Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Attache Show Choir from Clinton High School in Clinton, MS, is celebrating 25 years of excellence and has gained national recognition as the premier show choir in the country for its outstanding winning tradition. The Clinton High School Attache Show Choir was formed in September 1980 by Winona Costello. Since 1992, the award winning Attache

Show Choir has been under the direction of David and Mary Fehr who truly have a passion for excellence.

Since 1980, Attache has established a winning tradition by capturing 52 Grand Champion titles, 5 second place titles, and 4 third place titles in 64 competitions during the last 25 years at prestigious competitions throughout the Nation. Nationally, Attache has achieved unprecedented recognition and has received numerous awards through the years for Best Vocals, Best Choreography, Best Overall Effect, Most Creative Show, Best Show Design, Best Repertoire, Best Costume Design, Best Visuals, Best Instrumental Combo, Best Rhythm Section, and Best Brass Section competing against choirs from all over the Nation. In its last 35 competitions dating back to the 1995/1996 season, Attache has captured the Grand Champion title 33 times. During the last 15 consecutive competitions, Attache has captured Grand Champion titles and therefore, has the longest grand champion winning streak of any show choir in the Nation.

In the last 10, Attache has had the privilege of hosting a number of competitions, including Showstoppers Invitational in Orlando, FL, and Show Choir Nationals in Nashville, TN, where they also performed the opening number at the Grand Ole Opry in March 2005. During the 2005 competition season, Attache captured Grand Champion titles at the 10th Anniversary Fame Show Choir Cup in Branson, MO; the Fame Show Choir America in Orlando, FL; the Petal Invitational in Petal, MS and the Buchanan Invitational in Troy, MO.

Attache has gained extensive praise and accolade for their remarkable talent, phenomenal showmanship, and extraordinary success. It is with great pride to recognize the contributions of this nationally known musical group which has brought honor to its school, its community, and to the State of Mississippi.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Joint Committee on Printing will meet on Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 2 p.m. to conduct its organization meeting for the 109th Congress.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, who sponsored this concurrent resolution, to clarify his intended meaning of the fourth ``Resolved'' clause on page four of the resolution. I am specifically interested in the intention of the use of the terms ``any additional action'' and ``large commercial aircraft market.'' I ask because the aerospace industry is an integrated and global industry. In most every instance, aerospace companies are vertically integrated to some degree and they are engaged in many other related activities. In many instances, they are component manufacturers, as well as platform manufacturers. Would it be correct to understand that the majority leader does not intend that this clause target these other business activities that are not directly associated with the marketing and sale of large fixed-wing aircraft to commercial carriers in the passenger transportation market?

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his response. Additionally, I understand that it is not the purpose of this resolution, and more specifically of the fourth ``Resolved'' clause, to suggest punitive action be taken against any company's activities related to products sold to U.S. Government agencies, such as the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or the U.S. Coast Guard, whether those products are radars, components of radars, or helicopters. Is this understanding correct?

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his clarification of the resolution and its intent. I would encourage all of my colleagues to consider with care the possibility of unintended consequences. The complexity of this industry is such that my State and almost every State has numerous business and economic interests that could be negatively impacted if we are not careful about how we respond to a legitimate concern.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for the leadership he provided at the Budget Committee. This is never an easy job. I worked with Senator Pete Domenici when he was chairman, and we had this vote- arama and critical votes year after year. We got it done every year except for 2 out of the last 3 years. We need this blueprint in place so we can go forward, so we can have some modicum of controlling ourselves, controlling spending.

I don't like everything in this resolution, particularly. I think right now the aggregate of money for a State is too much; the aggregate amount of money for Treasury and IRS is too much. I would like to have more in agriculture, education, transportation. But if each one of us picks our issue where, ``Oh, no, we can't have any restraint here,'' we will never have any.

I enjoy listening to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle get up and give these great speeches about how we have a problem with the deficit, we have to have restraint, and then when it comes time to have restraint, to do things to help the economy grow, or control spending in any area, we all say: No, not my area.

We have to do it across the board. We know that the problem in the Federal Government is not on the discretionary side. It is not how much we are going to be spending on highways or education. The growth there has been relatively restrained. That is true in most of these categories. The problem is in the mandatory area. Frankly, I have never liked mandatory areas. What does mandatory mean, you get it no matter what? Then a Governor or legislature can keep adding people, keep adding people, perhaps for good reason, perhaps political reasons.

All of a sudden, you have a program that grows like topsy-turvy, totally out of control. It is going to bust State budgets. It already has. It will have a huge impact on the Federal budget.

These mandatory programs are going to cause situations where we cannot continue to afford to spend what we are spending in the future, what we committed to on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Do I think this is a great program? Yes. I personally know what they mean. I have benefited from them. I have seen what they don't do. When my father was killed in an automobile accident after 30 years of paying into Social Security, because of the marital situation and my age, our family got nothing out of it.

I would like to have some sort of system where people pay and they have an opportunity for their families to benefit, if they so choose.

Medicare--I know what it means to people who are aged and have health problems. I think what we did on the prescription drug issue was a huge mistake. We didn't have real reforms. In fact, we put more burdens on Medicare, and we are not going to be able to afford what we have gotten into on Medicare. But Medicaid is the subject for discussion. My State has wrestled with this. Over the past few years, we kept adding people and programs to it until it was not a problem for a while, but for the last 2 years it is absolutely totally out of control, and my poor State of Mississippi, there is a $270 million hole. The Governor and legislature fought about it, cussed about it, struggled with it. Finally, last Sunday night at midnight they came up with an agreement.

What was the agreement? They couldn't figure out any way to pay for it or to cut it, and they borrowed the money from the tobacco trust fund, and said: Don't worry, we will pay it back later. Excuse me? I don't think that is a very good or permanent solution. The States need help. We need to be thoughtful in how we reform Medicaid to make sure those we are committed to giving help really do get it, and that it is done in a controllable, reasonable way.

The Federal Government is part of the problem. We have to match the funds.

The President made a very small recommendation of some savings in the Medicaid area. Then the Senator from New Hampshire took that, and actually he took some of the savings and added some of it back in areas where it was badly needed, for a net savings of only $14 billion in this resolution over 5 years. If we cannot support that, we might as well fold our tent.

Let me say to my colleagues here, too, that we are going to have to do this. We are going to have to do it now and later.

When we come back out of conference, we are going to have serious reforms, or a way to get to reforms and some savings in the Medicaid area because we cannot continue down this road.

I am sorry. I am embarrassed to say that Democrats seem to not want to have any kind of restraint, and, unfortunately, some of my Republicans colleagues, too.

This is an important vote. It is not the only important vote. It is not one that will destroy the whole process, but it is going to tell a whole lot about who we are.

I don't see how anybody who votes for this amendment to knock out this little, tiny savings can ever raise their voice again and say they are worried about deficits and Federal Government spending to go on too long. I realize I am talking in very broad terms and not going into any specificity.

This is an important vote. I plead with my colleagues, show some restraint. We have shown so little restraint for several years. We have all been a part of that. But now we are paying the price. We have these deficits which we have to cut. It is estimated this resolution would cut the

deficit about half over the next 5 years. I believe that is right. It is probably not enough. We probably should do more.

The red line and the red ink on the chart in these entitlement programs is going to swamp us. Some people say we can do that later. Can we do it better later? No. Every year we wait, it gets worse. It makes the reforms and the necessary savings more difficult and larger.

I just wanted to urge my colleagues to support the Budget Committee's action and support this resolution. Don't vote to take out the tiny savings in Medicaid that is included here. The States have to be doing some of that. They show a lot more restraint and leadership than we do on them. They have one thing that is different: they have to have balanced their budgets every year. It is in their constitutions. My poor State does. Maybe someday we will still have to come back to that at the Federal level.

I thank Senator Gregg for his leadership, and I thank him for yielding.

I have an inquiry.

The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes she was going to use. I was under the impression that the Senator from Washington had 5 minutes.

If she is willing to wait, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 10 minutes off the underlying resolution.

If I could, I understand there is a substantial amount of time on the underlying resolution. I was hoping to speak not just on ANWR but also on NIH and Amtrak. I thought it should come off the underlying resolution, not just Amtrak, and I have been sitting here for almost an hour. I thought, with the flow back and forth between supporters and opponents of the amendment, that it would be appropriate I be allowed to speak at this time.

Mr. President, I believe it was my request that is pending.

Let me make a couple of observations. First, whenever Senator Stevens wishes to speak, I will defer to him. Second, since we only have 4\1/2\ minutes of time, I would be willing to take just 4\1/2\ minutes to speak only on ANWR and come back on the other issues at another time.

I amend my request to ask that I be allowed to take this 4\1/2\ minutes if it is off the resolution so I can address this issue.

Parliamentary inquiry. Could I inquire, has Senator Stevens' time already been identified before this 1 o'clock vote?

Has not been----

Mr. President, I am glad I could assist the Chair in clarifying the time at this point. This is a very important issue. It is time, I agree, we should get it resolved. I think it should be resolved with a majority vote. We can argue over the rules as long as we like. But to me, this is a critical issue. It symbolizes what we are going to do about the future in the energy area.

I do not have some beautiful picture I am going to show today. If I were going to show one, I would show one of my four grandchildren. Are we going to have energy production in our country or not? Are we going to continue to put various areas off limits where we cannot have more production? There are some people, I guess, in this institution who think we can conserve ourselves into an energy policy.

We need to produce more oil, more natural gas, more coal with clean coal technology, hydropower, all of it, and have conservation and alternative fuels. And we should produce this oil in Alaska, or natural gas, or whatever it is up there.

When I came to the Senate, I spent some time talking to the experienced hands around here, and I asked about how you deal with different issues. One of the things I was taught by my predecessors here in this institution is you pay attention to the Senators from their State when it is an issue involving their State.

This is an issue that is supported by the two Senators from Alaska, supported by an overwhelming number of people in that State. It is supported by the Native Americans in that State. This is the right thing to do from their standpoint. I do not understand why Senators from Massachusetts and Washington and Maine are trying to dictate what should happen in this area in production that we need as a country. I am absolutely floored by all of this.

I think it is time we consider what is for the good of the overall country and get over all these dire threats of doom of what we might do if we have exploration in this very limited area. And, ladies and gentlemen, it is about jobs. It is about revenue. Why do you think most of the unions are supporting this? They were in my office today saying: We are for this, because they understand it would involve jobs. They understand it would involve more revenue coming into the Federal Treasury. They understand it is about energy independence.

When are we going to learn? The price of a barrel of oil is $54 a barrel. Gasoline is somewhere close to $2 a gallon, in some areas as much as, I think, $2.16 a gallon. Venezuela made it clear recently they would like to cut us off completely. We are dependent on a very volatile area of the world for our oil supply. Probably about 60 percent of our energy needs is supplied by foreign oil.

Even in this remote area of Alaska we are saying we cannot produce more oil and gas. Who is going to lose if we do not have energy sources? We are going to have it in my State. We are going to produce our own oil and natural gas and coal. We are going to have excess power. By the way, if they are willing to pay for it, we will be glad to wheel it up to Pennsylvania and Massachusetts and Connecticut. We will share.

But I will tell you, if we do not have oil and gas and coal to run our powerplants, the electricity is going off. It is time we get serious about this issue. We should vote down this amendment.

I commend Senator Judd Gregg and the Budget Committee for taking this action. I think we should do this if for no other reason than because of support for the Senators, particularly Senator Stevens, who has spent a career trying to do the right thing for Alaska. Who has done more for conservation and environmental issues in Alaska than Senator Ted Stevens? Nobody. He has made every possible plea for this. So I hope we will do it. It is the right thing to do. We should do it in his honor.

I thank my colleagues for giving me this opportunity to vent a little bit. I am amazed at the irresponsibility of this Congress and the previous Congress and the American people to a degree in the energy field. We want it, but we do not want to do anything to produce it. So I hope maybe this will be a sign today, when we vote to defeat this amendment, that we are finally getting serious about more energy production in this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Amtrak amendment and would use the 1-minute time I believe was just allocated. Is that appropriate parliamentary procedure at this point?

Mr. President, I have a long history of being supportive of Amtrak. I was chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee when we passed the last reauthorization. I have the honor of serving there again this year. I am committed to trying to find a way to get a reauthorization and get a reliable stream of funds for Amtrak so its future can be certain and so this does not have to depend just on annual appropriations.

We are going to get that done. This puts the cart before the horse, before we get a reauthorization. We are going to designate more money for it.

To make matters worse, the $1.2 billion, while it is significant, will just continue the drip, drip, drip of funds for Amtrak but yet not enough for them to do what they need to do in track improvements and capital improvements.

I believe this is the wrong place to do this amendment.

Last but not least, it does it by raising unspecified taxes.

While I support the intent of the Senator from West Virginia and I support Amtrak and I am determined to get this job done, we shouldn't do it in this way at this point.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have had this debate before. Here we go again. I think it is an important debate and we need to think very carefully about it. I certainly agree with Senator Feingold and Senator Voinovich that Congress has been spending money recklessly over the past few years. We need to restore fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, this amendment does very little to address that problem.

I cannot help but remember that during the late nineties and the early part of this century, we had a balanced budget for 4 years. We actually had surpluses. How did that happen? There was some fiscal responsibility. We forced President Clinton to join us in a balanced budget amendment in 1997. But we also cut taxes in a way that encouraged growth in the economy. We grew bigger.

That is one thing you need to think about. The economy is showing growth. It was pretty fragile last year, but it continues to show positive signs in terms of production, and unemployment is at 5.4 percent. It should be headed the other way. More people are being hired. There are positives in the economy. I talked to the experts about how did that happen. Part of it happened because we did tax cuts where we let people keep more of their money instead of bringing it to this city and wasting it. We encouraged growth in the economy. We encouraged family tax relief, families with children, research and development, we cut taxes on dividends. We took some actions that made a huge difference. That is how we had balanced budgets and surpluses.

But then, for a variety of reasons, we started spending more and more again. A variety of things happened. First, we got used to having surpluses, so we started spending money, whether we should or should not. We made commitments on Medicare and Medicaid that we should have made, and then the economy started going down. Then, we had 9/11 and we have had all the extra spending for the defense of our country, our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we spent a lot of money on homeland security. We wasted a lot of it, in my opinion. But we are doing a better job and we are doing some things that had to be done. We are going to continue to have to spend money to try to make America safe against terrorists.

But the combination of overspending in the beginning of the century, a falling economy in 2000 and 2001, and 9/11, has led us to the deficits we now have. One of the interesting things to me about this is that the focus is on, by the way, you cannot let people keep more of their money unless you cut spending or raise taxes. The focus should be on how we control spending. Year after year, this administration, previous administrations, and we have spent more and more and more. I will be glad when we get to the point where you cannot raise spending for Amtrak or NIH or anything else that you don't offset in some way. We need fiscal responsibility, but this is not the way to get it, in my opinion.

On the floor this week, there have been amendments offered on the budget--mostly by Democrats, with the complicity of some Republicans occasionally--to add $50 billion more in spending--just so far. By the time the smoke clears this week, there will be amendments that would add probably $200 billion or who knows how much more than what the President budgeted, which is a significant budget; $843 billion is not chicken feed. Then you add entitlements on top of that. So we have a problem.

Here is the real kicker. If we pass this amendment, this is really a tax increase. If we don't have the ability to extend some of these tax cuts that we already passed, we committed to the people--if you ask the experts what would happen if we didn't extend these tax cuts in these critical areas of capital gains and dividends, they would say: We are not worried about that. We have factored that into our economic thinking. You are going to do that.

Well, could we get 60 votes for it? Are we going to do that? Can we be assured we are going to get that accomplished? This would lead to tax increases of $70 billion on working Americans and families with children. That is why I cannot support it. You might say, well, I can go down the list and say one after the other to my colleagues on both sides, Do you think we ought to do something about the AMT tax relief problem, the fact that 9 million Americans are being forced into higher tax brackets because of the AMT that we got into years ago?

Do my colleagues think we should not address that? Why, the Senator from Ohio would say, we are going to have to do that; why, absolutely we are going to do that, and we should do that.

Does this mean we should not have money for the tax extenders for such things as R&D tax credit, the work opportunity tax credit which helps business employ millions of Americans who might not be employed otherwise? Oh, no, everybody says, no, I am for that.

Does this mean my colleagues do not want dollars for small business expensing, which is really a tax increase on small businesses? They are the ones where the jobs are really being created. That is where the real entrepreneurial spirit is. But most people say: No, no, I want to encourage small business, so I would want to extend that.

What about capital gains and dividends? Well, I guess some people in the Senate might say: I do not want to do that; that is the middle income or upper income people. Tell that to the millions of Americans now who do receive dividends, and they are not wealthy Americans, either.

So if we do not extend these, the result is going to be we are going to have a tax increase on millions of these working Americans. It would have a devastating effect on the economic growth that we are encouraging. There would be fewer jobs and even more dependency on the Government.

I have watched it over the years in my own State. Year after year we were one of the poorest States in the Nation. We thought we could spend our way out of poverty. We were not in debt because we had a constitutional amendment that said we could not do it. So we kept trying to spread money out to people, saying that if we keep supporting everybody--one-quarter of the entire population in my State is on Medicaid. Finally, a few years ago, we said: Wait, we are not going to be able to spend our way out of being the poorest State in the Nation. We are going to have to take some aggressive action to have better quality education, better infrastructure. We are going to have to go out there and create jobs, solicit jobs. We are going to have to have tax reform. We are going to have to cut taxes.

What has happened? We are creating jobs. We are not the poorest State in the Nation anymore. We are glad to give that title to another State, maybe South Dakota, West Virginia, or Arkansas. They can fight over that title.

We do not want it. We finally got up off our knees and said: We are tired of being poor. We want to grow the economy. We want our people to have an opportunity to get a good education, have jobs, and create jobs.

That is why we have Nissan, Textron, International Harvester, and FedEx in my State. Northrop Grumman has two different new plants in my State to build unmanned aerial vehicles. That is why Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Eurocopter, and now the newest steel mill in America is in Mississippi, because we quit trying to spend our way out of poverty. We started trying to figure out ways to attract people and create jobs and allow people to make more money, have a decent paying job, and keep more of their own money. Yes, we cut taxes, and we started growing. Hallelujah. We also had tort reform to get these frivolous class action lawsuits under control.

So that is why I think this is totally wrongheaded, goes absolutely in the wrong direction. I hope my colleagues will not fall into this trap. The Finance Committee would have to come up with at least $30 billion probably in revenue raisers over the next 5 years to cover dealing with these tax provisions. We would not really be getting anything for it in return.

Chairman Grassley tells us that if we had to come up with this $30 billion, it would basically max us out because that is the bare minimum we need to prevent a tax increase on Americans without looking at what we need to have some growth in the economy and help working families in America.

This is a responsible budget that we have come up with. We should not put this provision in it. Let me understand this. We want to discourage tax cuts on working people being able to keep their money, and instead we want to force tax increases and spending cuts? I like the spending cuts idea. That is the only part I really heard that I like, but we need to think about what we are doing.

Finally, maybe we can begin to top out this spending orgy that we have been involved in and begin to come down. By the way, everybody on the floor, we are all screaming and hollering: Oh, my goodness, you do not mean agriculture, do you? Oh, wait, you are talking about some of our beloved education programs? No, we did not mean that. You do not have money for Amtrak, you do not have enough money for shipbuilding, you do not have enough money for highways?

Everybody ought to have to ante up a little bit. The problem is not tax cuts and tax relief for working Americans and families with children; the problem is we cannot control our insatiable appetite for spending.

By the way, I acknowledge that I am guilty. I have been a participant. I tried to get more of my fair share in Mississippi because for 135 years we did not get our fair share. Why did we not get it? Because we did not stand up and ask for it. We did not play on the national team.

This is not the way to go. Senator Gregg has provided leadership and courage. I have been speaking against things today and over the last 2 weeks. I support Amtrak. I am from an agriculture State. I want more highway money anyhow, anywhere, any way I can get it, but at some point we have to ask, how much is enough?

There is an amendment to add money for NIH. I have been a part of the Republican commitment over the past few years to double the spending for NIH, and we have done it. Now we are being told that is not enough, we need $2 billion. We need to sober up, and this resolution will help us do it. It is not going to be easy. We are going to have withdrawal pains, but we need to stop spending. We need to try to find some way to help reduce this deficit by encouraging growth in the economy.

I urge my colleagues, vote against this so-called pay-go provision, and let us go with this resolution the way it was written. I hope this time we can get a conference report, too, because if we do not, we are doomed around here. If we cannot do these little tiny cuts, some minimum reforms, wait until we really have to deal with the big choices. They are coming. They are coming down the road, and it is a Mack truck. Unfortunately, the roads are not in very good shape. I hope it does not fall into a pothole or a bridge before it gets here.

We need to pass a highway bill. As much as I would like for that highway bill to be $318 billion, $350 billion--we cannot come up with enough highway money to suit me--I am going to vote for some restraint. If it is over $184 billion and it is not paid for in an appropriate way, I will vote to sustain a veto. We have to all do this. We talk about it.

The Senator from North Dakota knows we need to do this. He wants to do it. We have to have some help. We have to have some ``followership'' and courage. Now is the time to do it. This amendment is not the way to do it.

I thank my colleagues.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

How is the time divided between now and 3 p.m.?

I thank the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks before we start this series of votes at 3 o'clock. I understand there will be several stacked votes, four or five at that time.

First, I remind my colleagues that this is an important process. This is a process where we pass a budget resolution. This is a blueprint that we are trying to put in place of how we will proceed the rest of this year and even, depending on the enforcement mechanisms, next year. This is not written in stone. This is not the Ten Commandments. This is an outline. This is a blueprint. These are aggregate numbers.

I must say, ashamedly, for 2 of the last 3 years we did not have a budget. I think that is one reason we had such a mess at the end of the session last year. I admit, it was an election year, but we need to have some guidelines of what are we expected to do at Commerce, how can we do a better job at the Transportation Security Administration, how much money is going to be available, what is going to be available at the Finance Committee, what are we going to do with our entitlement programs and tax policy? One way or the other, what are the appropriators going to do?

I hope my colleagues will not get too overwrought and too much into the details. I do not like a lot of this budget proposal. I do not like a lot of what the President proposed, but I will have my opportunity to make my case and I will have my opportunity to vote for or against parts of it. This is just the beginning. This is the kickoff.

By the way, it should be a bipartisan effort to get this budget resolution in place.

I think the committee has done a good job. First, it cuts the deficit in half within 5 years. We have been dealing with increased defense needs. We have been trying to figure out all the needs of homeland security. We had economic problems, and the deficit has gone up. Now it is time we begin to do something about it. We need to begin to control spending, and we need to be careful about our tax policy which can hurt the economy if we have raised taxes or if we cut taxes even in the wrong way versus cutting taxes in a way that gives incentive for growth.

This budget starts in the right direction of reducing the deficit. It fully funds the President's request for defense and homeland security. I guess we need to do that. The numbers are adequate in both areas. I would like to see some more in defense. And I do not like the mix in the President's budget for defense. But that is not what we will decide here.

This bill maintains job-creating tax policy and it strengthens budget enforcement tools. Because we did not have a budget resolution last year, and 2 years before that, we have been losing our ability to impose some budget and fiscal restraint. This resolution does provide outlines that will take us into doing more, and doing a better job at education, energy, welfare, and pension policy, all of which we need to do.

I hope we will be careful. Let's not get too hot with the rhetoric this week. When we get to Thursday night or Friday, we will pass a budget resolution and move forward.

With regard to the amendments, I was interested to see we got some amendments on Social Security. This may be good. Is this a sign that Democrats are going to join us and we are going to have a serious discussion? Senator Lindsey Graham has his neck way out there, so far out I am not about to join him where he is right now, but he is trying to get us going, get engaged in this discussion. A lot of people say we can't do this, we can't talk about any kind of restraint in growth and benefits. We can't do anything about age. Oh, no, we can't do anything with personal savings account.

If you listen to what they are saying, it is we don't want to do anything but raise Social Security taxes again. We have done that too many times.

My time is gone. I urge my colleagues: Vote against these points of order. This would be the exact wrong way to get started toward Social Security reform and getting a budget resolution. I will have more to say about all this later.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to give notice to Members and staff of the Senate that the Committee on Rules and Administration (``Committee'') has approved amendments to four Committee regulations. Pursuant to Title V of the Rules of Procedure for the Committee and having provided advance notice of our intention to approve the following amendments to regulations, we hereby approve said amendments effective February 1, 2005.

1. The following regulations are approved as amended:

A. Committee Regulations for Furniture, Accessories and Special Allowances Policy for Senate Office Buildings, as amended by adding, deleting and substituting as follows:

Delete the second sentence in item 5 which reads ``However, once modular is chosen for a suite, it shall remain a part of that suite regardless of which Senator occupies the space.''

Under Section A in item 5, delete ``A.'' and the words ``of funding for this program'' and substitute ``and the order in which the request is received.''

Delete Sections B and C in item 5.

Delete item 7.

At the end of second sentence in item 8 add the following: ``or through the Senate Furniture web system.''

Under Section A in item 8 delete the words ``to be transferred to the intended office'' at the end of the sentence and substitute ``by the Committee on Rules and Administration prior the transfer.''

At the end of first sentence in item 9 add the following: ``available for viewing through the Senate Furniture web system (http:// senate.aoc.gov)''

Under Standard Furniture and Accessories, Senators' Suites--

1. Delete ``Chairs--Ergonomic (with or without arms)''

2. Delete ``Chairs--Folding Chairs''

3. After ``Chairs--Conference'' add ``(with or without arms)''

4. Delete ``Chairs--Reception'' and substitute ``Chairs--Desk (with or without arms)''

5. Delete ``Chairs--Reception (without arms)''

6. Delete ``Chairs--Secretary''

7. Delete ``Coats--Rack''

8. Add ``Credenza--(Conference room & Front office only)''

9. Delete ``Desk--Secretary'' and substitute ``Desk--L-Shape''

10. After ``Fireplace--Screens'' add ``(Russell SOB only)''

11. After ``Fireplace--Tools'' add ``(Russell SOB only)''

12. After ``Lighting--Ceiling (Chandelier)'' delete ``Fixtures (Reception and Conference Rooms in Russell SOB only, no more than 2 total)'' and add ``in Russell SOB only, (Reception Rooms, Conference Rooms and Senator's Personal Office, limited to 3 total)''

13. After ``Lighting--Floor Lamps'' add ``2 per office''

14. Delete ``Lighting--Reading Lamps''

15. Delete ``Magazine Rack''

16. Delete ``Microfilm Cabinets''

17. Delete ``Modular Furniture--Limited to Hart SOB for now)''

18. Delete ``Partitions--Textures (i.e. wood)''

19. After ``Refrigerator--Medium'' add ``Not to exceed 3 total''

20. Delete ``Stand--Smoke (Ashtray)''

21. Delete ``Tables--Folding''

22. Delete ``Window--Venetian Blinds (2 inch, Russell and Dirksen SOB's only)''

23. Delete ``Window--Mini Blinds (Hart SOB only)''

Under Senators' Personal Offices--

1. Delete ``(Bathroom)--(Vanity under sink)*''

2. Delete ``(Bathroom)--(Cabinet over/next to sink)*''

3. Delete ``Chairs--Reception'' and add ``Chairs--Side (with arms or without arms)''

4. Delete ``Chairs--Reception (without arms)''

5. After ``Chairs--Overstuffed'' add ``(Historic)''

6. Delete ``Lighting--Reading Light''

7. After ``Lighting--Ceiling (Chandelier)'' delete ``Fixture (Russell SOB only) and add ``in Russell SOB only, (Reception Rooms, Conference Rooms and Senator's Personal Office, limited to 3 total)''

8. Delete ``TV Cabinet'' and add ``TV/VRC Cabinet''

9. Delete ``VRC Cabinet''

10. Delete ``Upholstery Fabric''

11. Delete ``Wardrober''

12. Delete ``Window--Curtains or Draperies''

13. Delete ``Window--Venetian Blinds (wood or metal)''

14. Delete ``Window--Mini Blinds''

15. Delete ``* Standard part of building structure''

After heading ``For Loan (for Meetings and Related'' add ``Functions)''

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing Furniture, Accessories and Special Allowances Policy for Senate Office Buildings, as amended, is included as Attachment A.

B. Committee Regulations Governing Senate Travel and Travel Promotional Awards, as amended, by deleting paragraphs five and six in Section II(A)(3)(b) and related Appendix A and substituting as follows:

Travel promotional awards (e.g. free travel, travel

discounts, upgrade certificates, coupons, frequent flyer

miles, access to carrier club facilities, and other similar

travel promotional items (``Travel Awards'')) obtained by a

Member, officer or employee of the Senate while on official

travel may be utilized for personal use at the discretion of

the Member or officer pursuant to this section. Travel Awards

may be retained and used at the sole discretion of the Member

or officer only if the Travel Awards are obtained under the

same terms and conditions as those offered to the general

public and no favorable treatment is extended on the basis of

the Member, officer or employee's position with the Federal

Government. Members, officers and employees may only retain

Travel Awards for personal use when such Travel Awards have

been obtained at no additional cost to the Federal

Government. It should be noted that any fees assessed in

connection with the use of Travel Awards shall be considered

a personal expense of the Member, officer or employee and

under no circumstances shall be paid for or reimbursed from

official funds. Although this paragraph permits Members,

officers and employees of the Senate to use Travel Awards at

the discretion of the Member or officer, the Committee

encourages the use of such Travel Awards (whenever

practicable) to offset the cost of future official travel.

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing Senate travel and Travel Promotional Awards, as amended, is included as Attachment B.

C. Committee Regulations for the Senate Health and Fitness Facility by the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, as amended, by deleting paragraph (d), Section 3 and substituting as follows:

The Facility and its equipment shall be available for use

by all Members of the United States Senate upon the payment

of fees as determined by the Chairman and the Ranking Member

of the Committee on Rules and Administration. The Chairman

and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules and

Administration shall notify the Secretary of the Senate of

the amount of any fees to be charged hereunder and direct the

Financial Clerk of the Senate to collect such fees from those

Members desiring to use the Facility.

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing the Senate Health and Fitness Facility, as amended, is included as Attachment C.

D. Committee Regulations governing Public Transportation Subsidy, as amended by deleting and substituting as follows:

In the first sentence of Section 2, substitute ``(P.L. 105-178)'' for ``(P.L. 105-78)''.

In the first sentence of Section 2, substitute ``$105'' for ``$100''.

In item (a) of Section 4, substitute ``$105'' for ``$100''.

In the second sentence of third paragraph of Section 6, substitute ``employee'' for ``employer''.

In item (c) of Section 7, substitute ``$105'' for ``$100''.

A copy of the Committee Regulations governing Public Transportation Subsidy, as amended, is included as Attachment D.

Attachment A--Furniture, Accessories and Special Allowances Policy for

Senate Office Buildings

(Approved September 27, 1989)

(Amended June 29, 1994)

(Amended February 28, 2004)

1. Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 174c, furnishings for offices in

the Senate Office Buildings are supplied and maintained by

the Architect of the Capitol through his representative, the

Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings. Matters of

general policy are subject to the approval of the Senate

Committee on Rules and Administration.

2. Effective on the date of adoption of this policy by the

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the

Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings shall undertake

to survey the physical quality of all furnishings presently

assigned to offices. Thereafter, a survey will be conducted

on an annual basis. Office heads, as defined in the Senate

Equipment Regulations, should work with the Superintendent's

Office to identify furnishings that do not meet an acceptable

level of quality.

3. When the survey is completed, all items on the Standard

Furniture and Accessories list that are in disrepair will be

declared ``surplus'' and/or repaired. This does not preclude

repairs as needed irrespective of survey timing. No

furnishings will be delivered to an office unless they are

functional and in quality condition.

4. The Superintendent's Office will maintain a full

inventory of all furnishings assigned to designated suites,

including documentation of furnishings provided from the

Standard Furniture and Accessories list, and items purchased

from the Senators' special furniture and accessory allowance.

5. Senators with suites in the Russell or Dirksen Buildings

shall have the option of using traditional or modular

furniture to create an effective office environment.

[However, once modular is chosen for a suite, it shall remain

a part of that suite regardless of which Senator occupies the

space.] A Senator electing to use modular furniture in

Russell or Dirksen shall use the modular system in the suite

except for the Senator's personal office, reception room, and

conference room.

[A.] Modular furniture will be offered to Senators in

Russell and Dirksen based upon the availability and the order

in which the request is received. [of funding for this

program.]

[B. Modular furniture will be offered to Senators with

suites in the Russell and Dirksen Buildings on a seniority

basis until all Senators have had the opportunity to elect to

use modular furniture.

[C. Senators not electing initially to use modular

furniture in Russell or Dirksen must wait until all other

Senators on the current list have been offered modular

furniture and have elected to accept or have declined. The

updated seniority list shall apply after Senate moves.]

6. Senators in the Hart Building shall utilize modular

furniture as the basic system of furnishing. The actual

system of furniture in place in a suite in the Hart Building

shall remain in the same suite regardless of which Senator

occupies the space.

In the Hart Building, traditional furniture may be chosen

for the Senator's personal office, the Chief of Staff's

office, the reception area and the conference room.

[7. Modular panels shall not be provided in any private

offices.]

8. Only a Senator or the designated office head of each

Senate office will have the authority to request furniture

and furnishings in an office. Such requests may be made by

submitting a ``Request for Service'', letter or through the

Senate Furniture web system. Written confirmation of a

telephone request to the Superintendent of the Senate Office

Buildings also will be accepted. Office heads should be

designated in writing and a file of these names will be

maintained by the Superintendent's Office.

The transfer of furniture from one official office

inventory to another may be authorized based upon the

following:

A. All furniture items to be transferred from one Senate

office or Committee to another Senate office or Committee

must be authorized by the Committee on Rules and

Administration prior the transfer. [to be transferred to the

intended office.]

B. The Senator, Committee Chairman or designated office

head must agree to the release of the furniture on a Request

for Furniture form providing for the removal of those items

from their office inventory. Additional furniture intended to

replace the furniture proposed for transfer shall be

requested simultaneously on a Request for Furniture form.

C. The Senator, Committee Chairman or designated office

head receiving the transferred furniture must agree to its

receipt on a Request for Furniture form so that the furniture

can be incorporated into their office inventory.

The Superintendent shall adjust the official office

inventories based upon completion of the issuance or return

of furniture items.

9. The Architect of the Capitol will maintain in stock an

inventory of the following items, referred to hereafter as

the Standard Furniture and Accessories list, available for

viewing through the Senate Furniture web system (http:/// senate.aoc.gov):

Standard Furniture and Accessories--Senators' Suites

Bookcase--See Shelves; Chair Mats; [Chairs--Ergonomic (with

or without arms); [Chairs--Folding Chairs]; Chairs--

Conference (with or without arms); Chairs--Desk [Reception]

(with or without arms); [Chairs--Reception--without arms];

Chairs--Executive; [Chairs--Secretary]; Coats--Tree; [Coats--

Rack]; Credenza--(Conference room & Front office only);

Desk--Computer; Desk--Half size; Desk--Flat Top

Executive; Desk--[Secretary] L-Shape.

Fans & Heaters; File Cabinets--Lateral 2-Drawer; File

Cabinets--Lateral 5-Drawer; File Cabinets--2-Drawer; File

Cabinets--5-Drawer; Fireplace--Screens (Russell SOB only);

Fireplace--Tools (Russell SOB only); Footrests--Furniture or

Computer; Lighting--Ceiling (Chandelier) [Fixtures (Reception

and Conference Rooms in Russell SOB only, no more than 2

total)] in Russell SOB only (Reception Rooms, Conference

Rooms and Senator's Personal Office, limited to 3 total);

Lighting--Floor Lamps (2 per office); [Lighting--Reading

Lamps]; Lighting--Desk/Table Lamps; [Magazine Rack];

[Microfilm Cabinets]; Mirrors--(One per suite standard);

[Modular Furniture--(Limited to Hart SOB for now).

[Partitions--Textured (i.e. wood)]; Partitions--Acoustical;

Racks--Pamphlets; Refrigerator--Medium (Not to exceed 3

total); Shelves--Open Shelves (Book); Shelves--Desk

Organizers; Shelves--Cabinets (with doors); Sofa--Love seat;

Sofa--Couch; [Stand--Smoke (Ashtray)]; Stand--Telephone;

Stand--Plant; Tables--Conference; Tables--Round; Tables--

Computer; Tables--Coffee; Tables--End; [Tables--Folding];

Tables--Other (assorted sizes); TV Stand; [Window--Venetian

Blinds (2-inch, Russell and Dirksen SOBs only); [Window--Mini

Blinds (Hart SOB only)].

Senators' Personal Offices

[(Bathroom)--(Vanity-under sink*); [(Bathroom)--(Cabinet-

over/next to sink)*]; Cabinet--Telephone; Chairs--High Back

(Desk); Chairs--Side [Reception]-(with arms or without arms);

[Chairs--Reception-without arms]; Chairs--Wingback; Chairs--

Overstuffed (Historic); Credenza; Desk; Lighting--Table Lamp;

Lighting--Floor Lamp; [Lighting--Reading Light]; Lighting--

Ceiling (Chandelier) [Fixture (Russell SOB only)] in Russell

SOB only, (Reception Rooms, Conference Rooms and Senator's

Personal Office, limited to 3 total); Lighting--Mantle

Fixtures (Russell SOB only); Lighting--Wall (Sconce) Fixtures

(Russell SOB only); Lighting--Rheostat.

Mirror; Refrigerator--Compact; Shelves--Bookcases;

Shelves--Cabinet; Sofa--Love seat; Sofa--Couch; Table--

Coffee; Table--End; TV/VCR Cabinet; [VCR Cabinet; [Upholstery

Fabric; [Wardrober; [Window--Curtains or Draperies; [Window--

Venetian Blinds (wood or metal); [Window--Mini Blinds.

[*Standard part of building structure]

For Loan (for Meetings and Related Functions)

Blackboards, Easels, Folding Tables, Piano (small charge

for tuning), Podiums, Stacking Chairs.

10. A Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance will be

authorized to the Architect of the Capitol for the purpose of

furnishing a Senator's personal office, reception room and

conference room when a Senator is elected/reelected for a

term of office. This will be in addition to the furnishings

requested from the Standard Furniture and Accessories list

and only will be authorized during the first year of each

Senator's new term of office. Such amount will be determined

by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration as a

recommendation for appropriation to the Architect of the

Capitol to become available for the Senator's term of office.

Provisions will be made for Senators to purchase through this

special allowance furniture and accessory items which are

unique to their offices and/or home state. All acquisitions

from this allowance will be made by the Architect of the

Capitol in consultation with the office head.

11. A ``Request for Service'' or other written request for

furnishings will be acknowledged within five working days

reflecting appropriate disposition of the request. If

requests are made for items critical to the function of the

office which are not on the Standard Furniture and Accessory

list or are out of stock, and delivery/restock is not

anticipated for three months or greater, an office head may

submit a request in writing to the Chairman of the Senate

Committee on Rules and Administration. If requests are made

for special items, as part of the Special Furniture and

Accessory Allowance, appropriate information should be

attached from a

commercial supplier or a catalogue from which the items are

available. If favorably acted upon by the Rules Committee, an

approval to purchase will be forwarded to the Architect's

Office.

12. Certain furniture and accessory items may be built to

published plans, including typewriter racks and table

platforms for computer work stations, open shelves and

sorting racks for desks and tables, and bookshelves, in

accordance with a standard catalogue provided by the

Superintendent. An office head may submit a written

request for an item by identifying it from the

Superintendent's catalogue of sketches.

13. Office heads may submit to the Senate Committee on

Rules and Administration at any time a request to add items

to the Standard Furniture and Accessory list. The Committee,

in consultation with the Architect of the Capitol, will

review the list annually to ensure that items continue to

meet the needs of Senate offices acknowledging changing

technology and staff environments.

14. Furnishings secured through the Architect of the

Capitol from the Senators' Special Furniture and Accessory

Allowance may be returned at the request of the office head

to the Architect's inventory. They then may be purchased at a

depreciated price with a Senator's personal funds or as a

charge to the Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance. All

returns will be made without credit to the original

purchaser's Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance.

15. The Committee on Rules and Administration, in

consultation with the Architect of the Capitol, will monitor

requests for non-standard items to preserve the architectural

conformity of the Senate Office Buildings.

16. Furniture is not authorized by statute to be purchased

through a Senator's Official Personnel and Office Expense

Account. However, T.V. stands and V.C.R. stands are

considered accessories to equipment and may be purchased in a

manner consistent with the statutes and regulations governing

the purchase of standard and non-standard equipment.

17. All furniture and accessories, whether chosen from the

Standard list or purchased from the Senators' Special

Furniture and Accessory Allowance, remain the property of the

Architect of the Capitol. Senators will be responsible for

any furniture stolen, lost, or otherwise unaccounted for, and

reimbursement for all losses will be made in an amount equal

to the fair market value of such furniture after applying an

appropriate depreciation.

18. The implementation of this policy is subject to the

availability of appropriated funds to the Architect of the

Capitol.

Approved: Committee on Rules and Administration.

Christopher J. Dodd,

Ranking Member.

Trent Lott,

Chairman.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a couple minutes.

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

Mr. President, it was with a great deal of sadness that I learned today that one of the great patriots in America, a man from Illinois, Max Fisher, passed away.

Max Fisher has been a great American statesman, a patriot, a public servant, an entrepreneur, and community leader. He lived in Michigan. He has some Illinois roots also. He was born in 1908 to humble beginnings. He built a company that became SPEEDWAY 76. He was the driving force behind the revitalization of the city of Detroit, and he was a close adviser to four U.S. Presidents.

I got to know him quite well during the 1990s. I was able to visit with him personally. I got to know his family. I was so impressed with his commitment to his family, his community, his people, and his Nation.

He was a great American and a righteous man. We have lost one of our great patriots in America today. I wanted to pay special tribute to Max Fisher and his family on this occasion.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, March 8, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., to examine and discuss S. 271, a bill which reforms the regulatory and reporting structure of organizations registered under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today the Committee on Rules and Administration approved the following rules for the committee. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in today's Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Before he leaves the floor, I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, for his comments and for his leadership in this area. He has been steadfast. He has been involved in the process of moving this bill forward. A process which involves some give and take and some compromise.

Surprise, surprise. That is the legislative process. This is not a perfect bill, as he noted. It is not one that I particularly like. I would like to make it a lot stronger, but it is a major step forward.

I thank Senator Dodd, and other Senators. Senator Carper has been involved in that process, and colleagues on this side of the aisle.

I am pleased that the first substantive bill of the year is one that truly has a chance to make a huge difference in this country, and it is a bipartisan effort. It is one that I predict, when we go through the amendment process and get to the end, will have a large vote in support. I will not be surprised if it gets 70 votes. I hope for that. That would be a positive step.

If we can hold the line on amendments that may be offered--some that I would be attracted to, some that Senators such as Senator Dodd would be attracted to--but we worked out an agreement. We should brush back those amendments, discourage a whole raft of amendments being contemplated, and complete our work. The House has indicated they will accept this product--the compromise we came up with. When was the last time you heard of that even being possible?

But they have reaffirmed just in the last few days that, yes, if we can complete it the way it is presently structured, they will take it up, pass our bill, and send it to the President. That would be a good way to start this year.

I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the work that has been done.

Senator Hatch is here managing the legislation. He has worked on this long and hard, including last year when we had an opportunity that slipped away from us for a variety of reasons. It was tough last year to get much of anything done with all of us preoccupied with the Presidential campaign and our Senate campaigns and the House races. There is no use going back and rehashing why we didn't get it completed. We didn't get the job done. But we can do it now.

I thank Senator Hatch for the work he has done on this bill over the years, and Senator Specter for getting it out of the Judiciary Committee in good order. I thank Senator Grassley for his usual dogged determination to not give up on an issue, and he continues to press not only this but the bankruptcy reform issues.

I am thankful for the way we are starting off this year. I thank the leadership for working out an agreement to

bring this bill to the floor. We could very well have had a filibuster. But Senator Frist, working with Senator Reid, has indicated we are not going to get into that morass. We are going to step up to this issue, we are going to address it and debate it, and we are going to get results. I think that is good.

I believe the American people want us to complete action on this legislation and pass the bipartisan compromise this week, if at all possible.

There is no reason for this to be dragged out over a long period of time. We know there are a few amendments that are going to be offered. We will debate them. Let us vote and get to the conclusion of this process in the Senate, and send it to the House so they can take it up.

Why do we need this bill?

Some people would say we have the greatest judicial and jurisprudence system in the world. Things are working fine. Let us just leave it alone.

I don't believe things are exactly working just fine. Every system over a period of time needs some adjustment, and if abuses begin to occur, we must step up and stop them.

Over the past decade, we have seen a dramatic rise in the number of interstate class actions being filed in State courts, particularly in what are called magnet jurisdictions. I regret to say, and acknowledge, my State is one of the worst abusers. To the credit of our State legislature and our Governor, Haley Barbour, last year in Mississippi we passed tort reform legislation. We have gone from being the center of jackpot justice to being a State that has been praised by legal journals and the Wall Street Journal as having stepped up to the issue and dealt with it in a responsible way. They now describe my State in this way: Mississippi, open for business.

Prior to tort reform though, businesses, industry, manufacturers, drugstores, etc. would not come to Mississippi to do business. They were not coming to my State, one of the poorest States in the Nation, because of the abuses that have been occurring in the legal system.

But now, we have done our part in Mississippi. We still need to do more, but this is a Federal interstate problem and we in Congress are going to have to help address it.

Courts where the class action mechanism is routinely and egregiously abused have been proliferating. In many instances we know the plaintiffs get little or nothing, and the lawyers have gotten massive fees. I can cite example after example in my State where awards have been de minimus or nothing. Jefferson County, MS, in my State is one of the worst, most abused magnet jurisdictions in the country. Far too often innocent local business men and women are joined as defendants in controversies to which they were merely innocent bystanders, all because plaintiffs' lawyers wanted to file the case in Jefferson County for the purpose of getting a bigger fee. Often, the cases have no other relationship to that county or to my State other than this is a good place to go. This is unconscionable. We have an obligation to our constituents to put a stop to it.

Before going any further, it is important we take note of the title of this legislation: Class Action Fairness Act. This is not just some random title that Senator Grassley or others came up with. The whole point of the bill is to make the class action mechanism fair for all involved.

Some of my colleagues will argue today, I am sure, that the system is already fair. I ask, Is it fair for the plaintiffs in a class action suit to receive nothing, literally nothing, when the lawyers representing them receive $19 million? The citation is Shields et al. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. et al.

That is an actual case. Is it fair for the claims of residents of Mississippi, Washington, or Maine to be decided according to Illinois State law? Of course not. These are just two of the many reasons we need class action fairness, and we need it now.

Our Nation's judicial system was designed to be the fairest in the world for all litigation, and we have gotten away from that. These abuses have called into question the very fairness of our whole system. It is imperative we act to close these loopholes that have allowed this process to fail in the way that it has.

Before I talk about the specifics of what this bill does, let me take a minute to emphasize a few things the bill does not do. We will hear these allegations over the next few days, I am sure. This bill is not a tort reform bill, it is a court reform bill. This bill does not alter in any way substantive law. There may be some here who would want to debate that. However, I made that point at a meeting earlier today and I have gone back and checked it with experts. That is an accurate statement.

Contrary to the scare tactics of the plaintiffs' lawyers, this bill does not affect an individual's right to seek redress or damages through the court, and it does not in any way limit damages, either punitive or compensatory.

What does it do? First, it expands the jurisdiction of Federal courts over large interstate class actions. Clearly, that is a Federal jurisdictional issue and one we have a right and a real need to get into.

Let's be clear. We are only talking about those cases in which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, in which there are at least 100 plaintiffs, and in which any plaintiff is a citizen of a different State from any defendant. This makes basic sense. Where you have more than 100 class members and where parties to the litigation are from different States, the Federal courts should have jurisdiction. This provides fundamental fairness for all involved. The Framers of our Constitution were concerned about ensuring fairness in cases like this, worried that State courts could be biased in favor of a home State party versus another party who was a resident of a different State. That is the very reason for a Federal diversity jurisdiction.

It only makes sense that we close the loopholes that a growing number are abusing and exploiting with the result of creating a system that is having a huge impact in terms of dollar amounts and business and economic development.

It is also important to note that this bill does not apply to every class action, only those meeting certain criteria. It is not going to result in our Federal courts being overwhelmed by a large number of class actions. We will hear that accusation this week. And it will not move all class actions to Federal court. In fact, it leaves in State courts a significant number of class actions. It reserves for State courts those cases in which all plaintiffs and defendants are residents of the same State. It reserves for State court those class actions with less than 100 plaintiffs. Likewise, class actions involving an amount in controversy of less than $5 million would remain in the State court as would class actions in which a State government entity is the primary defendant.

As a part of the compromise worked out with Senator Feinstein last year, class actions that are brought against a company in its home State and in which two-thirds or more of the class members are also residents of that State would remain in State court.

Finally, State courts would retain jurisdiction over class actions involving local controversies where at least two-thirds of the class members and one real defendant are residents of the State where the action is brought. This bill reserves these cases for State court because it is the right thing to do.

There are other provisions of importance in this bill, including a consumer class action bill of rights. As many know, part of this section represents a compromise worked out by Senators Schumer, Dodd, and Landrieu last year. Notably, it places limitations on contingency awards for attorneys in coupon settlement cases. By basing these contingency fees on the value of the coupons that are actually redeemed, or the amount of time expended by the attorney, it provides for a far greater protection for plaintiff class members. This provision takes a big step toward addressing the grossly inequitable fee awards to attorneys when class members end up with a coupon.

Additionally, by requiring the judge to make a written finding that the benefits to class members substantially outweigh the monetary loss from a settlement, the bill provides an added layer of protection for class members who will suffer a net monetary loss as a result of payment of attorney's fees.

Do not get me wrong. I went to law school. I practiced law for a while. Yes, I was on the defense side of the ledger most of the time. But I have to admit reluctantly that my brother-in-law--I am really not related to him by blood; he married my wife's sister--is one of the, shall we say more famous lawyers in this country, Richard Scruggs. He has brought a lot of lawsuits I don't like. On occasion he actually makes a point with some of those lawsuits. I don't want to put him out of business, but I want some reasonable restraint on how these class action suits have been abused. He has not been one of the ones who actually wound up having abused lawsuits in the courts, as he winds up getting settlements most of the time.

I understand both sides of this equation. I certainly do not want to take away people's right to sue--individuals or even class actions, when they are really a class. That is not what has been happening. There has been an effort to dredge up clients, and it has led to the next area I will talk about, mass actions.

There is language in this bill dealing with mass actions. I understand there may be an effort later today or this week to change this section with an amendment that I understand may be offered. But it is vital that we retain the mass action section of the bill without an amendment so that we don't open the door for lawyers to make an end run around what we are trying to do with class actions in this bill.

The mass action section was specifically included to prevent plaintiffs' lawyers from making this end run. It will ensure that class action-like cases are covered by the bill's jurisdictional provisions even if the cases are not pleaded as class actions.

The amendment that we are hearing may be offered later today is a little sleight of hand. This is a case where you argue that you're only changing one word but, in reality, you fundamentally alter what happens with regard to these mass actions. There are a few States, such as my State--which do not provide a class action device. In those States, plaintiffs' lawyers often bring together hundreds, sometimes thousands of plaintiffs to try their claims jointly without having to meet the class action requirements, and often the claims of the multiple plaintiffs have little to do with each other. There was an instance in my State where you had more plaintiffs in one of these mass actions than you had people in the county, more than the residents in the county. Under the mass action provision, defendants will be able to remove these mass actions to Federal court under the same circumstances in which they will be able to remove class actions. However, a Federal court would only exercise jurisdiction over those claims meeting the $75,000 minimum threshold. To be clear, in order for a Federal court to take jurisdiction over a mass action, under this bill there must be more than 100 plaintiffs, minimal diversity must exist, and the total amount in controversy must exceed $5 million. In other words, the same safeguards that apply to removal of class actions would apply to mass actions.

Mass actions cannot be removed to Federal court if they fall into one of four categories: One, if all the claims arise out of an event or occurrence that happened in the State where the action was filed and that resulted in injuries only in that State or contiguous States. That makes sense. The second exception would be, if it is the defendants who seek to have the claims joined for trial; third, if the claims are asserted on behalf of the general public pursuant to a State statute; and, lastly, if the claims have been consolidated or coordinated for pretrial purposes only.

Some of my colleagues will oppose this mass actions provision and will want to gut it by making an effort to confuse mass actions with mass torts. I realize we are kind of getting into a legalese discussion, but words make a difference when you are considering a bill such as this. I am very concerned that the real motive is to render this provision meaningless, thereby creating a loophole for the trial lawyers to basically get a class action by another name.

Mass torts and mass actions are not the same. The phrase ``mass torts'' refers to a situation in which many persons are injured by the same underlying cause, such as a single explosion, a series of events, or exposure to a particular product. In contrast, the phrase ``mass action'' refers to a specific type of lawsuit in which a large number of plaintiffs seek to have all their claims adjudicated in one combined trial. Mass actions are basically disguised class actions.

If we enact the amendment that we are hearing may be offered to alter the mass action section, if we do not keep the mass action section intact, we will be knowingly creating a loophole that would undermine our whole effort in getting some responsible reform.

I also understand there is another amendment that will be offered, and it has been referred to as the choice of law amendment. That has a good sound, choice of law. To me, that is another word for shopping around to find the best forum, once again, with no relation to where the incident occurred or where the plaintiffs live, or the defendants, or anything.

I have spoken to several of my colleagues about this amendment in the last week or two, and some of them have even said to me: Don't you think we should include this amendment? My answer is no. This is a bad amendment. In my opinion, it is a poison pill. If we accept this choice of law amendment, basically the plaintiffs' lawyers can go to Federal court and say: OK, it is in Federal court, but we want to look at this State law, that State law, or another State law, depending on which one suits our particular cause the best. If this amendment is offered and passes, we would certainly have to go to conference then with the House. It would delay our efforts to get a final bill. And if we could not come up with a solution in conference that did not include this amendment, we would not get a bill.

So the phrase ``choice of law'' does sound nice, but the amendment actually would alter very fundamental legal principles. It would require Federal courts to apply one State's laws when adjudicating a nationwide class action. Here is what that means. If a nationwide class action is brought against a Mississippi company, the judge would be forced, under this amendment, to choose one State's law to apply to the whole country. The Mississippi company, which typically conducts business in Mississippi in compliance with Mississippi law and Federal law, would not necessarily have the protection of Mississippi law. Even though the Mississippi law, with which the company complied, differed from, for example, Nebraska law, the judge could potentially choose to apply Nebraska law.

So believe me, the proponents of this amendment know exactly what they are doing. If it were adopted, it would perpetuate the forum shopping that has been going on in recent years that has led to one of many areas of abuse.

Let me conclude because I know others want to speak. We want to get the process started. It is a compromise bill. It is not perfect. There will be different points of view. I have worked in this area for many years. I have heard all the arguments. I have heard those arguments on the floor of the Senate, in committee rooms, and at the family dinner table.

I want people to be able to get justice and redress. But I do not see how anybody can argue that there has not been abuse in the area of class actions and in mass actions. It has certainly been abusive in my own State. What disgusts me the most is the lawyers it has made superwealthy while the claimants got almost nothing. We can do better. This legislation will lead to a better solution.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct its organization meeting for the 109th Congress.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.