Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield?

I do. I thank my colleague for yielding. There is a question I want to ask. But let my just say, first of all, I think you know how much I respect you and the high regard I have for you and how much I enjoy working with you. We agree on a lot of things. And there are one or two things we do not agree on, and that is, I think, to be expected.

The issue that you raised early in your remarks is one I want to come back to; and that is, the question of whether we should in some way have an up-or-down vote on the amendment that is before us, or if there should be opportunities for other colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to offer their own amendments to this underlying amendment.

I think the concern for our side is that we are mindful of the possibility of this not being just a debate, an opportunity to address whether there should be a constitutional amendment as marriage being between a man and a woman, but an opportunity to consider other issues of a constitutional nature.

There are people on our side interested in amendments that deal with campaign finance, in restricting money spent on campaigns. That is one example.

As a Member of the House, when I served with Senator Santorum over there, we were great proponents of something called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, not one that mandated a balanced budget, but one that said: Shouldn't the President be required to propose a balanced

budget? And shouldn't we make it a little more difficult for the Congress to unbalance that budget?

There are a number of constitutional amendments that are floating out there on your side and on our side. Here is my question.

I will not object.

I just ask that the response come out of your time.

Mr. President, on the Fourth of July, as many of my colleagues, I covered my State, and, as I have done for many years on the Fourth of July, I ended up in Dover, DE. Dover, DE, on the evening of July 4 is a politician's dream. People have had a full day of parades and family gatherings, community gatherings. We are there to await the fireworks when dusk finally comes. Roughly 10,000 people gathered in front of Legislative Hall, a huge American flag that almost masked Legislative Hall in its majesty, a C-5 aircraft soon to fly overhead, and then the fireworks themselves.

I work the crowd at that gathering, and it is a lot of fun. People are in a good mood, a lot of good-natured kidding going on: Are you running for anything this year? No, I am not, I am just here because I love being in Dover on the evening of the Fourth of July.

There was one serious question, at least one that was raised to me that evening. The question was: How are you going to vote on that amendment on gay marriage? In responding to that question, I pointed to Legislative Hall and I said to the questioner: When I was Governor of this State in 1996, I signed into law our own Defense of Marriage Act that said marriage is between a man and a woman. I believed that then. I believe it now.

Later that evening I addressed the crowd, and I alluded to the Declaration of Independence. But I spoke more about the Constitution, a copy of which I hold. The Constitution of the United States was first ratified in Delaware. I told the crowd that night that the Constitution was ratified in the Golden Fleece Tavern about 300 or 400 yards from where we gathered.

We all know the Constitution does a number of things. It establishes a framework of government. It says, this is how our Government is going to work. We will have three branches of Government: a legislative, executive, and a judicial branch. It says, there are certain things the Federal Government should be doing and certain responsibilities that are left to the States.

Among the responsibilities left to the States in this Constitution are matters of family law: Who can marry, how do we divorce, how do we end those marriages, who gains custody of the children, how about visitation rights, matters of alimony, property settlement, and the like. Those are matters that we have left to the States for over 200 years.

Senator Cornyn mentioned the concern he has over the state of marriage. I share it. Half the marriages in our country today end in divorce. Too many kids grow up in families where nobody ever marries, and families are not invested enough in their children.

I also acknowledge the concern over efforts in some parts to recognize same-sex marriage. That concern has led many States to enact laws such as my State's Defense of Marriage Act and to enact here in this Congress the Defense of Marriage Act as well. That concern over proposals for same-sex marriage has led some States to actually consider constitutional amendments.

With respect to same-sex marriages, let me offer this: There are a lot of views, but two of those views are basic when you cut to the chase. View No. 1: marriage is between a man and a woman. The alternative view is marriage is between two people. I think the

view of most Americans today--not all but most Americans today--is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The question for us to consider here today is this: Is there a clear need to amend the Constitution of our country to ensure that the view I have just stated, the majority view, prevails in States such as Delaware and others? It is a legitimate question. As we seek to answer it, let's consider a couple of examples of State laws spelling out how marriage is supposed to operate and whether those laws have been sustained over the years. Let me mention three examples.

A number of States have prohibitions against first cousins marrying. If two people live in a State where you have a man and woman who are first cousins and they want to get married, they go to another State to get married and return to their State. Their State does not have to acknowledge the validity of the marriage.

Some States have restrictions with respect to divorce. If you get a divorce, you have to wait a while before you can remarry. If you live in a State with that restriction and you go to another State that doesn't have those restrictions, you return to your State, your State does not have to recognize that marriage.

We have all seen movies about May-December marriages and how they can be interesting and entertaining, but a lot of States have a law that says a 57-year-old man can't marry a 13-year-old girl, and if you try to do that in a State where maybe you could get away with it, and you move back to your State, that marriage will not be recognized. Those State laws have been sustained whether we have a constitutional amendment.

I believe that my law in Delaware will also be sustained without a constitutional amendment. If it isn't, then this is an issue that we can revisit, and I think we will.

This Constitution that I hold in my hand is the work of man. I think it was divinely inspired. The folks who met at the Golden Fleece Tavern and the people in Constitution Hall in Philadelphia a long time ago largely got it right the first time--not entirely, but they largely got it right. This Constitution has been rarely changed. It is not easy to do. That is purposeful. Over 11,000 amendments have been proposed to this Constitution. To date, since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, 17 have actually been incorporated as amendments to this Constitution.

On the issue of marriage and divorce alone, 129 amendments have been proposed to the Constitution. None have come close to passage. All of us today and all of us who will vote today realize this proposed constitutional amendment is not going to be enacted either.

It is an important issue that has been raised. As some have said, it is one that, frankly, divides us and divides us deeply.

When the last speech is given today, when the final vote is cast around 12:15 or 12:30, my fervent hope is that we will turn to some issues that unite us and, frankly, need to be addressed. They are closely related to what we are talking about today. We need to look no further than the 1996 Welfare Act that was adopted in this Chamber which has expired and been continued with short-term extensions time and again. It needs to be reauthorized. We need a vote on it and, frankly, to improve it. It is not perfect. We can make it better. We can strengthen marriage through the provisions of that law. We can strengthen families. We can increase the likelihood that more of America's children are going to grow up in homes where both parents are deeply committed to them and to their future, that they have decent childcare. We can do that.

I hope when we finish today and this issue is behind us for a while, that we will turn to another closely related issue that will truly strengthen America's families. That is, to return to the issue of welfare reform and pass the legislation out of committee and send it to the House. Let's get on with the Nation's business.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we just concluded a vote and a very disappointing chapter in our effort to reform the way part of our legal system works in this country.

We have debated for the last several days how we might change the current system where people have been harmed by goods or services provided for their use by some company and did not get what they should have--they have been shortchanged or maybe even exposed to a dangerous product or harmed by it in some way--and how we might make sure they are made whole and that we have the opportunity to assemble that group of harmed people across States or across the country so they can have their day in court. We are looking for a way to make sure the companies that harmed those people are held accountable and know they are going to face a serious financial consequence if they do something untoward or just wrong with respect to their products or services which they provide.

Today we were not able to proceed to the bill and have the opportunity to offer amendments which are germane, pertinent to the bill, relevant to the bill, or those which maybe were not.

My colleague who is presiding has been here for a year and half or so. I know these are issues he has worked on a lot in those 18 months. This class action reform is probably an issue on which he has spent the most time.

As we leave here tonight with this business unfinished, I am deeply disappointed. We come to the end of a chapter, not the end of the book. We have to turn a page and figure out how to go forward.

Our system of justice is out of whack. It is out of balance. The tragedy of it all is we had a very good legislative product here to debate and fix. The system worked the way it was supposed to. We had hearings, I think as many as 10, on this issue and how to fix it. The committees of jurisdiction held hearings in the House and in the Senate. The committees of jurisdiction had a chance to actually debate and vote on the bills and to amend them. They had the opportunity to report those bills out. The House debated this on the floor. In the Senate, we had the opportunity. In the Senate, we fell one vote short of bringing the bill to the Senate floor last fall. We had the opportunity coming out of that disappointing vote to go back to make the bill even better and to bring a truly bipartisan bill to the floor of the Senate which would be supported by a Republican majority and with a good deal of Democratic support.

Given that 65 Members in the Senate were prepared to vote for it, to go home tonight not having had a chance to actually vote for amendments, relevant amendments and nonrelevant amendments, is very disappointing. I am not going to get into assigning blame. There is probably enough on both sides.

I said to the press in an earlier interview that this week in the Senate reminds me of maybe a new television reality show, a dysfunctional family. It is not pretty to watch or, frankly, to be a part of.

When I came here, I wanted to fix things and right wrongs. I know most of us came here with that in mind. This is a wrong that needs to be made right. We had a great opportunity in this bill to do that.

I leave here tonight bewildered, in a sense. One sure way to stymie a bill and stop progress on it this week was to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate in a way that closed off the opportunity for the minority to offer some reasonable number of nongermane amendments.

I have said so many times to our friends on the other side of the aisle, when you bring the bill to the Senate floor, think of it as a bottle of wine we are opening. We are popping the cork and letting it breathe for a while. Maybe set aside a week and give us a week to debate the bill itself, relevant amendments and a reasonable number of nongermane amendments.

If it becomes clear after several days or a week that our side is being dilatory, if it becomes clear our side is simply not interested in passing the bill, they are just playing games, those Democrats who support a bill will support an effort to close off debate and to force a final vote on the bill.

For the life of me, after saying repeatedly since January that the one way to kill the bill is to bring it to the Senate in a way that stymies debate and closes off amendments that might be nongermane, the very first thing out of the box presented was a cloture motion and a move to fill the amendment tree so our side is precluded from offering amendments, except for those that are germane, I don't understand it.

In the words of a colleague on our side who is opposed to the bill, the only way those who are opposed to the bill could have won was by bringing the bill to the Senate today, invoking cloture, and inflaming Democratic opposition to the bill, united Democratic opposition to the bill.

There are at least a dozen or more on this side who very much want to pass class action legislation this year. God knows I do, and I know people on both sides have worked to get us to this point. For the life of me, I do not understand why we could not open that bottle of wine, let it breathe for a while, debate the amendments, germane and nongermane. If it became clear we were wasting our time and people were playing games, we could have cut it off, but do not do it right out of the box.

I leave here bewildered and, frankly, more than a little bit disappointed. I say to those folks around the country who are as disappointed as I am, and others who support the bill, I am not one who gives up easily.

Some of my colleagues hear me talk about my four core values that we built an administration on when I was Governor of Delaware and which I brought with me and I try to use them here with my legislative initiatives.

One, figure out the right thing to do and do it. I am convinced changing this part of our legal system is the right thing to do.

The second core value is to commit to excellence in everything we do. By golly, I know we can do better than the status quo with respect to this aspect of our legal system.

My third core value is the Golden Rule: treat other people the way I want to be treated. When consumers are

harmed, they ought to be compensated. When companies misbehave, they ought to have to pay damages. It is that simple. The way our system runs today is wrong. It is wrong for consumers and, frankly, it is wrong for companies, in many cases. It is a wrong that needs to be righted.

My fourth core value is don't give up. I am not one who ever gives up. I, for sure, am not going to give up.

While I go home disappointed, I will come back next week committed to do whatever we can this year to pass this bill and get it signed into law.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator raises the question of the issue of the class action case against Wal-Mart. The class action has been certified so it can go forward. Does the Senator know whether it was certified in Federal court or State court or county court?

It has been certified in Federal court in California.

Federal court.

Madam President, before the Senator from Connecticut leaves the floor, I want to say how much I have enjoyed working with him on this issue. I appreciate the wisdom and experience he brings to the matter.

We had a press conference today around noon, those of us Democrats and Republicans who support this compromise on class action. The real stars of the press conference were three guests: A woman from near Charlotte, NC; another from Wisconsin; and a third lady who, along with her husband, for many years ran a pharmacy down in Mississippi. They shared with us how they had been involved in class action legislation.

In the case of the Mississippi lady whose pharmacy down there in this little county had been named in over 100 lawsuits, not because they had done anything wrong but because it was a way to be able to try to get a class action certified in that particular county of Mississippi, really the defendants were the big pharmaceutical company.

Another lady talked about being a plaintiff in a class action involving the Bank of Boston and the issue was escrow accounts. Apparently somebody took umbrage at the way the Bank of Boston was handling escrow accounts and money going in and out of escrow accounts, and they filed a class action lawsuit. In the end, the folks on whose behalf the class action had been filed ended up losing moneys. Their accounts were actually debited in order to be able to help pay the attorneys' fees which were rather substantial.

The other lady was a lady from Charlotte, NC. She talked about late fees by Blockbuster. She didn't like the fact that they had a late fee that was unfair. Over the course of time, because of the family and this sort of thing, they paid a fair number of late fees, and she didn't appreciate it, so there was this class action lawsuit. She apparently got named as a plaintiff because she had shopped there, and she was included in the lawsuit.

In the end, the agreement that was worked out enables her to get--I will paraphrase: Out of this, maybe I am going to get a couple of coupons for rentals, for two videos. And I will get a dollar-off coupon. I could do as well clipping coupons from the newspaper from Blockbuster. She was not pleased, particularly when she mentioned how much the attorneys were going to get in the litigation.

The point I am trying to make is, they were the really interesting people who spoke at our press conference. What they had to say reinforced my belief that we are trying to do the right thing.

Again, I realize it is not something everybody agrees upon. We are trying to find some balance in this legislation which says when people have a legitimate beef, they have been harmed by a product or service or been taken advantage of, even people who don't have a lot of power, the little people, they would have an opportunity through a class action to join together and to hold accountable the big companies that have harmed them or at least treated them unfairly.

I had hoped we would have a chance today by this time to have debated and voted on a couple of germane amendments, maybe a nongermane amendment or two, and even work into the night. From what I am told, we may be wrapping up here fairly soon. It is not even 6 p.m. I hate to see us waste the day.

We had some exchange earlier today between our leaders where Senator Daschle had suggested maybe an approach where we agree to offer five nongermane amendments to the bill and maybe 10 germane amendments. Senator Frist countered with the ability for either side maybe to offer 1 nongermane amendment and maybe 10 or more unlimited germane amendments. If you look at the numbers between one and five in terms of nongermane amendments, there is a number between one and five that is probably more than two, maybe five, maybe four, but there is probably a number there we could agree on.

Our side is not going to go along with the idea of the Republicans telling us what nongermane amendments we can offer. But I am encouraged that if the two leaders will take some time later today, maybe as early as this evening, and sit down, they can hopefully work out among themselves how many nongermane amendments and maybe even work out the ones that would be offered.

There are a couple of amendments the Republican leader indicated he would not want to see offered as nongermane. And to the extent that is a concern he has, I respect that concern. I had hoped maybe he would change his mind. But if there is something he doesn't want to see offered as an amendment to this bill, it is not germane to this bill, but it might be germane to another freestanding bill that would be offered later, let's go ahead and make a commitment to offering that nongermane amendment, not on this bill but at a later point in time to another bill.

So the proponents of that measure would know for sure that they are going to have a chance to debate their issue and get a vote on it in the Senate. I am not discouraged. Somebody asked me earlier--and it may have been the Presiding Officer--if we were going to make any progress this week on this bill. I think we are. I am encouraged. If our leaders will sit down and talk it through between the two of them, they can work this out. It is important they do that. Nobody on our side wants to be seen as obstructionist. A number of us have worked very hard on this proposal. Most of the folks on the other side are acting in good faith on this bill, too. Whether you happen to be a company out there that wants to just get a fair shake when you are taken to court, or if you are a consumer who wants to make sure you are not being ripped off by some company, there is a way to meet the legitimate concerns of both interests.

The more I learn about this bill and the more I hear about the germane amendments that will be offered, frankly, the more I am pleased with the work that has been done. I think Senator Bingaman has a germane amendment or two he would like to offer. I think Senator Breaux has a germane amendment. I think maybe Senator Pryor has an amendment to offer that is germane. Maybe Senator Kennedy has a germane amendment to offer, too. There may be germane amendments on the other side. They are thoughtful amendments. Each of them bring some concern. They, frankly, need to be debated on the floor and we need to have a chance to vote.

I am happy to yield for a question.

Madam President, Senator Reid and I came to the House together in 1982. We worked on a lot of issues together. He is a straight shooter and a real good leader on our side. I appreciate his words.

Let me close with this: I have said any number of times to my Republican friends, when we are talking about how to bring this bill to the floor, the one sure way to kill it is to not permit the minority to have a reasonable opportunity to offer amendments, germane and nongermane. I was troubled this morning, after having tried to drive that message home again and again in the past months, for us to end up on the floor today with a motion to invoke cloture and to limit amendments to one nongermane amendment and a number of germanes.

That was the wrong way to get started. We need to get back on the right track. We can do that. The people who can get us back on the right track are the majority leader and the minority leader. While the minority leader is not a proponent of the bill, he has been fair in terms of making sure those who are proponents can have our day in court on the floor and not be obstructionist. I am grateful for that. I hope that maybe even while we are speaking, or shortly thereafter, the two leaders will get together and have the kind of discussion in private that they need to have, and maybe later in public on the floor, so we can have a day that is more productive tomorrow than today was.

I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of LCpl Russell P. White. Russell epitomized the best of our country's brave men and women who are fighting 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--Russell reminds each of us how good we can be.

A resident of Dagsboro, Russell's passing has deeply affected the community. A graduate of Indian River High School, Russell was the son of Gregg and Tricia White. Friends, family, and school officials recalled Russell as a proud young man who made a sacrifice for their freedom, even if his death did not come during combat. As a senior at Indian River High School in rural Frankford, Russell spent his days in classrooms overlooking soybean fields, and his spare time at home hunting duck along tranquil Vines Creek. In his senior year, he tried out for and made the football team at Indian River. He became a starter and, at a mere 165 pounds, played nose guard, out hustling opposing lineman who weighed 50 to 100 pounds more than he did.

But Russell had a desire to be part of something bigger. He wanted to be among the troops sent to hunt Osama bin Laden in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, so he joined the Marines early last year.

Russell had been stationed in Afghanistan for about a month prior to his death and was part of the mission to root out bin Laden and other members of al-Qaida. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, whose home base is at Camp Lejeune, NC.

Russell was remembered by his fellow marines as a young man who had a kind spirit and a zest for life with an outlook that sometimes got him into a little trouble, especially in the 13 grueling weeks of boot camp. When drill sergeants would bark orders, Russell would often crack a smile, unlike others who might shed tears in their bunks at night. ``They couldn't crack him,'' Russell's father, Gregg, said. While Russell may have found some of his early training a little amusing, he was absolutely serious about his duties in Afghanistan.

Russell was a remarkable and well-respected young soldier. His friends and family remember him as an honorable man. He enjoyed playing football, hunting, skiing and being out on the water. He had hoped to return to Sussex County to help run his father's home-building business. Sadly, that dream will not be fulfilled.

I rise today to commemorate Russell, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our support and our deepest sympathy on their tragic loss.

Will the Senator yield?

I would appreciate it. If the Senator will yield, I would like to make a comment.

I want to thank the chairman, as the prime sponsor of this bill, for his willingness to entertain changes and ideas from our side of the aisle, from Democrats who had what we thought were ideas to improve this legislation. I think as the bill has gone through its introduction, its markup and debate in the Judiciary Committee, been reported out of the Judiciary Committee--the bill was sort of rereported out of the Judiciary Committee with some further changes, there was the adoption of the changes and incorporation of the changes that were negotiated with a number of us, including Senators Schumer, Dodd, Landrieu, Kohl, and myself--I think one of the reasons why we are here tonight with a bill we can go forward with, that is going to get pretty good bipartisan support, has been your willingness to not only listen to some other ideas but to incorporate them into this bill.

As I listened to the Senator go through the bill and talk about it, particularly to talk about the changes that have been made in it, I was struck how far we have come in the course of the last year or two. I want, while you are still here, to express my thanks for the way you approached this subject and the openminded way you have enabled us to move forward.

I do.

I thank Senator Grassley for what he said. I understand Senator Grassley may need to do some wrap-up here. I am not sure. If he does, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, over the course of the next several days, a number of unkind things are likely to be said about class action lawsuits, usually by people who do not support this legislation which is before us.

I simply suggest that some of the criticism we are going to hear is merited, but, quite frankly, some of it is not. The legal process that we call class action can be traced back to the old English courts of chancery.

Despite the criticism leveled at class action lawsuits today, these lawsuits frequently have served a public good. They have proven a powerful weapon against unscrupulous or reckless businesses, discouraging those businesses from selling dangerous products or from cheating customers.

Class action lawsuits reduce the likelihood that rogue companies can harm thousands of innocent people, confident in the belief that none of those people could ever afford to hold those companies accountable in court for their misdeeds.

There are many examples over time where the bad guys were caught in the act, where they were taken to court and where they were ordered to pay up.

The film ``Erin Brockovich'' tells a story about one such time. Not long ago I picked up a video at Blockbuster of the film starring Julie Roberts in the title role that some of us may have seen. The film tells the story of how one woman convinced hundreds of people residing in a place called Hinkley, CA, to join in a lawsuit. Together, they sued a utility company that was making people sick by polluting their water supply. Erin Brockovich's leadership won damages of $333 million for the victims of that pollution. That true story is just one example of the good that class action litigation can accomplish.

While I will not take the time this evening to talk about those other examples, let me say there are plenty of them. Unfortunately, though, there are also a growing number of examples that are not as uplifting or not as inspiring as the tale told in ``Erin Brockovich.''

Let me mention several of those, too. Ironically, one of them also involves Blockbuster. That company was sued over its policy of charging customers for overdue rentals. The result was that plaintiffs, of which I may unknowingly have been one, will get two free movie rentals and a dollar-off coupon. Meanwhile, attorneys received more than $9 million in fees and expenses.

Let me also mention Poland Spring. Poland Spring, if you are not aware of it, is a bottled water company. They were sued a couple of years ago in a place called Kane County, IL. Allegedly, the company's water was not pure and did not come from a spring. During the course of litigation, Poland Spring settled. The consumers alleging that they had spent their money on a product they did not actually receive were not compensated. Instead, they were awarded coupons which they could apply toward the purchase of the same Poland Spring water of which they originally weren't happy. The attorneys who negotiated the settlement on their behalf meanwhile were awarded $1.35 million. Poland Spring itself admitted no wrongdoing and has no plans, at least to my knowledge, to change the way they bottle and market their water.

Here is another one: General Mills was sued because an unapproved food additive apparently was used in some oats that were used to make Cheerios. Although I am told there was no evidence of customer injury, a settlement was reached in the class action lawsuit. It provided for $1.75 million in fees for the plaintiffs' attorneys. The plaintiffs? They received a coupon for more Cheerios.

In another class action suit involving Chase Manhattan Bank, plaintiffs' attorneys collected, I am told, over $4 million. The plaintiffs? They could collect 33 cents apiece if they were willing to pony up the money for a postage stamp.

With the next one, I think it may actually get worse. In a different class action lawsuit against the Bank of Boston over escrow accounts, plaintiffs apparently didn't win a dime. In fact, their accounts were debited to help pay attorneys' fees of $8.5 million.

Let me mention just one more. A couple of years ago, Intel was taken into court in I believe Madison County, IL, for asserting that the company's Pentium IV chips were faster than the company's Pentium III chips.

Let me say that I have no idea which chip is faster. I do have a hunch, though, that the Madison County Courthouse probably isn't the best forum in which to make that determination. For that matter, neither were any of the other local courts in which the previous five cases that I have mentioned here were brought.

Don't get me wrong. Class action lawsuits are still being brought for noble purposes that none of us would question for a minute. Last month, in fact, a class of 1.6 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees alleging gender discrimination at that company were certified as a class. Ironically, I believe it was in a Federal court in California.

There is a growing phenomena, however, that is troubling, at least to me and I suspect to other fairminded people, including, I would be willing to bet, a number of plaintiffs' attorneys. We have witnessed the emergence in different parts of America of something called magnet courts. Oftentimes, they are county courts with locally elected judges and a reputation for verdicts that can put the fear of God in companies when cases are filed in one of them. Once a plaintiffs' class is certified in one of those courts, the companies generally realize that their goose is about to be cooked and the work of reaching a settlement begins in earnest.

The attorneys who in many cases assembled the plaintiff class of aggrieved consumers from across the country oftentimes make out pretty well in those settlements. As you might imagine from the examples I have cited above, the people those attorneys represent sometimes do not.

Those who are supporting the legislation before the Senate this evening do so in the belief somebody needs to do something about the growing trend toward forum shopping we are witnessing around the country.

In addition, somebody needs to do so while preserving access to the courts when people are harmed. My colleagues, that somebody is us.

The legislation before the Senate tonight, the Class Action Fairness Act, does not get rid of class action lawsuits. And it should not. For years, they have been an efficient way for small and large groups of consumers who have been harmed or shortchanged by some product or service to pursue legislation against the company, when those consumers lack the wherewithal to pursue justice on their own.

What the legislation now before the Senate seeks to do is ensure class action lawsuits that are national in scope are decided in Federal courts. When the bulk of plaintiffs comes from across America, a decision can have an impact on all or most of the 50 States. Federal judges, not State, not county judges, should hear those cases more often than not.

These issues are not new. They have been the subject of a number of congressional hearings over the years. These issues have been debated and voted on in the relevant committees in both the House and the Senate. These issues have been debated in the U.S. House of Representatives and last year the House approved and sent to the Senate a bill that sought to address the concerns we are raising this evening.

The Senate Judiciary Committee reported out a more balanced bill, I believe, than the one we received from the House last year. That Senate bill was further improved through bipartisan negotiations last fall after efforts to proceed to class action fell one vote short in the Senate.

It will come as no surprise that not everyone likes the measure before the Senate this evening. As is often the case with highly contentious issues,

some would say this bill goes too far. Frankly, there are others who say it does not go far enough. The latter contend, for example, this is not real tort reform. They are right. It is court reform. It attempts to close the gaping loophole in Federal law.

That loophole allows the plaintiffs from one State to be tried in a State or county court of another State on matters that have national implications. That loophole also allows those cases to be heard by judges who are locally elected and whose elections and reelections are supported at least in part by some of the very same plaintiffs' attorneys bringing cases before those judges against out-of-State defendants.

Let me take a moment or two to be clear about what this bill does and does not do. This legislation does not limit the damages that can be awarded in class action lawsuits. It does not eliminate punitive damages. It does not mention joint and several liability. In fact, even if this bill is adopted, a majority of class action lawsuits will still be heard in State courts. For example, cases with fewer than 100 plaintiffs will be heard in State courts. The same holds true for cases involving less than $5 million, as well as for cases where two-thirds or more of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the defendant.

Federal judges would also have the discretion to keep cases in State courts where as few as one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the defendants.

That is not all. This bill includes what we call a local controversy exception. That local controversy exception will leave in State court class actions with multiple defendants as long as one of the primary defendants is local. That provision is intended to ensure State courts can continue to preside over local controversies even though plaintiffs may name an out-of-State defendant, such as a parent company.

This bill is an improvement, at least in my judgment, over the House bill in some other ways, too. The House bill is retroactive. The Senate bill is not. The House bill allows defendants to file appeals of class certifications that would unnecessarily delay a plaintiff's day in court. The Senate bill does not. The House bill allows defendants to have multiple bites out of the apple and continue to appeal decisions by judges to keep cases in State court. The Senate bill does not.

Unlike the House bill, the measure before the Senate allows lead plaintiffs, especially those in civil rights cases, to receive a greater payment that is reflective of the higher and riskier profile they have assumed.

Other provisions have been adopted as well. In settlements where coupons were awarded to plaintiffs, the fees to their attorneys are linked directly under this bill to the coupons that are actually redeemed, not just issued. In addition, Federal judges may direct that the value of unredeemed coupons be donated to charity.

These and other changes have caused several of our colleagues, especially on our side of the aisle, who had previously opposed class action legislation, to support the bill that is before the Senate tonight.

But Members of the legislative branch are not the only ones who apparently have had a change of heart. Back in 1999, the Federal judiciary registered its opposition to a previous version of the Class Action Fairness Act through a letter the judicial conference sent to Henry Hyde who was then the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And why? Largely because Federal judges fear the bill could well flood Federal courts with class action cases that otherwise would be heard in State or in local courts. Today, that view has changed as the legislation has undergone some of the changes we have been talking about this evening.

The Federal judiciary no longer opposes class action reform. I invite my colleagues to read those views for themselves. They are contained in this letter from the Judicial Conference which I hold in my hand.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

The pages who are still here tonight would agree I may have talked at least long enough for one evening.

As I prepare to wrap up, let me acknowledge that the impact of class action lawsuits on our Nation's business climate may not be as harmful as some of our business interests contend. In some cases, they may actually overstate the harm class actions have done.

Having said that, a balance still needs to be found in today's system that is respectful on the one hand of the right to seek redress for wrongdoing by corporations while preserving a reasonable measure of fairness for business interests, too.

Patti Waldmeir, who writes on legal issues for the Financial Times, summed it up in her column last month with these words:

The class-action lawsuit was meant to be a vehicle for

democracy in the U.S., a way to level the playing field

between the powerless and powerful by allowing individuals to

band together to sue big corporations.

I believe the bill before us does strike the balance that is needed. I am pleased to say that view is reflected on the editorial pages of scores of newspapers across America: from the Chicago Tribune, to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Des Moines Register, the Christian Science Monitor, the Buffalo News, the Baltimore Sun, the Hartford Courant, Newsday, the Omaha World-Herald, the Oregonian, the Orlando Sentinel, the Providence Journal, the Santa Fe New Mexican, and, yes, even the Washington Post.

Let me conclude my remarks this evening with these words from the editorial pages of the Washington Post in endorsing the Class Action Fairness Act. These are their words:

It would ensure that cases with implications for national

policies get decided by a court system accountable to the

whole country. This is not, as opponents have cast it, an

attack on the right to sue or a liability shield for

corporate wrongdoing. It is a modest step to rein in a system

that too often simply taxes corporations--irrespective of

whether they have done anything wrong--and uses that money to

pay lawyers who provided no services to anyone. Such a system

does not deserve the Senate's protection for yet another

Congress.

Their words, not mine. But to those words let me simply add: Amen.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object, I express my thanks to both leaders for that colloquy and this brief discussion we have had. As both leaders know, the movement of this legislation is a priority for a number of us, certainly for me, and I am gratified that once we have disposed of the Defense appropriations bill, the next bill we will turn to is class action. I express my thanks to the majority leader for making that clear, and to the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for his steadfast position, realizing this is not legislation that is at the top of his list of priorities.

Madam President, I pay tribute today to Alan Milbauer upon his retirement as vice president of public affairs for AstraZeneca. His dedication has won him the respect of coworkers and friends alike, along with the gratitude of many in our State. He has been, and remains, a trusted friend.

A native of Brooklyn, NY, Alan was born on August 30, 1943, to Francis and Irving Milbauer. He received his early education in Brooklyn and went on to earn degrees in pharmacy and law at the University of Connecticut in 1965 and 1968, respectively.

Alan has spent most of his career in the pharmaceutical industry, except for a brief experience in the field of consumer marketing research. He began his industry experience as attorney for the Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, before coming to Delaware and joining Zeneca Pharmaceuticals--then Atlas Chemicals--in 1969. In 1976, he was appointed director of regulatory affairs. He became vice president of planning in 1985 and vice president of marketing in 1991. Prior to the merger of Astra and Zeneca, Alan served as vice president of external affairs for Zeneca Pharmaceuticals.

As a member of the U.S. AstraZeneca leadership team, Alan's responsibilities include Federal and State government affairs, corporate external communications, public relations and ally development, corporate and community affairs, and public policy. As a major international healthcare business engaged in the research, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals and healthcare services, Alan has provided strong leadership and served as a role model to many. According to friends, he has been described as the ``conscience'' for the company. He has long sought to ensure that AstraZeneca was mindful of its corporate responsibility to the community. Alan brought the human side to the corporate world. He also played a role in helping bring AstraZeneca's United States headquarters to Delaware during my years as Governor.

Alan serves as a board director for the Delaware Theatre Company, Delaware Public Policy Institute, and is a trustee of the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Vox Medical Center for Patient Education and Health Literacy, and is a member of the Connecticut Bar. Alan's leisure interests include travel, theater, reading, and playing golf.

Alan and his wife of 37 years, Nancy, live in Wilmington, DE. They have three children, Karen, Stephen and Jennifer, and two grandchildren, twins Jacob and Rachel.

Through Alan's efforts, he has made a real difference in the lives of thousands of individuals and enhanced the quality of life for our State. Upon his retirement, he will leave behind a legacy of commitment to public service for both his children and grandchildren and for others to follow. I thank him for the friendship that we share, and I congratulate him on a 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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today and this week, as we pause to reflect on the life of Ronald Reagan and his role in leading our Nation and the State in which I lived when I was in the Navy, I was thinking back and talking with my children this week about my first recollection of Ronald Reagan.

My first recollection was when I was about their age, early in my teenage years, seeing him on television. I may have seen him earlier than that as a kid in the movies, but I do not remember. I remember fully--and the Presiding Officer is probably too young to remember this--a television show called ``Death Valley Days'' and watched later, I remember, a television show called ``GE Theater.'' He was the host and introduced each week's segment. My family would watch those shows, not religiously, but regularly. I enjoyed them as a kid growing up in Danville, VA.

At the time, Ronald Reagan, who, I guess, was maybe in his fifties at that time, or maybe forties, had a reasonably successful career in motion pictures, certainly a lot more successful than any of us, except for former Senator Fred Thompson. But he had a reasonably successful career. We were in this in-between place where television was coming of age and playing a role with respect to ``Death Valley Days'' and ``GE Theater.''

I remember my first thoughts of him were that he was a nice-looking guy, a handsome kind of rugged fellow. He seemed to be amiable. He came across as amiable and exuded a certain warmth and also a sense of sincerity that came across clearly on that small television screen that we owned back in those days.

I remember being surprised in 1964. I think I was 17 years old. I was about to enroll in Ohio State University. I was going to be a Navy ROTC midshipman. I was at the age of 17 a young Republican for Barry Goldwater. I do not know how I ended up on this side of the aisle. Churchill said: If you are young and not liberal, you don't have a heart; if you are old and not conservative, you don't have a brain. Somehow I ended up as a 17-year-old supporting Barry Goldwater.

I remember watching the convention which was in San Francisco at the Cow Palace. Ironically, another one of our colleagues was there as a Goldwater supporter, too. She was there as a ``golden girl.'' Her seat is right behind me. It is ironic we both ended up where we are in the U.S. Senate. I remember watching on television the 1964 Republican Convention and actually watching the Democratic Convention that year.

I remember being surprised to see Ronald Reagan speak and address the convention. I knew he had been a film star. I knew he played a role on these two television shows I watched as a kid growing up, but I had no idea. I heard he had been involved in the Actors Guild, sort of a labor union for actors, but I had no idea he was involved in politics to any extent and that he would end up with a major role at that convention speaking on behalf of Barry Goldwater.

He came across in this speech a bit differently than he did in his other roles on television, but he did project a great deal of sincerity, a lot of conviction.

He also suggested a good-naturedness and a certain warmth I have always found refreshing and enduring about him.

We learned that evening, as we watched that speech, that this was a man who had some strong convictions and gave a powerful speech and one who got a lot of people to think about him as a future leader. Not long after that, he was elected Governor of California, served there for the most part with distinction and then ran against Gerald Ford for President, lost and came back a couple of years later, ran against Jimmy Carter and won.

It is interesting, conventions were different then. The first convention I ever remember paying much attention to was in 1964. It was a convention with serious questions about who was going to be the President.

We had the Republicans. Conservatives were supporting Barry Goldwater and we had the Rockefeller Republicans. There was a lot of give and take, and real primaries. It was hard fought right up until the convention.

I remember in 1968 I was a supporter for Eugene McCarthy who was running for President. I respected both McCarthy and Goldwater because they were standup guys. They were willing to take tough positions and not mince their words. I respected them both for that. Conventions were different than they are today.

Although I was impressed by the speech that then-citizen Ronald Reagan gave, I never imagined he would be Governor of California, and I certainly never imagined he would be President of the United States. I never imagined I would be a Congressman, Governor, or Senator, either. I am probably more surprised by that than I am about him ending up as Governor and President.

As luck would have it, he ended up as President of the United States and I ended up here serving with our Presiding Officer, and that is something I enjoy very much.

Before I was Governor, I served in the House of Representatives for 10 years. Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980; I was elected to the House in 1982. I had a chance to interact with him from time to time during limited opportunities as a Democratic Congressman. He had qualities I admired all those years ago when he was hosting those television shows. His warmth, his sincerity, his good humor, those were qualities he possessed in the real world off the TV screen.

Sometimes the folks we see or admire on television and film or other venues do not turn out to be quite the same when we meet them in person. He was very much the same.

While I did not always see eye to eye with him on environmental issues, for

example, and I had concerns about the budget deficits we were starting to rack up, and questions about deploying space weapons, star wars, and the way we conducted our business in Central America, there was a lot he wanted to do and sought to do with which I did agree. He was an early proponent of welfare reform. He was a guy who believed work should pay more than welfare. We have all heard of the earned income tax credit. He was a major proponent of the earned income tax credit because he felt people who worked ought to be better off than folks who were on welfare.

He presided over big tax cuts in the early 1980s, 1981, and later on, faced with ever-growing tax deficits, he presided over some of the largest tax increases that were adopted in our Nation's history.

He was a staunch opponent of communism, but a fellow who could reach out not just across the aisle but across the world to Gorbachev to become friends, and they embraced one another at the end of their tenures as they together helped to change the world in a better way.

I find in Ronald Reagan that he was someone who would stake out a position; he would adhere to that position with his convictions for as long as he could, and at the end, if he had to change, he would. He was willing to do that, but he did not back off easily or readily. He was willing in the end to compromise.

In reacting to folks in my own State in Delaware this week who asked me for my reaction to what he was like, I said, well, whether or not you liked the man's policies, it was hard not to like the man.

Since his death, there has been a fair amount of conjecture about what we should do to pay tribute to him and his memory. Some people have suggested we ought to rework Mount Rushmore and find a way to put his image on Mount Rushmore. We have had a few people suggest maybe Ronald Reagan's picture should be on the $10 bill instead of Alexander Hamilton. I heard our Republican leader suggest yesterday that maybe we should rename the Pentagon in honor of Ronald Reagan. I do not know that those are good or bad ideas. I have not given those a lot of thought.

I ask we consider a couple of other legacies that might even be more important and more enduring. One of those deals with the disease that dogged him for the last years of his life, Alzheimer's disease, a disease my mom also suffers from. She lives in Kentucky. I visited her over the weekend. She does not remember much. Actually, she remembers a few things that happened a long time ago, but she does not have any recollection of Ronald Reagan and all of those years we watched him on television when I was a kid growing up.

My mom is going to be 82 years this August and my hope is she will live to be as old as Ronald Reagan. I do not think that is likely, but that would be wonderful if it happened. My mom is one of 4 million people in the world today who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. It was something we saw the first signs of 5, 6, 7 years ago, and we knew where it was leading. Her mom suffered the same fate. Her grandmother had suffered the same fate as well.

While there are roughly 4 million Americans today who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, by the year 2020 we are told there could be as many as 14 million Americans who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. It is a tough disease not so much for the person who suffers from it but certainly for their families and those who love them and who are unable to have the kind of relationship we once did.

I know Senator Mikulski is going to be leading the effort, I think with Senator Bond, for us to focus anew as a Congress, as a Senate, on providing meaningful increases in funding to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease; not simply a way to treat the symptoms, but a way to stop it dead in its tracks. I commend them for their actions and I stand fully ready to support them. I hope others will as well.

The other legacy I suggest that may be as important or we may be inspired to address and do something about other than dealing with Alzheimer's disease is civility. I am not the first person who has noticed this of late, but there has been a huge loss of civility not only in Washington, DC, but shortly after I heard of President Reagan's death I was flipping through the radio channels in my car and I came across one of these right-wing talk shows. There was pure vitriol coming out of the speaker on my radio. I find it hard to listen to that stuff so I turned it off. I find it hard to watch the television shows anymore because it seems there is no meaningful discourse; they are really shouting matches.

Ronald Reagan, for whatever faults he may have had, was a civil person, he was a gentleman, and at a time when that kind of behavior characterizes too little of what not only goes on here but what takes place in politics throughout our country, he is a good role model in that the way he treated people was the way he would like to have been treated. It is a lesson that was good and meaningful then and it is one we can certainly take again today.

I have heard our own leader, Tom Daschle, begin to speak of late of a new civility, and we need a new civility. We need some civility, not going through the formalities, but treating one another the way we would want to be treated; not just in this Chamber, not just in this Capitol, but throughout this country, even in a Presidential election year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of Army SSG Joseph Garyantes. Joe epitomized the best of our country's brave men and women who are fighting 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--Joe reminds each of us how good we can be.

Joe was born in Wilmington, DE, to Geraldine and the late James Garyantes. When he was 5 years old, his family moved to the Rehoboth Beach area. Joe attended Rehoboth Elementary School and Epworth Christian School. At Epworth, Joe was remembered was a man with a dynamic personality and a good sense of humor. He always was loyal to his fellow friends and teammates and won the most valuable player award in 10th grade for basketball. His family later moved to Florida.

When Joe was 18, he seriously considered spending life in the ministry helping people. Ultimately, though, this Delaware native enlisted in the Army and became a soldier at the young age of 20. His mission always remained the same though--helping people. When Joe was stationed in Kosovo before going to Iraq, he asked his family to send care packages. These packages were not for him. They were meant for needy kids in the area. During the holiday season, Joe would bring over single soldiers for Christmas dinners and make them feel as though they were part of the family.

Joe spent the last several years in Germany, where he lived with his wife, Monika, and their two sons, Tevin, 6, and Ryan, 4. He was killed by a sniper in Muqdadiyah, Iraq. Joe was assigned to B Company, 1st Battalion, 63rd Armor Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, Vilseck, Germany.

I rise today to commemorate Joe, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our support and our deepest sympathy on their tragic loss. Our country is deeply grateful for his noble service to others, his idealism and for the example that he provided to all Americans by the way he led his life.

Madam President, as Senator Domenici prepares to leave the Senate floor, I thank him for his tenacity and his earnest desire to lead us to a balanced energy policy. I think he knows there are plenty of us on this side who do want to reach the right balance, and I have enjoyed trying to provide a little bit of that balance.

I am happy to yield.

I yield.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, on a brighter note, with respect to energy policy, a week or so ago we passed a major bill called FSC/ETI. Some people call it the JOBS bill or a trade bill. But provisions of the Energy bill were incorporated in that legislation, important provisions that include incentives for renewable forms of energy--solar, wind, geothermal--and incentives to encourage people to buy more energy- efficient vehicles, hybrids, fuel-cell vehicles, to make them more affordable, to get more of them out on the road, and using less gasoline and diesel fuel, and also incentives for us to begin converting to a greater use of what I call biofuels--ethanol--and something we do in Delaware a lot on the Delmarva Peninsula where we take soybean oil and mix it with diesel fuel.

They were able to do something good for the environment and actually reduce significantly our use of diesel-powered vehicles.

While it is still mid-May, we have a fair amount of time to go before we finish here. Before we finish, I hope we will find common ground on the rest of the energy policy, and that it is also respective of our environment and the clean air concerns we have, and gives the States the ability to recover damages for their drinking supply that has been damaged by MTBE.

Mr. President, I express to Senator Biden my appreciation for his inviting a wonderful woman, a rabbi from Delaware, to come here to be our guest Chaplain, and to say how pleased we are, all of us, to welcome Ellen Bernhardt. She gave the invocation about 40 minutes ago. I told her it was one of the best invocations I have heard in the 3 years I have been privileged to be a Senator. It was as good as any I have heard. We thank you for not only coming to bring the blessing of that invocation, but to remind us about what really matters.

I also thank her for just what she does in Delaware. She has been a rabbi, I think, about 17 years. She is a native of Philadelphia. For the last 11 years or so, she has run a school in Delaware which is, I believe, the only Jewish day

school in our State. We have a lot of schools, but only one Jewish day school--Albert Einstein Academy. There are youngsters in kindergarten, from age 5, up to the sixth grade. While it is a Jewish day school, it is nondenominational because whether the students happen to be Jewish or not, they can attend that school. I was kidding earlier about how most of them are Baptists. Actually, I don't think that is the case. That gives you the flavor of the nondenominational school. I have been privileged to know a number of the kids who go there. They get a wonderful education and start for their lives and go on to do great work.

We have been joined today not only by Rabbi Bernhardt, but also by three of her children and her husband. We are so privileged that she lives in Delaware and that she provides great leadership on the educational side, and also for a lot of us on the spiritual side, whether we happen to be Jewish or not. Welcome.

Again, to my friend, Joe Biden, I thank him for making it possible for her to be here today.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mary Connelly Kegelman, recipient of the Delaware Mother of the Year and the National Mother of the Year awards. Mary has dedicated her life to raising her 10 children and to the thousands of school children whose lives she has touched.

Mary was born in Massachusetts in 1930. She received her Bachelor's degree in chemistry from Elms College in Massachusetts and went on to Fordham University in New York for her Master's degree in physical chemistry. It was during graduate school that she met her husband, Matthew. The two were married on October 12, 1953, in Massachusetts in front of their loved ones.

Shortly after graduation, Matthew was offered a job at the DuPont Company. The newlyweds moved to Delaware and have lived here for over 50 years. They have 10 children--John, Matthew, Jerry, Joseph, Thomas, Mary, Christine, Bernadette, James and Daniel, and 18 grandchildren.

Mary began teaching algebra part time at Ursuline Academy in Wilmington, DE in 1973. While her children were in middle school at Immaculate Heart of Mary, she saw a great need for algebra education. Two of her children were in seventh and eighth grade, and were not being taught algebra. Mary knew they were capable of learning it. She talked to the school, and began volunteering one day a week to teach algebra to the top students in the class. One day turned into two days, and soon thereafter, the school asked her to come aboard full time to teach and to start the advanced math program at Immaculate Heart of Mary. With the help and cooperation of students, teachers, administrators and faculty, the curriculum developed into a top-notch program, with each of the top 15 students in grades 6, 7 and 8 participating.

It was after a lifetime of dedication to her family and students that Mary was recognized for her selfless devotion. American Mothers Inc., a nonprofit group that promotes motherhood and family, awarded Mary with the Delaware Mother of the Year and the National Mother of the Year honors. The State award was presented to Mary in April, and the national award was announced in early May. Mary was honored for reading favorite bedtime stories, helping with homework and offering friendship when it was needed most. Those who know Mary describe her as embodying the spirit of what motherhood is supposed to be--nurturing, but strong.

Mary is an amazing woman. She has been committed to her family, her students, and her community. Even to this day, she spends several hours a week tutoring students who need help in math. She has helped shape the lives of thousands in the halls of the institutions she served, and in the hearts of those who have been lucky enough to call her their friend. I rise today to honor and thank Mary for her selfless dedication to the betterment of others. She is a remarkable woman and a testament to the community she represents.