Floor Statements

Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about bankruptcy reform and the need to enact legislation dealing with bankruptcy reform. Before I do that, given the comments of our esteemed leaders, Senator Byrd and Senator Hatch, I feel compelled to say something first with respect to judicial nominations.

This 109th Congress, in my view, has begun with much promise. We have taken steps to begin to restore a sense of balance in our legal systems--the system of civil justice to make sure that little people harmed by big companies have a chance to band together and be made whole, and at the same time make sure that companies defended in class action lawsuits have a fair trial in a court where the deck is not stacked against them.

We are on the verge of passing significant and needed bankruptcy reform legislation. A conference on energy policy is taking place that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which has the promise also of increasing our reliance on renewable forms of energy and cleaning up our air, reducing sulfur dioxide emissions, nitrogen dioxide, mercury, and even carbon dioxide.

We have just reported out of the Finance Committee legislation that will better ensure that work pays more than welfare to help people make that transition from welfare to work. We are close to consensus on overhauling our postal system and taking the 1970s model created under the leadership of Senator Stevens--who has joined us on the floor--to bring that into the 21st century.

There is much promise. There is much that can be done and ought to be done.

I fear that we are approaching a precipice that we may fall off--both parties, Democrats and Republicans--which is going to render us unable to achieve what I think would be a very fruitful session in this Congress. Reason must prevail here. Democrats will not always be in the minority; the Republicans will not always be in the majority; Republicans will not always hold the White House. We have to figure out some way to work through our divisions on the nomination of judges.

It is sort of ironic in the first term of President Bush's administration that 95 percent of his nominees were approved, compared to President Clinton's success rate of about 80 percent over the 8 years he served.

We need to be able to establish a system of checks and balances. We don't want to be obstructionists; we don't want one party to basically call the shots in the executive and legislative branches, and stack the decks in our courts.

I encourage our leaders, as I have done privately, Senator Reid and Senator Frist, to sit down--if they have done it, to do so again--and have a heart to heart.

I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle who want this place to work, who want us to do the people's business, to work and find a way out of this bind.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about bankruptcy reform legislation.

Much has been said about the bill that is before us. Let me say a few things as well.

Two years ago, roughly 83 Senators voted in favor of an overhaul of our Nation's bankruptcy laws. As you may know, under current law, people who do not have the ability to pay their debts can go into chapter 7 and their debts are largely forgiven. They may have to turn over some of their assets. That is chapter 7. If the court of bankruptcy believes a family has the ability to repay some of their debts, they go into chapter 13, if a payment schedule is worked out.

Concerns have been raised, justifiably, over the last decade or more that some people who have the ability to repay don't; they simply run up their debts and walk away from those obligations, and, frankly, leave the rest of us having to pay more interest on the consumer debt we acquire and to pay more for the goods and services we buy.

Bankruptcy laws exist for a good purpose. People do have disasters that come into their lives; marriages end, serious health problems occur, and people lose jobs. For those reasons, we have bankruptcy laws. Most people who file for bankruptcy are not trying to defraud anybody. They have a genuine emergency, or a huge problem in their life, and they need the protection of the bankruptcy court. That is why we have those laws.

There is a principle, whether you are for this bill or not, that I think we can all agree on. That principle is simply this: If a person or a family has the ability to repay a portion or all of their debts, if they have that financial wherewithal, they should repay a portion or all of their debts. If a family doesn't have that wherewithal to pay or begin repaying their debt, they should be accorded protection of the bankruptcy court. That is it; it is that simple.

The legislation we have before us is an effort to try to codify that principle, and to improve on the system today where too many people, frankly, have abused that system.

Much has been said about credit card banks and putting credit cards in the hands of people, encouraging them to use them. I have heard from my credit card banks. They would like to see this legislation adopted. I have heard more from my credit unions in Delaware than I have from the credit card banks, saying there is a problem and it is one that we need to address.

I want to consider for a moment what will happen, or continue to happen, if we don't enact this legislation.

No. 1, some people who ought to be repaying a portion of their debts do not.

No. 2, the folks who ought to be receiving childcare from parents who are not anxious to meet that obligation will not receive that childcare payment. Their biological parent will file for bankruptcy in an effort to avoid making that childcare payment, or to make an alimony payment. In fact, the way the current law is structured, when somebody is in a position to start paying their responsibilities or obligations, legal fees come ahead of childcare and come ahead of alimony. That is wrong.

Today, under current law, a wealthy individual in a State such as Florida or Texas can go out, if they are a millionaire, and take those millions of dollars and invest that money in real estate, a huge house, property, and land in the

State, file for bankruptcy, and basically protect all of their assets which they own because of a provision in Florida and Texas law. Homestead exemptions exist in other States as well. People can put money in trusts today and tomorrow file for bankruptcy and know that all the millions of dollars they put in those trusts can be protected from bankruptcy. That is wrong.

With the legislation we have before us, someone has to figure out that 2\1/2\ years ahead of time people are going to want to file for bankruptcy and be smart enough to put the money into a home, or an estate, or into a trust--not something you can do today--and file for bankruptcy tomorrow; or this year and file for bankruptcy next year or the next 2 or 3 years, or 3\1/2\ years. It is a much better approach. I, frankly, would like to see a cap on the homestead exemption. I voted for one yesterday. It didn't prevail. It should have.

What is in this current bill is a heck of a lot better than it is in the law that exists today. Here is how this bill would work. For people whose median family income is under 100 percent of median family income, those families for the most part will be able to file for bankruptcy and go into chapter 7 bankruptcy without a whole lot of fuss.

What is median family income? In my State, it is about $72,000. Nationally, median family income is about $65,000 for a family of four. It varies from there. It can be as low as $48,000 or $49,000 for a family of four in Mississippi, up to $80,000 in States such as Connecticut and others. But it is a range from the high forties to the low eighties for median family income.

For folks whose income is below 100 percent of median family income, they go into chapter 7 pretty much without a lot of dispute. However, for those families whose income is above median income, above $72,000, they would have to go through a means test. That is not a bad thing to do.

Mr. President, I set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of Marine LCpl Richard Chad Clifton. Chad epitomized the best of our country' s brave men and women who fought to free Iraq and to secure a new democracy in the Middle East. He exhibited unwavering courage, dutiful service to his country, and above all else, honor. In the way he lived his life, and how we remember him, Chad reminds each of us how good we can be.

A resident of Milton, Chad's passing has deeply affected the community. A 2003 graduate of Cape Henlopen High School. Chad was the son of Richard C. and Terri Clifton. Friends, family, and school officials recalled Chad Clifton as smart, funny, laid back, and carefree; an all-around good person. He viewed the Marine Corps as an opportunity to gain life experience. An aspiring writer, Chad said being overseas was providing a reservoir of experiences to write about.

Chad always had a strong interest in the military. He spent more than 3 years as a member of the Cape Henlopen High School Junior ROTC program. His participation in that program enabled me to meet him last year and talk about his interest in serving the United States of America. His interest also came from his grandfather, a Korean War veteran, who earned the Purple Heart. That medal will be buried with Richard Chad Clifton.

After graduating from high school, Chad underwent basic training at Parris Island, SC before being stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA. Chad became a member of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. He died in combat in the Al Anbar province in western Iraq.

Chad was a remarkable and well-respected young soldier. His friends and family remember him as an officer and gentleman with an acid wit and an appreciation for music and art. He enjoyed writing, listening to heavy metal, and watching television sitcom reruns. As his mother remembers, ``He was pure potential with a good heart.''

Today, commemorate Chad, celebrate his life, and offer his family our support and our deepest sympathy on their tragic loss.

Mr. President, in an hour or two or three, we will have the opportunity to vote final passage on class action reform legislation.

The goals of this legislation are fourfold: One is to make sure when people--I say ``little'' people--are harmed by companies, big or small companies, that the little people have the opportunity to band together and be made whole and compensated for harm. The second goal is to make sure the companies know that if they shortchange their customers or others in our country, there will be a price to pay if they get caught. The third goal is to make sure when companies are called on the carpet and are involved in class action litigation, they are in a court, in a courthouse, with a judge, where the companies have a fair shake and the deck is not stacked against them. Finally, our goal is to make sure that, in shifting some class action litigation of a national scope with hundreds of or thousands of plaintiffs across the Nation, multimillions of dollars involved and defendants scattered across the country in different States than the plaintiffs, to make sure we move some class action litigation to Federal courts, we do not overburden the already busy Federal judiciary.

I take a moment or two today to go through and cite examples--not all of them; this is not an exhaustive list--but some of the examples we have sought to make sure in many instances that the majority of class action litigation remains in State court where it belongs.

Let me cite a couple of examples where this bill has been modified over the years to enable a majority of class action litigation cases to stay in State courts. For example, these are cases where the litigation will remain in State courts: No. 1, cases against State and State officials will remain in state court. Smaller cases will remain in State court. Cases where there are fewer than 100 plaintiffs or in which less than $5 million is at stake, those cases are not eligible for removal from State to Federal court. Cases in which two-thirds or more of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the defendant will remain in State court. Cases in which between one-third and two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the defendant may well remain in State court. It is left to the discretion of the Federal judge to decide whether it is Federal or State based on the criteria laid out in the bill.

Similarly, cases involving a local incident or controversy, where the people involved are local, where at least one of the significant defendants involved in the litigation is within the same State, in those instances as well, the cases can and probably should remain in State courts.

That is a handful of the examples where we make sure a lot of the class action litigation remains in State courts where it belongs.

If you go back, the first bill introduced on class action litigation goes back about 7 years, I think, to 1997. That initial bill, along with a number of bills that were introduced in subsequent Congresses, was opposed by the Federal bench. There is an arm of the Federal judiciary called the Judicial Conference of the United States. They have a couple different committees, and from time to time they are asked, and they respond with their opinion, about whether certain legislation is needed, is appropriate, as it pertains to them and the work they are doing.

The initial legislation proposed, I think, in 1997, 1998, was opposed by the Federal judiciary through their Judicial Conference of the United States. In the next Congress, again, the Federal

judiciary opposed that legislation. As the legislation has evolved, we have gone back to ask the Federal judiciary: What do you think? We know you were opposed to original versions of this bill in the late 1990s. How about this latest revision? They continued to oppose subsequent versions of the class action reform until the last Congress.

The Federal judiciary has the same concerns a lot of us have, the wholesale shifting of class action cases from the State courts to the Federal courts. Federal judges are busy, and they do not want to see an avalanche of litigation coming to them. With the adoption of a number of provisions in this legislation that comes to us today, the Judicial Conference wrote to the Senate in 2003 that, particularly given the changes Senator Feinstein proposed, their concerns about the wholesale shifting of State class action litigation to the Federal courts, for the most part, had been met and been satisfied.

They are not taking a position, saying the Senate should vote for this legislation. That is not what they are about. But the concerns they had expressed earlier, year after year after year, have been addressed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States, dated April 25, 2003.

We are going to vote on final passage in an hour or two. I think Senator Durbin is going to come to the floor. He may ask for a vote on his amendment. I am not sure he will. He cares deeply, passionately about these issues and has sought to try to make sure that we end up not making bad, unwise public policy decisions. My guess is, he is not going to come to the floor and urge us to vote for the bill or say he is going to vote for it. I know he has serious misgivings about this legislation. But he has worked constructively, as have people on our side and the Republican side, to get us to this point in time.

Senator Reid of Nevada is our new leader on the Democratic side. He is not on the floor, but I express to him and my colleagues, if he is listening, my heartfelt thanks for working with the Republican leadership and those on our side who support this legislation, to enable us to have this opportunity to debate it fairly and openly, allowing people who like it, people who do not like it, those who wanted to offer amendments, those who did not want to offer amendments, to have a chance for the regular order to take place, to debate the issues and vote, and then to move on.

I do not know if this legislation, the way we have taken it up and debated it, can serve as a template or example to use in addressing other difficult issues--energy policy, asbestos litigation, a variety of other issues--but it might. Because in this case, Democratic and Republican leaders have worked together, have urged us, the rank and file in the Senate, to work together.

Each of the folks in the private sector--people who have an interest in this bill, not only the business side, but the plaintiffs' lawyers side, and other

interested parties, labor, and so forth, consumer groups--I think everybody has acted in good faith to get us to this point in time.

Whether you like the bill, I urge my Democratic colleagues, if you are on the edge and not sure which way to go--you may have voted for all these amendments, and you are not sure how to vote on final passage of the bill--I urge you to vote for this bill.

I do not know if it is possible to have a big margin. I would love to have 70 votes, 75 votes for this bill. I hope we can do that.

Let me close, if I can, by saying, whether you are for the bill or against it, for the amendments or against them, I hope there is one thing we can all agree upon. I will bring to mind the words of one of our colleagues, a legendary trial lawyer from Illinois, who has gone on to be elected and serves with us in the Senate. I will close my comments with his admonition. That admonition is the old Latin phrase: semper ubi sub ubi. Whether you like the bill, I think we can all agree on that admonition today.

With that having been said, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that again we go into a quorum call, but that the time be equally divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have just returned to the Senate Chamber from a press conference that took place one floor above us in the press gallery. There Democratic and Republican Senators, some of our staff, and a number of reporters discussed the passage of the class action reform bill by a 72-to-26 margin a few moments ago. That was a strong bipartisan vote. I was hoping that we might get 70, maybe even 75 votes, and we ended up right in that neighborhood.

A lot of people deserve credit for the success of the vote: Democratic and Republican Senators who crafted the legislation, debated it in committee, and who improved it over the last 7 years since the first bill was introduced. The key to getting the legislation passed-- and it is a fair compromise--was figuring out how to set aside our partisanship, saying that we are not interested in gridlock, and for us to reach across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans and Republicans and Democrats, to figure out how we can reconcile our differences and resolve what has been a very divisive issue for the past 7 years and even before that.

I said at the press conference--I say here today--my thanks to our leader. I

thanked Senator Frist, the Republican leader. I express my thanks to Senator Harry Reid for his willingness to allow this vote to go forward. The class action bill was not legislation that he endorsed, but he was willing to allow the debate to begin and for those who had amendments to the bill to offer the amendments, that we would have plenty of time to debate them and to decide the amendments, and then without any kind of delaying tactics the Senate would go to final passage and take up the bill. I thank him for the very constructive and positive role he played in allowing this legislation to be passed today.

The House of Representatives has agreed to accept without change the bill we have passed. The President has agreed to sign that legislation.

I was saddened last night to be reading through my mail and to come across a 29-page document that I believe has been distributed by the Republican National Committee. There is a picture of Senator Harry Reid on the cover, along with our former leader, Senator Tom Daschle. The caption under the picture says: ``Who is Harry Reid?'' And below that we read: ``Sen. Minority Leader determined to obstruct President Bush's agenda.'' For the next 28, 29 pages, this document is an attempt to identify Harry Reid or to try to define who he is and where he is from, his values. I think it is 29 pages of something more akin to venom.

If we are interested in building on the bipartisanship that characterized this week's debate and today's vote on class action reform, those goals are not enhanced or strengthened by this kind of tactic.

I say to my Republican friends--and I don't believe this came from anybody in this Chamber, but it is from someone our Republicans know and work with, people who work for the President or indirectly--if you want Democrats to work with you and find common ground on issues such as class action or energy or asbestos or other difficult issues, bankruptcy, this is not the way to do it. If you want to make sure that we have obstructionism, that we have a lack of bipartisanship, if you want to ensure that the climate of the last several years where we got so little done returns, this is the way to do it.

Whoever is responsible for this, let me just say: Shame on you. Republicans can do better than this. And to the extent that Democrats are responsible for this kind of behavior on our side, shame on us.

I came here 4 years ago from Delaware, which is a little State, such as the State of the Presiding Officer. In our State we have a history of Democrats and Republicans working across the aisle, trying to find common ground and, more often than not, succeeding. This sort of thing would not be tolerated in my State by either Democrats or Republicans. This is not the way we do business. One of the reasons Delaware is so successful is because of that bipartisan tradition that is part of our fiber.

I hope that we won't see this kind of attack on our leader, and I certainly hope we don't see it on the Republican leader. The Republicans are better than this. So are the Democrats.

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

Mr. President, I am happy to be in the Chamber. I recall 4 years ago when I gave my first speech in the Senate, and I realize my colleague from South Carolina has given a lot of speeches over in the House of Representatives at the other end of this building, but it was a good day for me 4 years ago, and I suspect it is a special day for everyone involved.

It is a great pleasure to know the Senator, and I look forward to working with him. I welcome the Senator to the Senate and congratulate him on his maiden speech.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter for yielding to me. I say to my friend and colleague from Arkansas, he knows how fond I am of him and how highly I regard him, both in his previous role as attorney general and as a colleague in the Senate.

When I heard of the amendment he was preparing to offer, I stopped and I said to my staff, let's find out if this is something I can support. As many of my colleagues know, we have endeavored to improve this bill over time, and the legislation before us today is a far different bill than was first proposed 7 years ago or even was debated 2 years ago and reported out of committee.

Senator Specter has spoken of the option that is available to most attorneys general, an approach called parens patriae, which I understand means ``government stands in the place of the citizen.'' For most attorneys general who wish to file a case on behalf of their citizens against some defendant, they have the opportunity to use parens patriae. For those who do not, in my judgment, they still have the opportunity to use the class action lawsuit.

What we have sought to do over the last couple of years in modifying this bill is to make sure that the class action lawsuits brought by an individual in a State, if they are of a national scope, they would be in a Federal court. If they are not, if they are more of a local issue involving residents of that State, a defendant in that State, or even where there are multiple defendants, but a defendant in that State who has a principal role as a defendant, not just somebody who was sort of pulled out of the air, to make sure there is a real defendant with a real stake in it that has a real financial ability to pay damages, then the legislation that is before us actually permits an attorney general or, frankly, any attorney, plaintiff's attorney, to bring that kind of class action.

The legislation that is before us says if two-thirds of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit are from the same State as the defendant, it will stay in the State court, no question. The legislation before us says that if anywhere from one-third to two- thirds of the plaintiffs on whose behalf the class action is brought meet certain standards that are set out in the bill, that can stay in State court as well.

The legislation that is before us today provides exemptions as well for incidents involving a sudden single accident. The legislation before us today also provides exemptions under the Dodd-Schumer- Landrieu language that provide even further opportunities to proceed with a class action lawsuit if the matter that is being discussed is truly a local matter, if most of the people involved both as plaintiffs and defendants are within that State.

The last thing I would say is there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who would like to offer amendments. My fear is if any of those amendments were adopted, we invite the House of Representatives to come back and to offer quite a different bill than the compromise that is before us today. To those of us who seek reasonable, modest reforms--and this is a court reform bill, not a tort reform bill--but to those who seek moderate reforms incorporated in this legislation, I did not support this amendment because I think it would simply invite the adoption of other amendments and, frankly, put us in the situation which will end in a conference with the House of Representatives with a bill that is frankly far different than this one and will provide an end product not to my liking and I suspect even less to the liking of those who are opposed to this compromise.

I reluctantly oppose this amendment with that in mind, but it is not something I do easily or lightly.

I thank my friend Senator Cornyn for making it possible for me to have this time.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes today to speak to the amendment being offered by Senators Feinstein and Bingaman. I don't think we will find on either side of the aisle a Democrat or Republican more thoughtful than either of them, or more fair-minded. Senator Feinstein, in particular, has been heroic in her efforts to try to bring about consensus on class action so we end up with legislation to make sure little people who are harmed by big companies are able to bind together and be made whole; to ensure that the companies that are accused know if they step out of line there is a price to pay for that; legislation that will also make sure that the defendant companies, large or small, have the opportunity to have a fair trial for whatever they are accused of in the litigation; and our last goal is to make sure the Federal judiciary is not overwhelmed with litigation that could be in State courts, ought to be in State courts, and is needlessly moved to Federal courts.

Those are the objectives we all share, Democrats and Republicans, whether we like or do not like the bill. I am in support of the legislation.

Most consumer laws that end up in courts are laws that are adopted by our States. There are some areas where the Federal Government has laws in place to protect the consumers, but the lion's share of the consumer protection laws are written by the various States.

The effort by Senators Feinstein and Bingaman is laudable; that is, to make sure that when State laws have been violated, particularly when State laws have been violated in a number of States, that whoever has violated those laws is going to be held accountable. The question is, If you have a class action case that is brought forward based on the laws of 10, 20, or 30 States or more, under whose State law do we argue in court the class action litigation? Is it in a State that has fairly weak consumer protection laws or a State that has very strong consumer protection laws?

I am not a lawyer by training, and I come at this as a lay person simply trying to figure out what is the right and fair thing to do. As I understand class action litigation, I will use the example of where we have maybe 21 States that have been bound together in a class action filed in a particular State court, one of those 21 States, and in particular, a State where the litigation is brought, the effort might be to apply that State's laws to all the other States that are part of this. Senator Sessions talked about a situation in a case involving class action with State Farm, where the suit alleged that consumers were being harmed because in the car repair business, when replacement parts were used, some of the States allowed the use of non-original equipment replacement crash parts, sometimes referred to as generic parts. In this case, Avery v. State Farm, an Illinois judge applied the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act to a 48-State class, even though there were significant differences in the States' consumer protection laws and vast differences in the laws of the different states on the use of these types of parts. Most States explicitly authorize their use and a few States even require their use to reduce costs for consumers.

As I have looked into this matter, I have learned when there is an effort to move a class action litigation on consumer issues from a State court to a Federal court, the Federal judge has a number of decisions to make as to whether they want to receive it and hear it at the Federal level.

One, they can say, yes, on the basis of the law that is in question here, and the facts, this is one that makes sense to be heard at the Federal level and to go forward.

The Federal judge can say--again, using the example of 21 States because the math works easily--let's divide those 21 States into three subgroups, and each of those 7 States have laws that are fairly similar but distinct and apart from the other two subgroups. So a Federal judge could say, we are going to go forward with this class action litigation. We will do it as one case, but we will have three subcategories of subgroups.

A third alternative that is available to a Federal judge would be to say, we are not going to have one case; we will have maybe three cases. In those instances where the laws of the States are pretty similar, we will group those seven, and the same would be true for this seven and that seven. And we will hear three separate cases, not one.

If none of that works, the Federal judge is always free to say this is a State matter. The laws and the facts are in such disarray that it is difficult to try them as one case.

Some States have very strong consumer laws, some not. There is a whole big range in between where the laws and the facts are just too disparate and different, and the judge can simply remand it back to the States.

If the Federal judge declines to hear that consumer class action, then it can be tried in State court. Whoever the plaintiffs are, in those instances, will have their day in court. If you happen to be from California, the latter course is not a big deal because you have so many people, 30 million people, and it is not as difficult to put together a meaningful class and to be able to attract an attorney to represent your case. If you happen to be from a smaller State, with fewer people, then it can be more of a challenge to put together a large enough plaintiff class in that State to pay for an attorney to represent the interests of consumers in that State. I acknowledge that.

Having said that, my overriding concern with this legislation is this. I mentioned the four principles earlier, but my overriding concern with this legislation is that we not begin to pick apart this carefully balanced compromise on which we have worked. I have been here 4 years. We have worked on it for almost those 4 years I have been in this Senate. I know people worked on this 3 years before that. We have come so far from where this legislation began in 1997.

This is not tort reform, as a lot of people like to think of it. This is, as

others have said today, court reform. Our goal is to, again, make sure if people get harmed, they have an opportunity to be made whole, to band together into similar groups to make sure the accused and the defendants in the case have a chance to be fairly defended in a courtroom. It is a fair shot.

My fear is, to the extent this amendment would be adopted, it invites amendments of others who may not like this bipartisan compromise because it does not go far enough.

Earlier this month, in the House of Representatives, their bill, which passed by a fairly wide margin in the last Congress, was reintroduced. There are some people in the other Chamber, as well as some in this body, who would like nothing better than to be able to change this bipartisan compromise and move it, frankly, a lot closer to where the House bill is.

Eventually, my friends, we are going to pass a class action bill this year. My own view is it is not going to get any better or more balanced or fairer to plaintiffs and defendants than the compromise we have worked out here this year. As a result, I will oppose, albeit with some reluctance, the amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Bingaman. I know they have put a lot of time and energy into this amendment. Frankly, my staff and I have as well, trying to find a way to accommodate the concerns they have raised. In the end, I do not believe we can, and I must reluctantly oppose the amendment.

I yield back my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, while Senator Dodd is still on the floor, and Senator Feingold as well, let me first of all say to Senator Dodd that we would not be here today with this compromise, which is good public policy but also something Democrats and Republicans, not all, can support--and I know we will get the support of the House and the President. I want to say a special thank you for your leadership. I have learned a lot in the last 4 years watching you and listening to you. Certainly in this instance it is no exception, but thank you.

I want to say to Senator Feingold, we had a number of amendments that have been presented to us today, all thoughtful amendments by some of our

very finest Members. I was not able to support any of them.

The one amendment that I have literally worked, as he knows, behind the scenes to try to get included in a managers' amendment is this amendment or some variation of this amendment. I think the underlying point you make--if a class action is filed in a State court and that is turned down and there is an effort to move it to Federal court, that is turned down, and then there is another effort to move that class action from State court to Federal court, we limit the second time through. There has to be a response in 60 days to the appeal by the Federal judge on the appeal. That would sort of beg the question, Should not there maybe be some kind of time limit as well on the first time there is an attempt to remove the case to the Federal court? That strikes me as something that makes common sense and seems fair and reasonable. As he knows, I have reached out as recently as last night with some of the people involved in the Judicial Conference and the Rules Committee to see if there is a way to strike the balance, and I believe you have moved toward that balance.

My hope is that we could take this amendment or something similar to this amendment and include it in a managers' package. You have heard Senator Dodd and me and others say there is a very delicate compromise here, and there is a concern if we change one piece of the bill we invite friends on the other side, who have a different view about the balance and would like to take the bill in a different direction--we unleash them to feel free to come forth with their amendments and set the bill back.

Having said that, I still think this amendment as you have redrawn it would actually be a good addition to a managers' amendment. I learned today there is not going to be a managers' amendment. As a result, I am not going to be able to support this amendment.

I discussed this this morning with Senator Specter; he finds favor with your amendment. I think he mentioned that at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. He said to me--and he has no reason to say this, but I think it is just in his heart--he thinks you are onto something here and would like to take the Senator's approach on this provision and include it in another bill that he is working on and presumably will have hearings on.

I think this idea, if it does not pass tomorrow and does not get included in the underlying bill, is going to live for another day and we will be back to where we can hopefully all support it.

I thank the Senator for a real thoughtful approach and for his willingness to compromise and try to find some middle ground. I think he has found it. I think his efforts will ultimately be rewarded.

Mr. President, I understand that under the previous order, the Senate will stand in recess at 12:30 p.m. for our weekly caucus luncheons. I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding that unanimous consent agreement, to proceed for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, before Senator Cornyn leaves the floor, I

thank him for his kind words, and I am pleased that we are at the point where we are on this legislation this week. I look forward to both sides exercising constraint--we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good--and pass the good legislation that has been introduced and debated this week, with the understanding the House will accept it and the President will sign it into law.

We heard a fair amount already about the ills of class action lawsuits. Class action lawsuits, in and of themselves, are not a bad thing. Class action lawsuits give little people who are harmed, in some cases by companies, the opportunity--maybe not harmed in a way that the consumers, the little people, lose their eye, arm, leg, or life, but they suffer some kind of harm.

The idea behind class action lawsuits is to say when little people are harmed by big companies or others that those people can band together and present their grievances to an appropriate court, State or Federal, and for the people who are harmed to be made whole.

At the same time, it is important that when the plaintiffs are bringing a class action lawsuit against a defendant from another State, that the case be heard in a court where both sides can get a fair shake, the plaintiffs as well as the defendant.

If we go back over a couple hundred centuries in this country, we ended up with a law that the Congress passed that said if we have a defendant from one State and plaintiffs from another State, it is not fair to the defendant to have the case necessarily heard in the home of the plaintiffs. Someone may have dragged the defendant in across the State lines and put them in a courthouse or courtroom where there is a bias toward the local plaintiffs who brought the case against the defendant from another State, and in an effort to try to make sure that we are fair to both parties, those who are bringing the accusations and those who are defending against them, we have the Federal courts which were established in many cases to resolve those kinds of issues.

Unfortunately, we have seen an abuse of some class action lawsuits in recent years which led the Congress to begin debating this issue and considering legislation to address these abuses starting in, I want to say 1997, 7 years ago. The original problem that was discovered or was pointed out is this: There seems to be a growing prevalence of plaintiffs' attorneys who are forum shopping in State or local courts where the plaintiff class may have an inordinate advantage against the defendant. I will not go into the examples today, but there are any number of instances where one can see forum shopping has gone on, a State or a county courthouse has certified a class, agreed to hear a case, and it sets up a situation where the defendant company or the defendant knows they are going to have a hard time getting a fair shake in that courthouse. As a result, the defendant will agree to a settlement with the plaintiffs' attorneys. The settlement may richly reward the plaintiffs' attorneys for bringing the case, the defendant may cut their losses, but the folks on whose behalf the litigation was brought in the first place, those who allegedly are harmed, in many instances get little or nothing for their harm. That is not a fair situation. It is not fair to the little people on whose behalf the case has been brought. It is arguably not fair to the defendant because they are in a courtroom where they do not have a fair chance to defend themselves. It can be fixed, and it ought to be fixed.

The legislation before us today will not end the practice of class action lawsuits being litigated and decided in State courts. I believe the majority of class action lawsuits, even if this legislation is passed, which I am encouraged that it will, will still continue to be held in State courts, and they should be. We will have the opportunity to explain why that is true later on.

Before my 5 minutes expires, I conclude with this: There are any number of people on both sides of the aisle who would like to offer amendments to this bill. We have been working for 7 years to try to pass something that the House, the Senate, and the President will agree to. The time has come. To the extent that we make a change, whether it is in a Republican amendment or a Democratic amendment that might be offered, if we make a change, we invite the other side to retaliate and to offer their amendments and perhaps to adopt their amendments. For those of us who want to see this bill passed, I believe this legislation is about the fairest balance we are going to get, and I would encourage us to support it. We should consider and debate the amendments but in the end turn those amendments down.

I look forward to debating each of those amendments, and I hope in the end we can accomplish three things with this legislation: No. 1, make sure that where small people are harmed in a modest way, they have the opportunity to be made whole; No. 2, make sure that the defendants who are pulled into court on these class action lawsuits have a reasonable chance of getting a fair shake; and lastly, I am not interested in overburdening Federal judges. I think most of this litigation should remain in State court. I believe the compromise we have struck will do that. Those are our three goals, and I look forward to the debate that is going to follow.

Mr. President, before Senator Grassley leaves the floor, I simply want to say how much I have enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to work with him on this issue. If we go back 7 years when this idea first took legislative form and look at the changes that have occurred over each of the last three or four Congresses, they have been dramatic.

My goal, and I believe it is a goal many of us share who support the legislation, is to make sure that when what I term little people are harmed by the actions of big companies or small companies, those little people have a chance to aggregate together and be made whole. I think we agree on that principle.

We want to make sure the companies that do something that is wrong or that are contemplating an action or behavior that is inappropriate or wrong, that they know if they get caught, they will pay a price, and class actions can help catch them at that and make sure they are put on notice. I think that is a principle on which we all agree.

A third principle is to make sure the defendant companies, if they are called on the carpet, can go to a court where they have a fair chance of defending themselves and presenting their case.

The last one is to try to do all of this in the context of not needlessly overburdening the Federal judiciary.

It is tough to balance all of those different principles, but I think on the legislation the Senator has authored and that some of us have been privileged to work with the Senator to help shape, we have come close to realizing those principles.

I wanted to say a special thanks to the Senator for his willingness to work with people on both sides of the aisle, to hear us out, to hear our ideas, and be willing to accept a number of the ideas we have put forward. My hope is at the end of this week we will have passed that legislation. It is a delicate compromise and balance and, God willing, our friends in the House of Representatives will accept that and the President will sign it into law.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Lloyd H. Ross upon his retirement from Newark High School in Newark, DE, after more than 34 years of dedicated service. He is a man with a kind heart, diverse interests and great abilities. Lloyd embodies the best of Delaware.

Lloyd was born on August 25, 1948 in Nicholson, PA. He graduated from Susquehanna University in Pennsylvania with a B.S. in Music Education in 1970. He then went on to complete his Master's in Music Education at West Chester University in 1974. Lloyd has also done postgraduate work at Peabody Conservatory, Berklee College of Music, University of Delaware, Ithaca University and Villanova University.

During the last year of his Master's program at West Chester University, Lloyd received a job offer from Newark High School. He commuted from West Chester to Newark for the year, and then moved to Newark. The rest, as they say, is history. Lloyd has been a fixture at Newark High School ever since and became an institution there over time.

Lloyd met his wife Joan while in college at Susquehanna University. They married on June 14, 1970 and now have two children, Sharon and Jeff, and one grandchild, Ashley.

Over the past 3 decades, Lloyd has taken the jazz ensemble at Newark High School to national competitions including the Mobile Jazz Festival in Alabama, the Berklee Jazz Festival in Boston, and the All-American Jazz Festival in Orlando, as well as numerous jazz festivals in the tri-state area.

Lloyd and the Newark High School band have performed in 105 field show festivals, 107 parades, 385 football games, 148 concerts, 193 jazz festivals, 158 pep assemblies, 144 special performances and 34 graduations. The music department has won over 925 trophies. From 1978 to 1988, Lloyd directed the First State Symphonic Band in over 110 concerts and 500 rehearsals.

Lloyd's memberships have included: Delaware Music Educations Association, National Band Association, International Association of Jazz Educations and the Music Education National Conference.

Described by his friend of over 30 years, Jonathan Wittman, Lloyd is a jovial, friendly kind-hearted man. He always looks for the humor in life, and finds a way to use humor positively and as a way to get his point across when teaching. He is personable and easy-going man who enjoys life to the fullest.

Lloyd plans to work part-time after his retirement with students and teachers at the University of Delaware. He also plans to spend time on his hobbies, which include travel, photography, and woodworking.

Through his tireless efforts, Lloyd has made a profound difference in the lives of thousands of students, while enriching and enhancing countless lives in the first State. Upon his retirement, he will leave behind a legacy of commitment to public service for both his children and grandchildren and for the generations that will follow. It is my privilege to congratulate Lloyd on a truly remarkable and distinguished career. I wish him and his family only the very best in all that lies ahead for each of them.

Mr. President. I rise today to recognize and congratulate Geoffrey ``Rocky'' Myers, the senior strong safety at Wesley College in Dover, DE, who has been named the recipient of the 12th annual Gagliardi Trophy. This award is given annually to the outstanding football player in the NCAA Division III and is the Division III equivalent of the Heisman Trophy. His recognition demonstrates the success that comes from hard work, perseverance, and the experience of a remarkable team as well as a dedicated coach, and the support of an outstanding college.

The Gagliardi Trophy was presented to Rocky on December 16, 2004, in Salem, VA, in the presence of his proud parents, Gilbert and Cheryl. Unlike the Heisman, this trophy, sponsored by Jostens, Inc. and administered by the SJU J-Club, recognizes excellence in academics and community service, as well as athletics.

A native of Bowers Beach, DE, Rocky attended W.T. Chipman Middle School and Lake Forest High School through his sophomore year and finished his high school career, graduating second in his class, at Caesar Rodney High School in Camden, DE. At Wesley, Rocky played in all 10 games of the 2004 season for the 8-2 Wesley College Wolverines and totaled 124 tackles, 62 of which were solo tackles, along with 62 assists. Rocky also had 6.5 tackles for a loss of 20 yards and five interceptions for 84 yards. A ``Football Gazette'' National Player of the Week, ECAC Co-Defensive Player of the Week and three-time ACFC Defensive Player of the Week, Rocky ranks 11th nationally with 12.4 total tackles per game, 13th with 1.7 passes defended per game and 30th with 6.1 solo tackles per game this season.

Rocky was named to the All-ACFC and All-ACFC Academic Team for all four years of his college career. One of only three Division III players and 15 total scholar-athletes, Rocky was named to the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame's 2004 National Scholar- Athlete Class. He is the only wolverine to be named a team captain three consecutive years.

In addition to his expertise and agility on the football field, Rocky is a 4.0 academic record student who is majoring in biology with a minor in chemistry. He was selected for his academic

achievements and leadership on campus and in the neighboring communities. Rocky has done volunteer work with the youth reading program at North Dover Elementary and in the Guidance Office of the Dover Central Middle School. He has also spent time helping the senior citizens of Frederica, DE, relocate to their new senior facility and was a camp counselor at the St. Thomas More Middle School Youth Basketball Camp.

At Wesley, Rocky was a member of the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee for the past three years, as well as a Wesley College tutor for four years. Rocky's academic achievements include a nomination to the ``USA Today'' Academic All-American, National Dean's List and U.S. Achievement Academy College All-American Scholar.

The Gagliardi Trophy is named for John Gagliardi, legendary head coach at St. John's University (SJU) in Collegeville, Minnesota, where he became the most successful coach in college football history with 409 wins on November 8, 2003. Gagliardi currently has 421 career victories in his 56 years of coaching, 52 of those being at SJU. College Presidents nominate their top student-athletes for this award. The J-Club Board of Directors narrows the field to 10 finalists and a national selection committee selects the winner. Dr. Scott Miller, President of Wesley College, nominated Rocky. In the words of Dr. Miller, ``Rocky is a student-leader of significant note. Students like him emerge only once in a generation. The fact that he is an athlete makes his accomplishments even more noteworthy.''

Today, I rise to extend congratulations and best wishes to Rocky Myers and his family and all of the fine students, athletes, coaches and faculty at Wesley College that helped to make this award possible. We wish him fun times relaxing in the California sun this summer and the best of luck as he pursues graduate school in the fall.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the Reverend Gloria L. Cherry upon her retirement. Pastor Cherry has served the state of Delaware for countless years and her leadership over that span of time has won her the respect and gratitude of our entire state. She has been, and remains, a trusted friend.

Pastor Cherry was born in New Church, VA, on July 3, 1935, to the late Marvin and Bertha Trader. She came to Delaware at a young age and attended Phillip C. Showell Elementary in Selbyville, DE, and received her high school education from Howard High in Wilmington, DE.

Pastor Cherry is the wife of the late Christopher H. Cherry. The two met and were married in Delaware on May 1, 1976. Gloria is the proud and beloved mother of five children, Larry Robinson, Garry Robinson, Addie Merchant, Bertha Hardman and Lorri Jamison; eight grandchildren, Ryan, Rodney and David Robinson, Willie Hardman, III, Christopher and Bobbie Merchant and Winston, Shavon and Dionna Jamison and one great grandson, Ryan Robinson, Jr.

Pastor Cherry was ordained in Spain in 1978 where she received her calling from God. She studied under Pastor Eliah Holland and became a licensed minister in 1980. In 1983, she founded the First United Church of Gospel Ministries which in 2004 was renamed the Healing Wings Christian Center.

Pastor Cherry's service has extended far beyond the church and well into the community. Through the First United Church of Gospel Ministries, she, along with a group of concerned citizens met to discuss the challenges facing young people such as teenage pregnancy, substance abuse and discipline issues. As a result, the Because We Care, Inc. community-based organization was formed. Through a grant from the Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, Pastor Cherry founded the Because We Care Alternative Middle School in Dover, DE. The Because We Care Alternative Middle School is a nonprofit agency that provides continuing education to Kent County middle school children who have been expelled or are on the verge of expulsion. The Because We Care Alternative Middle School serves the five school districts located within Kent County, DE. The program focuses on learning skills, life skills, social competencies and substance abuse/resistance training. Her successes with young people are hailed by Superintendents, Principals and parents alike.

By soliciting volunteers to act as caseworkers, mentors and activity aides, the youth are exposed to one-on-one relationships that routinely develop into long-time friendships. Pastor Cherry's philosophy is that children do not have discipline problems; they have `love' problems. Too many of them live in homes bereft of love. Pastor Cherry believes that providing a stable learning atmosphere along with the love that every child needs, children can make the turn to a more positive life with their families.

In 1999, Pastor Cherry envisioned a homeless shelter for youths as a means of respite for parents and guardians who are struggling with employment and housing for their families. Through additional grants, donations, and blood, sweat and tears, her vision came to fruition through the building and leasing of `Glory Hall.' Glory Hall is a dormitory style living facility that houses 18 youths. The Hall is equipped with a classroom, full-service kitchen and cafeteria, activity area and bedrooms--all built through Pastor Cherry's devotion and love for young people. This year, Glory Hall has been leased to an organization called South West Keys, a Texas based organization with agencies throughout the United States. This organization provides shelter for immigrant children until they are reunited with family members here in the United States.

Through Reverend Cherry's tireless efforts, she has made a profound difference in the lives of thousands of Delawareans. Upon her retirement, she will leave behind a legacy of commitment to public service for both her children and grandchildren and for the rest of us to follow. I thank her for the friendship that we share and for the inspiration that she provides through a lifetime of caring. Although Pastor Cherry is ending this particular chapter of her life, she will open the next chapter by continuing to crusade for those of us less fortunate. On behalf of all Delawareans, I congratulate her on a truly remarkable and distinguished career and extend to her my very best wishes for every success in the future. I wish her and her family only the very best in all that lies ahead for each of them.

Mr. President, I say to our chairwoman of the committee, Senator Collins, a heartfelt thank-you for the leadership and persistence that she and my good friend Joe Lieberman have demonstrated to get us to this day.

I also say to the President, thanks for using some of that political capital. You picked up a little bit last month, and I am pleased you have decided to invest a little bit of it in a worthwhile cause.

I plan to vote for this bill. I was privileged to be a member of the committee in the Senate that developed the proposal under which this bill is based, and we are happy to be here for this day.

To the members of the 9/11 Commission who have worked hard for about 18 months, their staff, a lot of folks who lost loved ones who provided the impetus, really the wind beneath the wings for the Commission and really for this effort, I say just a heartfelt thank-you for their efforts, and I hope they are pleased with where we are today.

Is this proposal perfect? No. Few of mine are. Is it better? You bet it is. It is a real improvement.

Back in 1947, the year I was born, the CIA was born as well. The intelligence structure that was created around the CIA and Cold-War years that followed was a structure that was designed to enable us to win the war against communism, the Cold War. That war is over. We won that war. We have a new war that we are fighting today, and it is a war against terrorism.

Just as the one approach worked well for many years--our intelligence apparatus worked well for many years against communism--it does not necessarily mean it is going to work well against terrorism. In fact, it has not.

When I was a naval flight officer, when I was not flying in a P-3 airplane, one of my ground jobs was to be the air intelligence officer on the ground, briefing other crews for their missions. We had a crew over here that was flying a top-secret mission, needed information about it, and then another group over here with the same clearance that did not fly that same mission. We did not brief the crew that was not going to fly the mission. There was a need to know. If they had a need to know, we provided the information for them. If they did not have a need to know, we did not provide it for them. It worked well in naval aviation. It did not work so well when it came to sharing information across 15 different intelligence agencies on information about terrorism.

We had one agency that knew there were bad guys around the world who wanted to come here and hurt us. We had another agency that knew the names of the people who actually came in and actually could have said that these were some of those bad guys. We had another agency that knew folks were being trained to fly in airplanes, not to land them, not to take them off but to literally fly them straight and level. Among those 15 different agencies, I call them stovepipes, they had the information but they never talked. At least they did not talk enough. We did not put it together.

People talked about connecting the dots. That is exactly what did not happen. So we were not talking; we were not sharing information. There was a need-to-know mentality that existed and has existed for a long time with respect to our agencies. It has to change. This bill is going to change it.

Another problem we had, nobody was in charge. There was nobody to assess accountability and say you were accountable for not letting this happen. With this provision, we are going to have a powerful person put in place, nominated by the President, selected by the President. It has to be an extraordinary individual, somebody smart, somebody who enjoys the confidence of both sides of the aisle, somebody who will enjoy the confidence of the intelligence community, somebody who will be willing to work real hard. I am sure that person is out there. My hope is the President will find him. My hope is we will confirm that person.

Some people say this is not a perfect bill; there are some provisions they do not like maybe with respect to our borders, maybe with respect to immigration, maybe with respect to the rights and prerogatives of the military and making sure they are still in a position to be strong and provide the intelligence that is needed when it is needed to our battlefield soldiers.

This is not a constitutional amendment. This is not something that is in concrete. This is a bill. It is a bill that has been hard fought and a compromise has been well won, but it is not forever. To the extent we go forward and we find that changes need to be made, we can make them, and we should.

In conclusion, we have been working at this stuff for a long time. People have known the system was broke for a long time. We have had any number of recommendations and studies that said, fix this system and this is how to do it. We have not done it. Today we have the opportunity to change it and to take a real step in the right direction. We would be foolish not to. I am happy to say we are not foolish. We are doing the right thing. It is time to seize the day, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

My thanks again to all those who have worked so hard to get us to this point.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, while my colleagues, Senator Alexander and Senator Allen, are still in the Chamber, I want to express to each of them my own gratitude for their hard work to try to forge a compromise on an issue upon which some folks said we were not going to find common ground. But ultimately we did. They are to be commended for that.

I see we have been joined by Senator Burns from Montana. I would say to him, thank you as well.

Several people who are not here have been very much involved in this issue, including Senator Wyden of Oregon and a handful of other former Governors who serve now in the Senate--among them, Senator Voinovich of Ohio and Senator Bob Graham. A couple of former mayors who serve here as well worked on this issue, and this includes the former mayor from California, Senator Feinstein, and a former mayor from a little town called Gillette, WY, a fellow named Enzi, who have all been involved in this, along with Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota.

We shared goals and we shared a number of the same objectives. None of us were interested in taxing access to the Internet. None of us wanted to inhibit its growth. But at the same time, none of us were interested in undercutting the ability of State and local governments to raise revenues to fund their own programs.

As a former Governor, as a former chairman of the National Governors Association, as are Senators Alexander and Voinovich, I never liked it very much when the Federal Government would tell my State or any other State what to do but not to provide the revenue, the wherewithal to do that thing that was being ordered.

I never liked it when the Federal Government undercut my State or any State's ability to raise revenues to pay for programs that we deemed necessary and not provide the revenues to offset that loss.

I think in the end we have come out with a compromise that is not everything that those of us who are former Governors and mayors who worked with Senator Alexander and myself wanted, and certainly all that was sought by Senators Allen and Wyden. Having said that, I believe we have ended up in a very good place. Senator McCain is not here today, at least in the Chamber at this moment, and I thank him for bringing us to common ground on this issue.

We have passed a compromise that I think sends a good message, that may have applicability to other issues. And there are a whole lot of issues that we have considered this year, certainly that we will be considering next year, where we generally share the same goals, but for some reason we do not--and maybe it is the lack of trust, the lack of interpersonal relationships to be able to work through our differences to get fairly close to, at the end, the goals that we share, to legislation that reflects the goals that we share. In this case we did it. And for all who have had a hand in fashioning what I think is a most acceptable compromise and a good ending, I just want to say well done.

The Commerce Committee will now move to new leadership beginning in January. I presume the leader, the chairman, will be Senator Stevens, and the ranking Democrat will be Senator Inouye. They have as close a personal bond as I think any two Senators across the aisle who serve in the Senate. I think that bodes well as they and their committee look down the road to what further changes we need to make, again, to deny the ability to have access to the Internet, make sure we don't inhibit the growth of the Internet and all it can do for our economy, and finally making sure we are fair to State and local governments. It is not an easy thing to do, but in this instance I think we have done quite well for State and local governments, and industry hasn't fared too badly either.

With that having been said, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Richard Wood, CEO of Wawa Inc., and to commend him and his company's commitment and dedication to Delaware and surrounding States. As CEO of Wawa, Richard Wood has instilled in his associates the wisdom to do the right thing, and this core value enables the company to place a high priority on local community involvement. I thank him for all that he and his associates have done to make Delaware a better place.

The company began in 1803 and was incorporated in 1865 as the Millville Manufacturing Company. Millville's owner, George Wood, lived in Philadelphia and brought his family to Wawa, a rural town in Delaware County, PA. The original house where his family lived had a red tile roof, and is now the site of Wawa's present headquarters, hence the name ``Red Roof'' for Wawa's corporate offices. In 1902, George Wood took an interest in dairy farming and started a small milk processing plant in Wawa, specializing in the home delivery of milk. By the 1960s, the grandson of George Wood, Grahame Wood, recognized the changing economic trends and had the vision to expand by selling milk in convenience stores. In April 1964, the first Wawa Food Market was opened in Folsom, PA.

One of the founding principles of Wawa is a commitment to the local communities that they serve. Today Wawa's core value of ``people helping people'' guides Wawa and its employees to give back to those in need. Just some of Wawa's charitable causes include support for children's health, cancer research, AIDS research, domestic violence, heart disease and hunger. A few of the organizations benefiting from the Good Neighbor program include: Food Bank of Delaware, Contact Delaware, AIDS Delaware, The United Way and The Salvation Army.

Wawa has made a tremendous difference in its efforts to raise funds to help eliminate Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. SIDS, the unexplained death of an apparently healthy infant, is the leading cause of death in infants between one month and one year of age. This deadly syndrome has impacted the lives of countless Delaware families.

Since 1997, Wawa and the CJ Foundation for SIDS have held Walk-a- Thons on the second Sunday in September. Walks are held at 12 locations in their five trading areas: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. With the strong support of Wawa area managers, supervisors and store personnel, Wawa has raised more than $1.5 million over the last 8 years. Not only have Wawa customers, vendors and associates given generously of their time to make the SIDS walks an enormous success, but countless Wawa associates volunteer to work the phone banks in New York City each year for the benefit of the CJ Foundation for SIDS Radiothon. Howard Stoeckel, President, and Harry McHugh, Senior Vice President, have both spoken on the Radiothon on behalf of Wawa and their involvement in the fight against SIDS.

Money raised at the Wawa Walk-a-Thons is used to fund research to find the cause of SIDS and to educate parents on how to reduce the risk of SIDS. Proceeds from the walks have helped volunteer grassroots SIDS organizations expand to regional professional non-profits. Thousands of families have greatly benefited from the national ``Cribs For Kids'' program, which receives funding from the Wawa Walk-a-Thons. This program distributes cribs to low-income families to help them provide a safe sleep environment for their babies.

Throughout all this, one steady influence has been the leadership of Richard Wood, Wawa's CEO, who leads by his example in defining Wawa's culture and values. Born and raised in Pennsylvania, Richard graduated in 1956 from St. Paul's School, Concord, NH. He went on to receive his B.S. in Commerce from the University of Virginia in 1961, and an LLB from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1964. After graduating from law school, Mr. Wood served as a law clerk for one year in the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the Honorable Francis L. Van Dusen. He then joined the law firm of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads in Philadelphia, PA. In June of 1970, Mr. Wood joined Wawa, Inc. as General Counsel. He served in various capacities until becoming President in June 1977 and Chief Executive Officer in January 1981. Richard and his wife Jean reside in Wawa, PA.

Richard serves on several boards, including the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce CEO Council for Growth, Pardee Resources Company, and QuikTrip Corporation. He has served as director for many organizations, including: Greater Philadelphia First, CoreStates Bank, N.A., Sheetz, Inc., Convenience Store, Foundation for Education and Research, Globe Ticket Company, Millville Savings & Loan Association, Overbrook School for the Blind, The Home of the Merciful Savior, The Philadelphia City Institute, Philadelphia Charity Ball, Inc.,

Crime Prevention Association, Upland Country Day School, Board of Managers of the Assemblies and Ludwig Institute. Richard was also past Board Chairman of the National Association of Convenience Stores, PQ Corporation, Riddle Memorial Hospital, and Gulph Mills Golf Club (past President).

Richard Wood will be retiring as Wawa's CEO at the end of 2004, and will assume the position of Chairman of the Board of Wawa Inc. I rise today to recognize Richard Wood and thank him for his compassion and leadership, and for the tremendous contributions he and the associates at Wawa have made to Delaware. I thank them for their commitment to strengthening all the communities that they serve.