understand what their rights are in a class action suit, while the class action lawyers drive the lawsuits and the settlements. Class members cannot understand what the court and the settlement notices say because they are in very small type and written in hard-to-understand legalese. So class members often do not understand their rights and they don't understand the consequences of their actions with respect to the class action lawsuit in which they are invited to participate.

Moreover, many class action settlements only benefit the lawyers, with little or nothing going to the class members. We are all familiar with the class action settlements where the plaintiffs got coupons of little value, or maybe no value, and the lawyers got all of the money available in the settlement agreement. So what is the point of bringing a lawsuit? I thought it was to find redress for the plaintiffs and not to benefit the lawyers who bring the case. But that is what happens many times now in these class action lawsuits. The lawyers drive those cases, not the individuals who allegedly have been injured. The lawyers are the ones who get the millions and millions of dollars in fees while the people who allegedly have been injured get worthless coupons.

In addition, the current class action rules are such that the majority of large nationwide class actions are allowed to proceed to State court when they are clearly the kinds of cases that should be decided in Federal Court. The U.S. Constitution provides that cases involving citizens of two different States and an amount of controversy of $75,000 can be heard in Federal Court. However, the law has been interpreted in such a way that class action lawsuits; that is, cases involving large sums of money, citizens of many different States, and issues of national concern, have been restricted to State courts even though they have national consequences. Crafty lawyers game the system. Crafty lawyers file these large class actions in certain courts. They are shopping for magnet State courts, and they are able to keep them there.

For example, in Madison County, IL, the most notorious class action magnet State court, which has been called a ``judicial hellhole,'' class action filings have jumped from 77 in 2002 to 106 in 2003. I understand that Madison County has had an increase of over 5,000 percent in the number of class action filings since 1998. That surely says something. Clearly, the judges there are playing somewhat fast and loose with the class action rules when they are deciding whether to certify a class action lawsuit. So unscrupulous lawyers are gaming the present rules to steer their class action cases to these certain preferred State courts, such as Madison County, IL, where judges are quick to certify classes, quick to approve settlements, with little regard to the class members' interests or the parties' due process rights. Of course, that is the reason for this legislation. We need to do something about this kind of abuse of the judicial process.

Class action lawsuits at least should have the opportunity to be heard in Federal court because usually they are the cases that involve the most amount of money, citizens from all across the country, and issues of nationwide concern. Why should a State county court be deciding these kinds of class action cases that impact people all across the country? Of course, that just doesn't make sense to me; hence, the authorship of this legislation. I hope it doesn't make sense to at least a majority of my colleagues.

Both the House and Senate held numerous hearings on this legislation and on other kinds of class action abuse. We heard about class lawyers manipulating case pleadings to avoid removal of a class action lawsuit to Federal court, where it should be, claiming that their clients suffered under $75,000 in damages in order to avoid the Federal jurisdictional amount threshold.

We heard about class lawyers crafting lawsuits in such a way to defeat the complete diversity requirement by ensuring that at least one named class member was from the same State as one of the defendants even if every other class member was from one of the other 49 States.

We heard about attorneys who filed the same class action lawsuit in dozens of State courts all across the country in a race to see which judge would certify the fastest and the broadest of class.

We heard about class action lawyers entering into collusive settlements with defendant attorneys which were not in the best interest of class members.

These are only a few of the gamesmanship tactics lawyers like to utilize to bring down the entire class action legal system. The bottom line is that many of these class actions are just plain frivolous lawsuits that are cooked up by the lawyers to make a quick buck, with little or no benefit to the class members who the lawyers are supposed to be representing.

Out-of-control frivolous filings are a real drag on the economy. Many a good business is being hurt by this frivolous litigation cost. Unfortunately, the current class action rules are contributing to the cost of business all across America, and it particularly hits small business because it is the small business that gets caught up in the class action web without the resources to fight.

Too many frivolous lawsuits are being filed. Too many good companies and consumers are having to pay for this lawyer greed. Make no mistake about it, there is a real impact on the bottom line for many of these companies and, to some extent, on the economy as a whole. They have to eat this increased litigation cost or else it is farmed out to consumers, such as you and me, and this is all in the form of higher prices for goods and services we buy.

This is unacceptable, and we need to do something about this. We need to restore some commonsense reform to our legal system. We need to restore common sense to the class action system. We should pass this bill.

I now wish to say something about class action lawsuits. They can be a very good tool for many plaintiffs with the same claims to band together to seek redress from a company that has wronged them. I am not against the use of class action lawsuits, and neither are other supporters of this bill. We are not here to put a stop to the class action tool.

I certainly know my friend and original cosponsor of this bill, Senator Kohl, feels the same as I do. People who have been injured should be able to sue companies that do not follow the law. Our problem is many class actions are not proceeding in the way they were originally intended.

Our problem is many of these lawsuits are not fair and violate the due process rights of both plaintiffs as well as defendants.

Our problem is many times these lawsuits are not helping the class members at all. They are an effective tool for lawyers to make a big, easy buck.

Our problem is these kinds of suits should have an opportunity to be heard in Federal court, not stuck in a magnet court in a county that has no connection whatsoever to the case. That is why Senator Kohl and I joined forces several Congresses ago--this is the fifth Congress this bill has been around for us to try to do something about this situation. That is a period of 8 years past and 10 years including this Congress--to do something about the problems we were seeing and about the runaway abuses.

The Class Action Fairness Act will address some of the more egregious problems with the class action system while preserving class action lawsuits as a very important tool which brings representation to the unrepresented.

Let me underscore for my colleagues that S. 5 is a very delicate compromise. As my colleagues already know, this bill has gone through many changes to accommodate Democratic Senators, much to the frustration of some of my Republican colleagues who think we have gone too far.

I worked in good faith with these colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring people together and to address valid concerns to increase support for this bill, most importantly to, hopefully, have 60 votes on board, the supermajority it takes to bring a halt to debate, to get to finality, to get this bill passed, to get it to the House where we are told it will pass if we do not change it, and go to the President very quickly.

I did not think then that we needed to make any changes to the class action bill that was originally introduced several Congresses ago, but as compromise is often necessary in this process if I wanted to move the class action bill forward, I did my best to listen to the issues raised and to make modifications to the bill where there was room for that compromise.

Nevertheless, with all the compromises we cut, S. 5 still retains the goal we set out to achieve: to fix some of the most egregious problems we are seeing in the class action system and to provide a more legitimate forum for nationwide class action lawsuits.

The deal that was struck is a very carefully crafted compromise that does not need to be modified any further. So I am asking my colleagues to withhold the offering of amendments to avoid disrupting the balance we have achieved.

My colleagues should not be fooled. The amendments that are going to be offered are an attempt to weaken or gut the bill. Some amendments may sound reasonable, but they pose a problem in the other body. Other amendments may sound good, but they do not have anything to do with class action reform. Other amendments are, plain and simple, poison pills.

We have worked far too long and we have worked far too hard to have this bill come down because folks are misled into supporting an amendment that in reality perpetuates the problem and preserves the status quo.

We have worked far too long and too hard to have this bill delayed and complicated with amendments that the House will never accept.

We have also worked far too long and far too hard to have this bill bogged down by amendments that are not critical to the core purpose of the legislation.

So then let's get this bill past the finish line, not create more hurdles and obstacles. I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendments and keep the bill clean. How often do we in this body, the Senate of the United States, have the respect the House is giving us by saying if this bill is not changed any more, they will buy it the way it is? That happens once in a decade. We ought to take advantage of it.

I would like to highlight, before I sit down, some of the changes we made to the bill to increase support for this bill since Senator Kohl and I introduced the first Class Action Fairness Act in the 105th Congress, now 8 years ago.

The bill, as was originally introduced, did several things. It required that notice of proposed settlements in all class actions, as well as all class notices, be in clear, easily understood English and include all material settlements, including amounts and sources of attorney's fees. Since plaintiffs give up their right to sue, they need to understand the ramifications of their actions and should not have to hire another attorney to find out what these notices mean.

Then our bill required that State attorneys general or other responsible State government officials be notified of any proposed class settlement that would affect the residents of their States. We included this provision to help protect class members because such notice would provide State officials with an opportunity to object if the settlement terms are unfair to their citizens.

Our bill also required that courts closely scrutinize class action settlements where the plaintiffs only receive coupons or noncash awards while the lawyers get the bulk of the money.

It required the Judicial Conference to report back to the Congress on the best practices in class action cases and how to best ensure fairness of these class action settlements.

Finally, the bill allowed more class action lawsuits to be removed from State court to Federal court. The bill eliminated the complete diversity rule for class action cases but left in State courts those class actions with fewer than 100 plaintiffs, class actions that involve less than $5 million, and class actions in which a State government entity is the primary defendant.

Our bill still does many of these things, but we have made a number of modifications to get this bipartisan support.

In the Judiciary Committee in the 108th Congress, we incorporated Senator Feinstein's amendment which would leave in State court class action

cases brought against a company in its home State where at least two- thirds or more of the class members are also residents of that State.

We also incorporated changes to address issues raised by Senator Specter relative to how mass actions would be treated under this bill. In our negotiations and outside the committee with Senators Schumer, Dodd, and Landrieu, we made numerous changes, so I will only mention a few of the more important compromises we reached.

For example, we made changes to the coupon settlement provisions in the bill providing that attorney's fees must be based either on the value of the coupons actually redeemed by class members or the hours actually billed in prosecuting the case. We deleted for these Senators the bounties provision because of a concern that it would harm civil rights plaintiffs.

We deleted provisions in the bill that dealt with specific notice requirements because the Judicial Conference had already approved similar notice arrangements to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

To address questions about the merry-go-round issue, we eliminated a provision dealing with the dismissal of cases that fail to meet rule 23 requirements so that existing law applies.

We deleted a provision allowing plaintiff class action members to remove class actions to Federal court because of gaming concerns. We placed reasonable time limits on the appellate review of remand orders in the bill. We clarified that citizenship of proposed class members is to be determined on the date the plaintiff filed the original complaint or when plaintiffs amend the complaint.

We made further modifications to the Feinstein compromise already referred to and to the mass action language Senator Specter was concerned about. We clarified that nothing in the bill restricts the authority of the Judicial Conference to promulgate rules with respect to class actions.

Finally, we drafted a new what is called local class action exception, which would allow class members to remain in State court if, one, more than two-thirds of the class members are citizens of this forum State; two, there is at least one in-State defendant from whom significant relief is sought by members of the class and whose conduct forms a significant basis for the plaintiffs' claims; three, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State where the action was originally filed; and, four and lastly, no other class action asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons has been filed during the preceding 3 years.

We did all of this to ensure that truly local class action cases, such as a plant explosion or some other localized event, would be able to stay in State court. So we have made significant concessions to get our Democratic colleagues on board this Class Action Fairness Act. Of course, some of my Republican colleagues feel we have made too many compromises. But these folks on the other side of the aisle have been telling us that they are ready to support the bill and get it passed, so the time has come that hopefully no more politics are played, that we get down to business and we get this bill done. It is time to make real progress on a class of lawsuits that has become burdensome for business, not beneficial to the plaintiffs, and enriching of attorneys.

If we do that--and we do that when we pass this bill--again I want to remind my colleagues that we have crafted a carefully balanced bill that consists of a number of compromises and some would say too many compromises. I think we have done a pretty good job of addressing legitimate concerns with the bill and I am hopeful we will not see a lot of amendments to disrupt this compromise. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me and vote against all killer amendments that gut or weaken the bill. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me and vote against poison-pill amendments that the House will never accept.

All of these amendments need to be defeated because we should send a clean bill to the House. All of our hard work on forging a bipartisan compromise bill should not go down the drain.

The bottom line is this class action reform is badly needed. Both plaintiffs and defendants alike are calling for change. The Class Action Fairness Act will help curb the many problems that have plagued the class action system. S. 5 will increase class members' protection and ensure the approval of fair settlements. It will allow nationwide class actions to be heard in a proper forum, the Federal courts, but keep primarily State class actions where they belong, in State court. It will preserve the process but put a stop to the more egregious abuses. It will also put a stop to the frivolous lawsuits that are a drag on the economy.

Now that we have worked together on a very delicate compromise, we should be able to get this bipartisan bill done without changes.

I see another person who has worked very hard on this bill has come to the Chamber and that is Senator Carper of Delaware. There is no person who has been more determined to get this bill passed and get it passed in a bipartisan way, and I appreciate very much the cooperation he has given us over the last year but, more importantly, in a time when I have been involved with a lot of issues other than class action, he has kept me focused on this bill that I want to get passed, and he has helped me get the job done. I thank Senator Carper as well as other Democrats who have helped in this process.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague from Delaware, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a fallen Army soldier, SGT Javier Marin, Jr., of the A Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. Sergeant Marin died on the 24th of January, 2005, in Mohammed Sacran, Iraq, when his military vehicle overturned into a nearby canal. He had just turned 29 years old on the 21st of January. Sergeant Marin is survived by his mother, Leslie Marin, and his sister, Evalina Marin, who live in Storm Lake, IA, as well as his father, Javier Marin, Sr., and many more family members and friends.

This simple tribute does not do justice to the immense courage and patriotism exemplified by SGT Javier Marin, Jr. In times of war and conflict such as this, it is often difficult to appreciate the gravity of a single loss in the midst of the increasing numbers of those who have given their lives. However, it is important that we take the time to reflect upon the lives of each of the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the peace and freedom of the United States and the world. Today we honor the life of Sergeant Marin as we contemplate the ideals of liberty and democracy for which he fought and sacrificed. SGT Javier Marin, Jr., and all the men and women who have lost their lives in service to their country will have our eternal gratitude. My prayers are with Javier's family and friends and my most heart-felt appreciation goes to the late SGT Javier Marin, Jr.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of an Iowa Marine who has fallen in service to his country in Iraq. Marine Corporal Nathan A. Schubert, of the 1st Battalion 3rd Marine Regiment, was killed on January 26, 2005 when his helicopter crashed during a sandstorm near Ar Rutbah, Iraq. The helicopter carried Corporal Schubert and thirty other Marines who were part of a security mission to aid in the safe conduct of the national democratic elections last Sunday. He is survived by his mother, Cheryl Winklepeck, a sister, Elizabeth Householder, and a brother, Matt. Corporal Schubert died one day before his 23rd birthday.

A native of Cherokee, IA, Cpl. Schubert attended Washington High School and went on to continue his studies at Kirkwood Community College in the fall of 2001. Just weeks after the terrorist attacks on September 11, Nathan Schubert enlisted in the Marines to fulfill what he saw as his patriotic duty. Describing Corporal Schubert as a friendly, likable, and patriotic young man, his brother noted that he ``lived life to the fullest.''

I ask all of my colleagues in this body and all Americans to remember with respect, admiration, and gratitude this courageous Marine who made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of the principles we value most as Americans: freedom, democracy, and justice. Corporal Schubert died honorably while supporting and defending these values by aiding the birth and development of democracy in Iraq. He is to be commended for his bravery as he joins the honorable ranks of those Americans who have gone before him in service of their country. My prayers go out to Nathan's family and friends and my greatest respect and appreciation go to Cpl Nathan A. Schubert.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Baucus, the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, to re- introduce the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee Act--or the NESTEG bill as we call it in the Finance Committee. The NESTEG bill would reform our pension and retirement savings laws in several important ways. For example, NESTEG would require companies to allow their employees to diversify out of company stock, a provision that the Committee adopted in response to the events at Enron which saw employees' retirement plans vanish almost over night. The NESTEG bill also includes other important participant protections, including enhanced disclosure requirements, new rules governing so-called blackout periods, and faster vesting of employer contributions. In addition, NESTEG expands the portability of retirement plan assets so that workers can keep money saved for retirement, and simplifies pension laws and regulation. The NESTEG bill also responds to the uncertainty in the rules governing defined benefit pensions by permanently adopting the yield curve as a replacement for the 30-year Treasury rate.

Last year, the Finance Committee unanimously approved the NESTEG bill. This year, I am looking forward to seeing it signed into law. This bill first began in the wake of the outrageous events that went on in the wake of the collapse of Enron and corporate scandals at other companies. Over the past few years, the Finance Committee has worked diligently to enact reforms in a number of areas of the law to make sure that events like that don't happen again.

The important pension protections in the NESTEG bill are one remaining area for reform. The headlines have died down, but workers' pensions are still too vulnerable to company failures. Thus, a central piece of this bill would allow employees to diversify their retirement plans so that they are not overly concentrated in company stock. Diversification is one of the hallmark principles of sound investment strategy, and promoting diversification should be a hallmark of our pension laws.

But the NESTEG bill is not just a bill that responds to Enron-like situations. The NESTEG bill includes other important improvements to 401(k) and other defined contribution plans as well. The bill makes it easier for employees to transfer amounts from one plan to another, thereby making sure that plan assets remain saved for retirement. And the bill includes provisions designed to make it easier and more cost effective for small businesses to sponsor a retirement plan. Small businesses are vital to our economy, and we need to encourage a level playing field so that workers at small businesses throughout our country have the same access to retirement plans as workers at Fortune 500 companies.

The NESTEG bill also would remove a major source of uncertainty plaguing our pension system by enacting the yield curve as a permanent replacement to the 30-year Treasury rate for pension funding. Workers need reliable pension funding, and employers need a reliable basis on which to calculate pension payments. The NESTEG bill

also gives plan sponsors more flexibility to fund their plans well in good times, and restricts the ability of companies with severely underfunded plans to promise more benefits to work. The Administration has recently come forward with additional pension funding reform proposals, and I look forward to examining those reforms as the Finance Committee considers legislation in this area this year.

Retirement security is a topic that is going to get a great deal of attention this year. We know we need to increase long-term savings in America, and we know that there are ways that we can improve our private retirement system. The reforms in the NESTEG bill that I am introducing today with Senator Baucus represent an important step forward in improving Americans' retirement security. As we debate retirement security issues this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve the goal of ensuring that all Americans achieve a secure retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Baucus, the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, to re- introduce the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee Act--or the NESTEG bill as we call it in the Finance Committee. The NESTEG bill would reform our pension and retirement savings laws in several important ways. For example, NESTEG would require companies to allow their employees to diversify out of company stock, a provision that the Committee adopted in response to the events at Enron which saw employees' retirement plans vanish almost over night. The NESTEG bill also includes other important participant protections, including enhanced disclosure requirements, new rules governing so-called blackout periods, and faster vesting of employer contributions. In addition, NESTEG expands the portability of retirement plan assets so that workers can keep money saved for retirement, and simplifies pension laws and regulation. The NESTEG bill also responds to the uncertainty in the rules governing defined benefit pensions by permanently adopting the yield curve as a replacement for the 30-year Treasury rate.

Last year, the Finance Committee unanimously approved the NESTEG bill. This year, I am looking forward to seeing it signed into law. This bill first began in the wake of the outrageous events that went on in the wake of the collapse of Enron and corporate scandals at other companies. Over the past few years, the Finance Committee has worked diligently to enact reforms in a number of areas of the law to make sure that events like that don't happen again.

The important pension protections in the NESTEG bill are one remaining area for reform. The headlines have died down, but workers' pensions are still too vulnerable to company failures. Thus, a central piece of this bill would allow employees to diversify their retirement plans so that they are not overly concentrated in company stock. Diversification is one of the hallmark principles of sound investment strategy, and promoting diversification should be a hallmark of our pension laws.

But the NESTEG bill is not just a bill that responds to Enron-like situations. The NESTEG bill includes other important improvements to 401(k) and other defined contribution plans as well. The bill makes it easier for employees to transfer amounts from one plan to another, thereby making sure that plan assets remain saved for retirement. And the bill includes provisions designed to make it easier and more cost effective for small businesses to sponsor a retirement plan. Small businesses are vital to our economy, and we need to encourage a level playing field so that workers at small businesses throughout our country have the same access to retirement plans as workers at Fortune 500 companies.

The NESTEG bill also would remove a major source of uncertainty plaguing our pension system by enacting the yield curve as a permanent replacement to the 30-year Treasury rate for pension funding. Workers need reliable pension funding, and employers need a reliable basis on which to calculate pension payments. The NESTEG bill

also gives plan sponsors more flexibility to fund their plans well in good times, and restricts the ability of companies with severely underfunded plans to promise more benefits to work. The Administration has recently come forward with additional pension funding reform proposals, and I look forward to examining those reforms as the Finance Committee considers legislation in this area this year.

Retirement security is a topic that is going to get a great deal of attention this year. We know we need to increase long-term savings in America, and we know that there are ways that we can improve our private retirement system. The reforms in the NESTEG bill that I am introducing today with Senator Baucus represent an important step forward in improving Americans' retirement security. As we debate retirement security issues this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve the goal of ensuring that all Americans achieve a secure retirement.

Madam President, in the tradition of the work of the Senate Finance Committee--and that is basically described in one word, bipartisanship--we bring this nomination to the floor. We bring it with the unanimous approval of everybody on the committee, saying that Governor Leavitt should be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. He is a person who is very well qualified for this position, and we look forward to working with him on all of the quality-of-life issues that come before Congress, whether they deal with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare--issues that are under the jurisdiction of this new Secretary to administer, and issues that are under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee for oversight.

During his tenure as Governor, he reduced the number of uninsured children through his work on the Children's Health Insurance Program, he made significant improvements to the child welfare system, and he significantly increased the number of those with health insurance coverage. So some of the things he has done as Governor are some of the things that we are working on in this committee, and some laws are already passed. He will have a chance to continue his good work on these issues in conjunction with us as a committee and directly himself as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I am not alone in my high estimation of Governor Leavitt. The people of Utah recognize his strong leadership capabilities in reelecting him to three consecutive terms as Governor. Certainly big challenges lie ahead for this Department, as it does for our committee, and strong leadership in that Department is needed. I am glad it comes with Governor Leavitt.

First and foremost, there are an estimated 45 million Americans who lack basic health coverage, and those numbers seem to have been increasing every year. As Secretary, his leadership will be called upon to propose innovative ways that we can help contain costs and increase access to health insurance and the health care resulting from that insurance.

The Medicaid Program will also be a key issue this year. Medicaid provides health care coverage and benefits for low-income individuals and families. It is now the largest Federal care program in terms of total spending and served about 51,000 people in 2002.

It was originally enacted in 1965, and many have suggested it has not kept up with the times. Increasingly, States have been forced to rely upon what we call the 1115 waiver process to manage the program to fit the needs of their State. These waivers are negotiated with little congressional oversight. I look forward to working with Governor Leavitt to ensure that the Medicaid Program is functioning as effectively as it ought to function.

There is the issue of SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Madam President, $1.1 billion in SCHIP allotments expired last year and were returned to the Treasury. In addition, there are anywhere from 4 million to 6 million children currently uninsured who could qualify for this program.

Over the next 3 years, a growing number of States, including my own State of Iowa, are projected to consume their Federal SCHIP allotment.

When this happens, they will lack the Federal funds necessary to provide their current level of coverage and also the level of benefits for low-income children.

We need to recapture the $1.1 billion in SCHIP funds, increase our outreach effort to enroll more children, and revitalize the SCHIP program so it is on firm financial footing.

Finally, we need to enact improvements to the 1996 welfare reform bill. We have debated this issue now for 3 years. It is time for action. The numerous short-term extensions are disruptive to the program. I look forward to working with Governor Leavitt to get a welfare bill sent to the President this year. I think that process is starting with the usual bipartisan cooperation between Senator Baucus's side of the aisle and his leadership and the Republicans who I lead.

The Department also has the important job of implementing the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Under Dr. McClellan's leadership, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has accomplished an impressive workload over the last year.

Dr. McClellan and the staff at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are to be commended for their long hours, hard work, and, most importantly, a dedication to doing the best they can.

This is a crucial year for the drug benefit that was passed and signed by the President in 2003. I look forward to working with the Governor on this particular issue and continuing the close working relationship with Dr. McClellan.

Medicare still faces significant challenges to be sure. Medicare spending grew by 5.7 percent in 2003, and as spending continues to increase, there is a growing need to restrain its growth.

Many have said rising costs and health care can be contained and health care quality improved by paying providers based on their performance and by utilizing health information technology.

The Department has taken significant steps to reduce health care costs and provide better care through chronic care management initiatives and additional preventive benefits that were in the 2003 legislation.

The Department also called upon Dr. Brailer, as the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, to develop, maintain, and oversee a plan focused on a nationwide adoption of health information technology in both the public and private sectors.

Bringing these initiatives together to reward quality and efficiency while reducing medical errors and duplication will be one of the major undertakings in health care over the next decade, and strong leadership at Health and Human Services is needed to make that happen.

Another issue on which the Governor's leadership is needed is the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other developed nations. That surely is a controversial issue that hopefully we can debate in the Senate, because the law must be changed to make that happen. American consumers are demanding lower prices for prescription drugs, and I believe that legalizing importation under conditions that ensure safety is the right thing to do.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft legislation that will pass Congress and be signed by the President.

I would also be remiss if I did not address an issue that continues to be of great concern. The frail and elderly residing in our Nation's nursing homes deserve high-quality care. I am confident that with Governor Leavitt's help, we can ensure that they receive no less.

Besides these issues, the Department faces other significant challenges. I have always taken responsibility of conducting oversight over the executive branch operations very seriously, and I will continue to do that as chairman again. Government truly is the people's business, and Americans have the right to know what their Government is doing and how it spends their money. Transparency in Government, coupled with aggressive oversight by Congress, is critically important in helping to make Government transparent, more effective, more efficient, and more accountable to the taxpayers, program participants, and beneficiaries.

I am also a firm and ardent supporter of whistleblowers. Historically, whistleblowers have been key to uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse. Unfortunately, whistleblowers are often as welcome in an agency as a skunk at a picnic.

I look forward to addressing these problems with Governor Leavitt. Taking a closer look at Medicaid, SCHIP improvement, implementation of the new drug benefit, importation of prescription drugs, enactment of welfare reform, and the advancement of information technology and quality in health care as a reimbursement tool are just some of the priorities I look forward to addressing with Governor Leavitt.

I close by urging my fellow colleagues to support Governor Leavitt in his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. It is a major commitment that requires personal sacrifices on many levels, although I believe Governor Leavitt and his wife Jackie are the right team for this job. I also thank President Bush for his choice of such a qualified and competent candidate.

I thank Senator Baucus not only for his cooperation on this effort, but we have had 4 years now of cooperative effort, and we expect that to continue. I know he is committed to that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again with my good friend Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Opportunity Act.

The Family Opportunity Act provides states the option to allow families with disabled children to buy into the Medicaid program.

Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I have tried to get the Family Opportunity Act enacted for many years.

The legislation has been scaled back dramatically as we have attempted to make the bill less costly. For example, the original proposal, introduced in the 106th Congress would have set a family's eligibility at 600 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, would have had an enhanced administrative match and provided coverage for children up to age 21.

The version we are introducing today sets the family's eligibility at 300 percent of Federal Poverty Level, no administrative match and provides coverage for children up to age 18.

I am very hopeful that these modifications will ensure that the Family Opportunity Act can be enacted this year.

The legislation is consistent with the ``compassionate conservative'' agenda advanced by the President and the Congressional leadership.

It helps families stay together. In some cases, in order to provide for the special needs of their child, parents face the unbearable prospect of having to put their child in an out of home placement just to keep their child's access to Medicaid covered services.

Some of these parents have to refuse jobs, pay raises and overtime in order to preserve access to Medicaid for their child with disabilities. These parents are hard working taxpayers.

There is precedent for allowing individuals with disabilities to continue to have access to the services that Medicaid provides while enhancing their income and self-esteem through the dignity and the contribution to society that one attains through engagement in the world of work. It only makes sense to extend these principles to adults with a child with a disability.

The Family Opportunity Act is an option for States. It is not a Federal mandate. Additionally, it encourages the use of private employer sponsored coverage. Hopefully a participating family has some private insurance. The Family Opportunity Act would allow states to offer ``wrap around'' services that the employer sponsored coverage does not provide, such as physical therapy, mental health services and customized durable medical equipment.

Children with significant disabilities need these services in order to properly develop into responsible and contributing members of society.

Additionally, the legislation would provide for the establishment of demonstration projects regarding home and community based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment facilities for children.

Under current law, states are not allowed to offer home and community based services as an alternative to inpatient psychiatric hospitals. The legislation proposed by Senator Kennedy and myself would help realize this goal for these children.

The Family Opportunity Act would make progress in correcting this omission by allowing for demonstration projects to test the effectiveness in improving or maintaining a child's functional level and cost-effectiveness of providing coverage of home and community based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment for children in the Medicaid program.

Finally, the Family Opportunity Act would provide for the development of Family to Family Health Information Centers which help guide families

through the maze of programs and networks associated with the challenges of raising a child with a disability.

The Family Opportunity Act is a good bill. For many years it has garnered the support of a majority of Senators. It has the support of numerous family and child advocacy groups.

This legislation is pro-family, pro-work and pro-compassion. I urge the quick enactment of the Family Opportunity Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again with my good friend Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Opportunity Act.

The Family Opportunity Act provides states the option to allow families with disabled children to buy into the Medicaid program.

Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I have tried to get the Family Opportunity Act enacted for many years.

The legislation has been scaled back dramatically as we have attempted to make the bill less costly. For example, the original proposal, introduced in the 106th Congress would have set a family's eligibility at 600 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, would have had an enhanced administrative match and provided coverage for children up to age 21.

The version we are introducing today sets the family's eligibility at 300 percent of Federal Poverty Level, no administrative match and provides coverage for children up to age 18.

I am very hopeful that these modifications will ensure that the Family Opportunity Act can be enacted this year.

The legislation is consistent with the ``compassionate conservative'' agenda advanced by the President and the Congressional leadership.

It helps families stay together. In some cases, in order to provide for the special needs of their child, parents face the unbearable prospect of having to put their child in an out of home placement just to keep their child's access to Medicaid covered services.

Some of these parents have to refuse jobs, pay raises and overtime in order to preserve access to Medicaid for their child with disabilities. These parents are hard working taxpayers.

There is precedent for allowing individuals with disabilities to continue to have access to the services that Medicaid provides while enhancing their income and self-esteem through the dignity and the contribution to society that one attains through engagement in the world of work. It only makes sense to extend these principles to adults with a child with a disability.

The Family Opportunity Act is an option for States. It is not a Federal mandate. Additionally, it encourages the use of private employer sponsored coverage. Hopefully a participating family has some private insurance. The Family Opportunity Act would allow states to offer ``wrap around'' services that the employer sponsored coverage does not provide, such as physical therapy, mental health services and customized durable medical equipment.

Children with significant disabilities need these services in order to properly develop into responsible and contributing members of society.

Additionally, the legislation would provide for the establishment of demonstration projects regarding home and community based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment facilities for children.

Under current law, states are not allowed to offer home and community based services as an alternative to inpatient psychiatric hospitals. The legislation proposed by Senator Kennedy and myself would help realize this goal for these children.

The Family Opportunity Act would make progress in correcting this omission by allowing for demonstration projects to test the effectiveness in improving or maintaining a child's functional level and cost-effectiveness of providing coverage of home and community based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment for children in the Medicaid program.

Finally, the Family Opportunity Act would provide for the development of Family to Family Health Information Centers which help guide families

through the maze of programs and networks associated with the challenges of raising a child with a disability.

The Family Opportunity Act is a good bill. For many years it has garnered the support of a majority of Senators. It has the support of numerous family and child advocacy groups.

This legislation is pro-family, pro-work and pro-compassion. I urge the quick enactment of the Family Opportunity Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules for the Committee on Finance, for the 109th Congress, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I rise in remembrance of a brave Iowan who has left his countrymen to join the ranks of those who have paid the highest price in the defense of freedom. Sergeant Thomas Eugene Houser was a native of Council Bluffs, IA and was killed on January 3, 2005, in action against enemy forces in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. He was twenty-two years old.

An active young man, SGT Houser participated in football, wrestling, and track while attending St. Albert's Catholic High School and is remembered by his family and friends as a compassionate soul who, as his mother says, could ``talk to anyone.'' As a boy, he dreamed of following in the tradition of military service set by his father and grandfather, a dream which he fulfilled courageously as a member of the 1st Marine Division.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Iowans in remembering SGT Houser. My prayers go out to his family and friends who feel his loss so deeply. Such men as Thomas Houser inspire us to hold in ever higher esteem the ideals of freedom and service. His valor shall certainly not be forgotten.

Private First Class Gunnar Becker

Mr. President, I rise today to honor CWO David H. Gardner Jr., an Iowa native who was killed when his UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter went down near Fort Hood in Texas. A 1991 graduate of Mason City High School in Mason City, IA, David Gardner served as a helicopter pilot assigned to the 4th Infantry Division's A Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Aviation Regiment. He had previously served in the Iowa National Guard before going on active duty in the 1990s. From October of 2003 until the following April, Chief Warrant Officer Gardner served his country in Iraq.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate and all Americans to join me today in paying tribute to Chief Warrant Officer Gardner. My deepest sympathy goes out to his friends and family, and particularly the 7-year-old daughter he leaves behind. It is my hope that she grows up knowing of the tremendous sacrifice her father made for his country and the deep appreciation America has for him. Chief Warrant Officer Gardner will always be honored as a hero who gave his life for his country, and he will be greatly missed.