Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President. I rise today to recognize Fair Housing Month and the efforts of Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware, HOND. On April 4, 2005, HOND will hold their 22nd Annual Proclamation Signing Ceremony. Their theme for this year will be ``Diversifying our neighborhoods with quality by building relationships through culture and lifestyles.'' In April 2005, the nation will observe the 37th anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act, the groundbreaking legislation that affirmed in this country the right of every citizen to obtain the housing of their choice without being limited by race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware, Inc. is a non-profit organization promoting fair and equal housing opportunities in the sale and rental of housing in Delaware. HOND also provides housing programs which support the mission of equal access to housing and provides information about the law and housing programs available to Delaware residents. HOND is governed by a board of directors composed of a cross-section of business and community representatives. HOND is unique in that they were created primarily to provide fair housing law education to Delaware residents. Their mission is to eradicate housing discrimination through education, advocacy, and enforcement of local and national laws, and to promote fair and equal access to housing in rental, sales, homeowner insurance, and mortgages wherever one may choose to live. It is well known that fair housing opens doors of opportunity. To communicate this belief, HOND focuses its activities around six functions. The first is education. HOND provides current information about housing and fair housing practices to existing community groups and counseling agencies. A variety of workshops, seminars and literature are developed for consumers, community groups, housing professionals and private business persons. The second is compliance. HOND works with and encourages realtors, bankers, apartment managers, landlords and others to comply with fair housing regulations. HOND also works closely with government agencies including FDIC, HUD, State Human Relations Office and Commission, the City of Wilmington and New Castle County. Direct assistance is the third function. HOND provides assistance and counseling to individuals who believe they are victims of unfair housing practices. HOND works with community groups and counseling agencies that are interested in fair housing. The fourth function is advocacy. HOND monitors legislation of local, State, and national levels and serves as an advocate for fair housing. Research is the fifth function. HOND develops and conducts research projects to eliminate inequitable housing practices. Consumers, community groups, and public and private housing organizations participate in these research projects. Finally, there are special projects. HOND works with community groups, agencies, and others who have projects in mind to promote fair housing. I rise today to thank Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware, Inc. for all that they do in Delaware to better the lives of our residents. Their focus on serving our community is laudable, and I look forward watching their continued success and the impact it has on the people of Delaware.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the amendment I offer this evening is actually a fairly simple one. It strikes the section of the budget resolution that gives reconciliation protection to some $70 billion in tax cuts. The amendment doesn't prohibit those cuts. It simply says if we are going to cut our taxes by another $70 billion, we either need to come up with a way to pay for that or to sort of offset that with the Treasury or we need to be able to produce 60 votes here in the Senate. At a time when deficits are already high, I, for one, believe we should not make it any easier to dig the hole deeper. Sometimes I like to quote a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, a British fellow, who used to say this, talking about the theory of holes: The theory of holes is when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. The amendment we offer here tonight is based in part on that theory of holes made famous by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Faced with the kinds of deficits that we do face when we are cutting domestic programs, reconciliation should not be used for tax cuts that dig the deficit hole even deeper. Our Nation should be getting its fiscal house in order, not undermining the foundation of that house. If proponents of additional tax cuts wish to cut taxes further, they should pay for them. They should offset them, in my view. We already have that requirement on the spending side of the Federal ledger. I believe we need to apply the same principle to the tax side. Now, the Senate voted on Senator Feingold's and Senator Voinovich's amendment to reinstate pay-go requirements that require Congress to find offsets to pay for any new tax cuts or spending on any entitlement programs. My amendment takes the area of this budget resolution where we are actually spending more money--and that is $70 billion in tax cuts--and applies the pay-go standard. As demonstrated by my vote on the Feingold-Voinovich amendment, I favor applying pay-go standards universally, both on the spending side and on the tax side. My views are pretty basic. I think when we are faced with budget deficits that are in the area of $400 billion again this year, if I or anybody else wants to raise spending, in effect making the deficit larger, I would have to come up with an offset for it. If I can, I have to muster 60 votes for that offset. Similarly, in an era of $400 billion deficits, if I want to cut taxes, as well intentioned as that might be, but if doing so simply raises the budget deficit, I should be able to offer that amendment. My amendment says that anyone seeking to do so would have to muster 60 votes to cut taxes in a way that raises the budget deficit even further. The reconciliation process is a fast-track procedure that was designed to facilitate the passage of deficit reduction legislation in the Congress. The process was intended to protect hard-to-pass deficit reduction legislation from a filibuster and to ensure that such legislation could pass with 51 votes rather than 60 votes in the Senate. In recent years, however, Congress has used these special procedural protections to make it easier to cut taxes, to increase deficits, and to increase our Nation's debt. Tax cuts enacted in reconciliation bills in 2001 and again in 2003 cost the Treasury nearly $2 trillion over 10 years. The current tax reconciliation instruction would make it easier to pass an additional $70 billion in tax cuts without requiring that they be offset or paid for. This is the very opposite of the way these fast-track procedures were intended to be used, and the consequences for our fiscal situation have been mounting deficits and mounting debt. When President Bush took office some 4 years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the next decade and that virtually all publicly held debt would be paid off by 2008. However, if we adopt the policies in this budget resolution, including these tax cuts, debt in 2008 will total $5.7 trillion based on CBO's estimate of this budget proposal. In a span of 4 years, we have really moved from a CBO projection of surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the next decade that would have enabled us to have paid off publicly held debt by 2008 to where we see ourselves in a situation where CBO says, no, forget that; rather, our debt in 2008 will be in $5.7 trillion--not paid off, it will have grown to $5.7 trillion. This is not about being against tax cuts but about making the decision that at a time of unprecedented Federal budget deficits, if we are going to cut taxes further, those cuts ought to be offset. Reconciliation evolved during the last period of large deficits to help Congress take the difficult steps necessary to balance the budget. It worked then and it can work again if we use these procedures to reduce deficits, not to make them larger. My first tour of duty to Congress was at the beginning of 1983 as a Member of the House of Representatives. I had a lot to learn then. I still do. Among the things I needed to learn in 1983 was how the budget process worked because I did not understand it very well. I had been the treasurer of the State of Delaware for 6 years before that, and I was familiar with the budget process in my State, one that was similar to budget processes in many other States. In the State government in Delaware, the Governor proposes a budget sometime in the early part of a calendar year for a fiscal year that starts on July 1. There are hearings on the Governor's proposal. The legislature debates the Governor's proposal both for an operating budget and for a capital budget. Sometime before July 1, the legislature usually adopts an operating budget and a capital budget. We go out. We run the State. We use those budgets that have been adopted. When I got here, I found out it was not that way at all. Sometime in the early part of the calendar year, the President proposes a budget that now kicks in around the beginning of the new fiscal year, around October 1. There are hearings before the Budget Committees in the House and the Senate on the President's budget proposal. The next step is for the Congress to adopt a budget resolution, which is not a real specific budget; it is sort of a skeleton or a framework for the budget--roughly, we are going to spend our money in these areas, we are going to raise our money from these areas, and in the end hopefully it will all balance. After we have adopted a budget resolution, we come back and put the meat on the bones, the meat being the 13 appropriations bills we have traditionally enacted that provide the real detail of the budget resolution. At the end of the budget process, usually sometime in September, ideally, we do some cleanup in order to make sure that we are going to hit our balanced budget target or deficit reduction target. At the end of the process, we pass a reconciliation. When the Budget Act was adopted in the mid-1970s, the notion was that budget reconciliation would be used to help make sure we made the tough decisions to cut spending or to raise revenues in order to balance our budget or to get us closer to a balanced budget. So keep in mind the initial idea, the reason we had reconciliation, was to ensure that the Congress made the tough decisions to reduce budget deficits--in fact, to try to balance our budget. One of the great ironies today, is budget reconciliation has come to be used in an entirely different way. It is not used to help us make the tough decisions to reduce deficits, but, sadly, it is being used to make the deficits larger. My point of view is this: Things are worth paying for whether they are veterans benefits, defense programs, education, or transportation. If they are worth having, we ought to pay for them. If we are not willing to raise the taxes to pay for them, we simply should not have as many or any of those programs in this country. At the very least, I believe if we are going to allow a Member of the Senate to stand up and say, I want to raise spending on my favorite program, and we know that doing so makes the deficit bigger, there ought to be an offset. If they cannot come up with the offset to pay for that spending increase, they ought to be able to muster 60 votes to do so. I believe the same should apply if this Senator or any other Senator wants to come in and cut taxes, however well intentioned that might be. If doing so simply raises the deficit, we ought to have the right to offer that proposal, but if it is going to raise the deficit, we ought to also have to muster 60 votes just like we would on the spending side. So that is my amendment. Will the Chair inform me as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CARPER. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to make a comment, and then I will yield time to Senator Conrad. For 8 years immediately before coming to the Senate I was privileged to serve as Governor of my State. During those 8 years we cut taxes 7 years out of 8. However, for 8 years in a row we also balanced our budget. Tonight, as we gather here, we face a budget deficit for the year probably in the range of $400 billion again. We came off a budget deficit for last year of over $400 billion. Our Nation's trade deficit this year is expected to exceed $600 billion. I say to my friends, that kind of lifestyle is not sustainable. We are not going to enjoy the standard of living that we do today if we continue down this path of spending ever more money as a country than we raise, and forever buying more from abroad than people buy from us-- not by just a little bit but by a lot. Our trade deficit for the month of January was, as I recall, about $60 billion. We can go back only as recently as 1990, and I think our trade deficit for the whole year was about $30 billion. We are on a dangerous path. For us to continue willy-nilly along the same course is playing with fire. Again, the principle that is part of this, that really underlies this amendment, is if you have a big budget deficit and you want to cut taxes further, and it has the effect of raising the budget deficit, you can do that. But when you have a budget deficit of over $400 billion and as far ahead as we can see there is more red ink, we ought to make it a little more difficult to cut taxes and, frankly, we ought to make it more difficult to raise spending. I yield to my friend from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, for however much time he wishes to consume.

Mr. CARPER. How much time remains?

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I start by asking unanimous consent Senator Inouye's name be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I start today by going back in time to the first time I ever rode a train. I was about 6 or 7 years old, visiting my grandparents in Beaver, WV, a bedroom community outside of Beckley, WV. The fellow who had been the delegate in the West Virginia legislature for Raleigh County, WV, which is where my grandparents lived and where I was born, was Robert Byrd. By that time he had left the West Virginia legislature and was serving in the Senate after having served in the House. The first time I ever rode a train was a B&O Railroad train that stopped in front of my grandparents' house and picked me and my sister up and drove a couple hundred yards on a train of which my grandfather was a crew member. It is ironic that some 50 years later I stand in the Senate to support the amendment offered by Senator Byrd to support continuing passenger rail service. He is literally from the same place I was born. My first personal experience in riding a train goes back to his old representative district and certainly his Senate district. I say to Senator Byrd, thank you very much for the leadership you have shown for bringing us to the Senate today to express our support for passenger rail service in the 21st century. Fast forward a little bit to 1970. I was a naval flight officer on my first couple of tours in Southeast Asia. I remember picking up one day a Newsweek or Time and reading that somebody in the Congress had worked with the Nixon administration to create a passenger rail service for our country. At the time, the private railroads could not make money carrying people. They wanted to be relieved of that responsibility and only carry commodities, not people, from place to place in this country. An agreement was struck whereby if the for-profit private railroads would contribute their old rolling stock, their old locomotives, their old passenger cars, their old dining cars, and old track bed from Washington to Boston, overhead wires and old signaling system, old repair shops and old terminals, and kick in a little bit of money on top of that, we would somehow come up with a new passenger rail service called Amtrak. After that couple of years and a couple of years of subsidy from the Federal Government, this new entity called Amtrak would start making money, something the private sector cannot do in carrying people. A couple years went by, and after running those old trains on the old tracks, with the old overhead rail wire and the old maintenance shop and the old signalling system and not a whole lot of Federal support to improve the capital infrastructure, Amtrak didn't make money. If you look across the world at countries where they invest a lot of money in their passenger rail system, they don't make money either. They don't pay for the full cost of their passenger systems out of the fare box any more than we have been able to do. Since 1970, passenger rail service, intercity passenger rail service in this country has been starved for capital. Railroads are inherently capital intensive. Passenger rail, as freight rail, needs significant capital investments and we have literally starved Amtrak for capital investments since its creation. And that continues today. What has changed since 1970? Among the things that have changed, we import a lot more oil today. I don't recall exactly what we were importing as a percentage of consumption in 1970. It was not much. This year almost 60 percent of the oil we use in America will come from places outside the United States. Our trade deficit in 1970 was not much at all. We were pretty much in balance. In the month of January of this year, our trade deficit reached about $60 billion in 1 month. Back to 1990, that is twice our trade deficit in 1990, and a quarter of our trade deficit each month and year is attributed to oil imports. One of the things that changed since 1970 is a greater trade deficit and greater dependence on foreign oil. What else? Congestion on our roads and in our airports. Today, riding down I-95 to catch the train to come down here, bumper-to-bumper traffic. I-95 was a parking lot through Delaware. And that is not the only interstate highway that was a parking lot this morning or this afternoon. The same is true of roads across our country. The same is true of airports across our country. What else is the difference from 1970? The quality of air is a little bit better. Not as good as it can be and not as good as it would be if we got more people to get out of their cars and take transit. The other thing that is different, 25 million people rode intercity passenger rail in this country last year. That is not commuters; that is people who rode Amtrak. That is the highest number we have ever seen in the last 35 years. My friends, if we try to cobble up enough money for Amtrak to live another year and run the old business model we have worked with for a number of years, that is not good enough. We shouldn't do it. I don't know if the administration is serious about trying to force Amtrak into bankruptcy, but I would suggest we go down two tracks. I suggest one track we go down, we adopt the amendment to provide a reasonable amount of money to run the trains in the Northeast corridor and across the country, but also do the necessary work that is needed under a 5-year capital investment plan to fix tracks, fix overhead wires, and fix signaling systems, and be able to run the trains to their capacity and on time. At the same time we do that, we need to have a debate and a good robust discussion on what the future of passenger rail service should be in this country. I am not sure exactly what the future business model for Amtrak ought to be, but I suggest that it include a couple of these things: One, a focus on providing high-speed passenger rail service in distantly populated corridors, not only in the Northeast corridor from New York to Boston, but densely populated corridors in the Southeast, the west coast, hubs from Chicago. There are corridors we could exploit for passenger rail where folks travel 200 or 300 or 400 miles. Today, another thing that is different from 1970 is that 75 percent of the people in America live within 50 miles of one of our coasts. Think about that. Seventy-five percent of the people in America today live within 50 miles of one of our coasts. There are all kinds of densely populated quarters that could be well served by intercity passenger rail. Another aspect of the business model, aside from developing high- speed rail service in densely populated quarters, can be what I call trains that people pay a premium to ride because they like to ride them, because it is a neat thing to do, because it is convenient. The Auto Train. People get on the Auto Train. They got on it about an hour ago, just south of Washington, DC. They pay a lot of money to ride a train down to Orlando, FL. They have great food on the train, watch movies, sleep on the train. It is a nice train, modern and convenient. They will get off tomorrow morning near Orlando, FL, and have their cars right there with them to go wherever they want to go. There are trains out on the west coast--Pacific Starlight--where people will pay extra money just for the beauty of the ride. Some trains across the great northern part of this country are the same. Amtrak can make money actually running some of those trains. Amtrak can make money carrying people in a high-speed Acela Express in the Northeast corridor. Amtrak can make money carrying the mail. Amtrak can make money renting the Northeast corridor to freight for their uses, to rent out part of the right-of-way to the folks who want to run other kinds of information through the right-of-way. Those are some elements of a business plan that I think might make some sense for passenger rail in the 21st century. Freight railroads need to be a part of that. We need to be investing in the freight railroads as well. The last thing I will say is this. Senator Schumer is here to comment as well. I will finish and add this comment. A friend of mine, a senior official in the Bush administration, said to me a couple years ago, knowing of my interest in passenger rail service, that we should follow the airline model. With passenger rail service, we should do the same kind of model we follow with respect to the airlines. And I said, with tongue in cheek: Does that mean we ought to follow the Pan Am model? Should we follow the Eastern Airlines model? Should we follow Braniff? Should we follow U.S. Air? Should we follow United? Is that the model we should follow into bankruptcy, because they have all gone bankrupt? And now the administration is suggesting a path that will lead to bankruptcy for Amtrak. The Surface Transportation Board, if they were given $300 million--they can't run the Northeast corridor. That is not their ability. That is not their talent. This does not make sense. What does make sense is going forward on two tracks. I would suggest we adopt this amendment and we simultaneously have a full and robust and rich debate on this floor and in committees and elsewhere to decide what 21st century passenger rail service ought to be in this Nation. Last word. In a country where almost 60 percent of the oil we are using in this year comes from other places around the world, where, frankly, a lot of people don't like us, and I am convinced they take our money to hurt us, keep this in mind: To carry 1 ton of freight by rail from Washington DC, to Boston, MA, uses 1 gallon of diesel fuel. Let me say that again. To carry 1 ton of freight by rail from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, takes 1 gallon of diesel fuel. In a country that is awash in foreign oil and that has huge trade deficits, a lot of which are attributable to our dependency on foreign oil, we are foolish to ignore that reality. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about bankruptcy reform legislation. Much has been said about the bill that is before us. Let me say a few things as well. Two years ago, roughly 83 Senators voted in favor of an overhaul of our Nation's bankruptcy laws. As you may know, under current law, people who do not have the ability to pay their debts can go into chapter 7 and their debts are largely forgiven. They may have to turn over some of their assets. That is chapter 7. If the court of bankruptcy believes a family has the ability to repay some of their debts, they go into chapter 13, if a payment schedule is worked out. Concerns have been raised, justifiably, over the last decade or more that some people who have the ability to repay don't; they simply run up their debts and walk away from those obligations, and, frankly, leave the rest of us having to pay more interest on the consumer debt we acquire and to pay more for the goods and services we buy. Bankruptcy laws exist for a good purpose. People do have disasters that come into their lives; marriages end, serious health problems occur, and people lose jobs. For those reasons, we have bankruptcy laws. Most people who file for bankruptcy are not trying to defraud anybody. They have a genuine emergency, or a huge problem in their life, and they need the protection of the bankruptcy court. That is why we have those laws. There is a principle, whether you are for this bill or not, that I think we can all agree on. That principle is simply this: If a person or a family has the ability to repay a portion or all of their debts, if they have that financial wherewithal, they should repay a portion or all of their debts. If a family doesn't have that wherewithal to pay or begin repaying their debt, they should be accorded protection of the bankruptcy court. That is it; it is that simple. The legislation we have before us is an effort to try to codify that principle, and to improve on the system today where too many people, frankly, have abused that system. Much has been said about credit card banks and putting credit cards in the hands of people, encouraging them to use them. I have heard from my credit card banks. They would like to see this legislation adopted. I have heard more from my credit unions in Delaware than I have from the credit card banks, saying there is a problem and it is one that we need to address. I want to consider for a moment what will happen, or continue to happen, if we don't enact this legislation. No. 1, some people who ought to be repaying a portion of their debts do not. No. 2, the folks who ought to be receiving childcare from parents who are not anxious to meet that obligation will not receive that childcare payment. Their biological parent will file for bankruptcy in an effort to avoid making that childcare payment, or to make an alimony payment. In fact, the way the current law is structured, when somebody is in a position to start paying their responsibilities or obligations, legal fees come ahead of childcare and come ahead of alimony. That is wrong. Today, under current law, a wealthy individual in a State such as Florida or Texas can go out, if they are a millionaire, and take those millions of dollars and invest that money in real estate, a huge house, property, and land in the State, file for bankruptcy, and basically protect all of their assets which they own because of a provision in Florida and Texas law. Homestead exemptions exist in other States as well. People can put money in trusts today and tomorrow file for bankruptcy and know that all the millions of dollars they put in those trusts can be protected from bankruptcy. That is wrong. With the legislation we have before us, someone has to figure out that 2\1/2\ years ahead of time people are going to want to file for bankruptcy and be smart enough to put the money into a home, or an estate, or into a trust--not something you can do today--and file for bankruptcy tomorrow; or this year and file for bankruptcy next year or the next 2 or 3 years, or 3\1/2\ years. It is a much better approach. I, frankly, would like to see a cap on the homestead exemption. I voted for one yesterday. It didn't prevail. It should have. What is in this current bill is a heck of a lot better than it is in the law that exists today. Here is how this bill would work. For people whose median family income is under 100 percent of median family income, those families for the most part will be able to file for bankruptcy and go into chapter 7 bankruptcy without a whole lot of fuss. What is median family income? In my State, it is about $72,000. Nationally, median family income is about $65,000 for a family of four. It varies from there. It can be as low as $48,000 or $49,000 for a family of four in Mississippi, up to $80,000 in States such as Connecticut and others. But it is a range from the high forties to the low eighties for median family income. For folks whose income is below 100 percent of median family income, they go into chapter 7 pretty much without a lot of dispute. However, for those families whose income is above median income, above $72,000, they would have to go through a means test. That is not a bad thing to do.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about bankruptcy reform and the need to enact legislation dealing with bankruptcy reform. Before I do that, given the comments of our esteemed leaders, Senator Byrd and Senator Hatch, I feel compelled to say something first with respect to judicial nominations. This 109th Congress, in my view, has begun with much promise. We have taken steps to begin to restore a sense of balance in our legal systems--the system of civil justice to make sure that little people harmed by big companies have a chance to band together and be made whole, and at the same time make sure that companies defended in class action lawsuits have a fair trial in a court where the deck is not stacked against them. We are on the verge of passing significant and needed bankruptcy reform legislation. A conference on energy policy is taking place that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which has the promise also of increasing our reliance on renewable forms of energy and cleaning up our air, reducing sulfur dioxide emissions, nitrogen dioxide, mercury, and even carbon dioxide. We have just reported out of the Finance Committee legislation that will better ensure that work pays more than welfare to help people make that transition from welfare to work. We are close to consensus on overhauling our postal system and taking the 1970s model created under the leadership of Senator Stevens--who has joined us on the floor--to bring that into the 21st century. There is much promise. There is much that can be done and ought to be done. I fear that we are approaching a precipice that we may fall off--both parties, Democrats and Republicans--which is going to render us unable to achieve what I think would be a very fruitful session in this Congress. Reason must prevail here. Democrats will not always be in the minority; the Republicans will not always be in the majority; Republicans will not always hold the White House. We have to figure out some way to work through our divisions on the nomination of judges. It is sort of ironic in the first term of President Bush's administration that 95 percent of his nominees were approved, compared to President Clinton's success rate of about 80 percent over the 8 years he served. We need to be able to establish a system of checks and balances. We don't want to be obstructionists; we don't want one party to basically call the shots in the executive and legislative branches, and stack the decks in our courts. I encourage our leaders, as I have done privately, Senator Reid and Senator Frist, to sit down--if they have done it, to do so again--and have a heart to heart. I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle who want this place to work, who want us to do the people's business, to work and find a way out of this bind.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of Marine LCpl Richard Chad Clifton. Chad epitomized the best of our country' s brave men and women who fought to free Iraq and to secure a new democracy in the Middle East. He exhibited unwavering courage, dutiful service to his country, and above all else, honor. In the way he lived his life, and how we remember him, Chad reminds each of us how good we can be. A resident of Milton, Chad's passing has deeply affected the community. A 2003 graduate of Cape Henlopen High School. Chad was the son of Richard C. and Terri Clifton. Friends, family, and school officials recalled Chad Clifton as smart, funny, laid back, and carefree; an all-around good person. He viewed the Marine Corps as an opportunity to gain life experience. An aspiring writer, Chad said being overseas was providing a reservoir of experiences to write about. Chad always had a strong interest in the military. He spent more than 3 years as a member of the Cape Henlopen High School Junior ROTC program. His participation in that program enabled me to meet him last year and talk about his interest in serving the United States of America. His interest also came from his grandfather, a Korean War veteran, who earned the Purple Heart. That medal will be buried with Richard Chad Clifton. After graduating from high school, Chad underwent basic training at Parris Island, SC before being stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA. Chad became a member of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. He died in combat in the Al Anbar province in western Iraq. Chad was a remarkable and well-respected young soldier. His friends and family remember him as an officer and gentleman with an acid wit and an appreciation for music and art. He enjoyed writing, listening to heavy metal, and watching television sitcom reruns. As his mother remembers, ``He was pure potential with a good heart.'' Today, commemorate Chad, celebrate his life, and offer his family our support and our deepest sympathy on their tragic loss.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, in an hour or two or three, we will have the opportunity to vote final passage on class action reform legislation. The goals of this legislation are fourfold: One is to make sure when people--I say ``little'' people--are harmed by companies, big or small companies, that the little people have the opportunity to band together and be made whole and compensated for harm. The second goal is to make sure the companies know that if they shortchange their customers or others in our country, there will be a price to pay if they get caught. The third goal is to make sure when companies are called on the carpet and are involved in class action litigation, they are in a court, in a courthouse, with a judge, where the companies have a fair shake and the deck is not stacked against them. Finally, our goal is to make sure that, in shifting some class action litigation of a national scope with hundreds of or thousands of plaintiffs across the Nation, multimillions of dollars involved and defendants scattered across the country in different States than the plaintiffs, to make sure we move some class action litigation to Federal courts, we do not overburden the already busy Federal judiciary. I take a moment or two today to go through and cite examples--not all of them; this is not an exhaustive list--but some of the examples we have sought to make sure in many instances that the majority of class action litigation remains in State court where it belongs. Let me cite a couple of examples where this bill has been modified over the years to enable a majority of class action litigation cases to stay in State courts. For example, these are cases where the litigation will remain in State courts: No. 1, cases against State and State officials will remain in state court. Smaller cases will remain in State court. Cases where there are fewer than 100 plaintiffs or in which less than $5 million is at stake, those cases are not eligible for removal from State to Federal court. Cases in which two-thirds or more of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the defendant will remain in State court. Cases in which between one-third and two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the defendant may well remain in State court. It is left to the discretion of the Federal judge to decide whether it is Federal or State based on the criteria laid out in the bill. Similarly, cases involving a local incident or controversy, where the people involved are local, where at least one of the significant defendants involved in the litigation is within the same State, in those instances as well, the cases can and probably should remain in State courts. That is a handful of the examples where we make sure a lot of the class action litigation remains in State courts where it belongs. If you go back, the first bill introduced on class action litigation goes back about 7 years, I think, to 1997. That initial bill, along with a number of bills that were introduced in subsequent Congresses, was opposed by the Federal bench. There is an arm of the Federal judiciary called the Judicial Conference of the United States. They have a couple different committees, and from time to time they are asked, and they respond with their opinion, about whether certain legislation is needed, is appropriate, as it pertains to them and the work they are doing. The initial legislation proposed, I think, in 1997, 1998, was opposed by the Federal judiciary through their Judicial Conference of the United States. In the next Congress, again, the Federal judiciary opposed that legislation. As the legislation has evolved, we have gone back to ask the Federal judiciary: What do you think? We know you were opposed to original versions of this bill in the late 1990s. How about this latest revision? They continued to oppose subsequent versions of the class action reform until the last Congress. The Federal judiciary has the same concerns a lot of us have, the wholesale shifting of class action cases from the State courts to the Federal courts. Federal judges are busy, and they do not want to see an avalanche of litigation coming to them. With the adoption of a number of provisions in this legislation that comes to us today, the Judicial Conference wrote to the Senate in 2003 that, particularly given the changes Senator Feinstein proposed, their concerns about the wholesale shifting of State class action litigation to the Federal courts, for the most part, had been met and been satisfied. They are not taking a position, saying the Senate should vote for this legislation. That is not what they are about. But the concerns they had expressed earlier, year after year after year, have been addressed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States, dated April 25, 2003.

Mr. CARPER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. CARPER. We are going to vote on final passage in an hour or two. I think Senator Durbin is going to come to the floor. He may ask for a vote on his amendment. I am not sure he will. He cares deeply, passionately about these issues and has sought to try to make sure that we end up not making bad, unwise public policy decisions. My guess is, he is not going to come to the floor and urge us to vote for the bill or say he is going to vote for it. I know he has serious misgivings about this legislation. But he has worked constructively, as have people on our side and the Republican side, to get us to this point in time. Senator Reid of Nevada is our new leader on the Democratic side. He is not on the floor, but I express to him and my colleagues, if he is listening, my heartfelt thanks for working with the Republican leadership and those on our side who support this legislation, to enable us to have this opportunity to debate it fairly and openly, allowing people who like it, people who do not like it, those who wanted to offer amendments, those who did not want to offer amendments, to have a chance for the regular order to take place, to debate the issues and vote, and then to move on. I do not know if this legislation, the way we have taken it up and debated it, can serve as a template or example to use in addressing other difficult issues--energy policy, asbestos litigation, a variety of other issues--but it might. Because in this case, Democratic and Republican leaders have worked together, have urged us, the rank and file in the Senate, to work together. Each of the folks in the private sector--people who have an interest in this bill, not only the business side, but the plaintiffs' lawyers side, and other interested parties, labor, and so forth, consumer groups--I think everybody has acted in good faith to get us to this point in time. Whether you like the bill, I urge my Democratic colleagues, if you are on the edge and not sure which way to go--you may have voted for all these amendments, and you are not sure how to vote on final passage of the bill--I urge you to vote for this bill. I do not know if it is possible to have a big margin. I would love to have 70 votes, 75 votes for this bill. I hope we can do that. Let me close, if I can, by saying, whether you are for the bill or against it, for the amendments or against them, I hope there is one thing we can all agree upon. I will bring to mind the words of one of our colleagues, a legendary trial lawyer from Illinois, who has gone on to be elected and serves with us in the Senate. I will close my comments with his admonition. That admonition is the old Latin phrase: semper ubi sub ubi. Whether you like the bill, I think we can all agree on that admonition today. With that having been said, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have just returned to the Senate Chamber from a press conference that took place one floor above us in the press gallery. There Democratic and Republican Senators, some of our staff, and a number of reporters discussed the passage of the class action reform bill by a 72-to-26 margin a few moments ago. That was a strong bipartisan vote. I was hoping that we might get 70, maybe even 75 votes, and we ended up right in that neighborhood. A lot of people deserve credit for the success of the vote: Democratic and Republican Senators who crafted the legislation, debated it in committee, and who improved it over the last 7 years since the first bill was introduced. The key to getting the legislation passed-- and it is a fair compromise--was figuring out how to set aside our partisanship, saying that we are not interested in gridlock, and for us to reach across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans and Republicans and Democrats, to figure out how we can reconcile our differences and resolve what has been a very divisive issue for the past 7 years and even before that. I said at the press conference--I say here today--my thanks to our leader. I thanked Senator Frist, the Republican leader. I express my thanks to Senator Harry Reid for his willingness to allow this vote to go forward. The class action bill was not legislation that he endorsed, but he was willing to allow the debate to begin and for those who had amendments to the bill to offer the amendments, that we would have plenty of time to debate them and to decide the amendments, and then without any kind of delaying tactics the Senate would go to final passage and take up the bill. I thank him for the very constructive and positive role he played in allowing this legislation to be passed today. The House of Representatives has agreed to accept without change the bill we have passed. The President has agreed to sign that legislation. I was saddened last night to be reading through my mail and to come across a 29-page document that I believe has been distributed by the Republican National Committee. There is a picture of Senator Harry Reid on the cover, along with our former leader, Senator Tom Daschle. The caption under the picture says: ``Who is Harry Reid?'' And below that we read: ``Sen. Minority Leader determined to obstruct President Bush's agenda.'' For the next 28, 29 pages, this document is an attempt to identify Harry Reid or to try to define who he is and where he is from, his values. I think it is 29 pages of something more akin to venom. If we are interested in building on the bipartisanship that characterized this week's debate and today's vote on class action reform, those goals are not enhanced or strengthened by this kind of tactic. I say to my Republican friends--and I don't believe this came from anybody in this Chamber, but it is from someone our Republicans know and work with, people who work for the President or indirectly--if you want Democrats to work with you and find common ground on issues such as class action or energy or asbestos or other difficult issues, bankruptcy, this is not the way to do it. If you want to make sure that we have obstructionism, that we have a lack of bipartisanship, if you want to ensure that the climate of the last several years where we got so little done returns, this is the way to do it. Whoever is responsible for this, let me just say: Shame on you. Republicans can do better than this. And to the extent that Democrats are responsible for this kind of behavior on our side, shame on us. I came here 4 years ago from Delaware, which is a little State, such as the State of the Presiding Officer. In our State we have a history of Democrats and Republicans working across the aisle, trying to find common ground and, more often than not, succeeding. This sort of thing would not be tolerated in my State by either Democrats or Republicans. This is not the way we do business. One of the reasons Delaware is so successful is because of that bipartisan tradition that is part of our fiber. I hope that we won't see this kind of attack on our leader, and I certainly hope we don't see it on the Republican leader. The Republicans are better than this. So are the Democrats. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am happy to be in the Chamber. I recall 4 years ago when I gave my first speech in the Senate, and I realize my colleague from South Carolina has given a lot of speeches over in the House of Representatives at the other end of this building, but it was a good day for me 4 years ago, and I suspect it is a special day for everyone involved. It is a great pleasure to know the Senator, and I look forward to working with him. I welcome the Senator to the Senate and congratulate him on his maiden speech.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, while Senator Dodd is still on the floor, and Senator Feingold as well, let me first of all say to Senator Dodd that we would not be here today with this compromise, which is good public policy but also something Democrats and Republicans, not all, can support--and I know we will get the support of the House and the President. I want to say a special thank you for your leadership. I have learned a lot in the last 4 years watching you and listening to you. Certainly in this instance it is no exception, but thank you. I want to say to Senator Feingold, we had a number of amendments that have been presented to us today, all thoughtful amendments by some of our very finest Members. I was not able to support any of them. The one amendment that I have literally worked, as he knows, behind the scenes to try to get included in a managers' amendment is this amendment or some variation of this amendment. I think the underlying point you make--if a class action is filed in a State court and that is turned down and there is an effort to move it to Federal court, that is turned down, and then there is another effort to move that class action from State court to Federal court, we limit the second time through. There has to be a response in 60 days to the appeal by the Federal judge on the appeal. That would sort of beg the question, Should not there maybe be some kind of time limit as well on the first time there is an attempt to remove the case to the Federal court? That strikes me as something that makes common sense and seems fair and reasonable. As he knows, I have reached out as recently as last night with some of the people involved in the Judicial Conference and the Rules Committee to see if there is a way to strike the balance, and I believe you have moved toward that balance. My hope is that we could take this amendment or something similar to this amendment and include it in a managers' package. You have heard Senator Dodd and me and others say there is a very delicate compromise here, and there is a concern if we change one piece of the bill we invite friends on the other side, who have a different view about the balance and would like to take the bill in a different direction--we unleash them to feel free to come forth with their amendments and set the bill back. Having said that, I still think this amendment as you have redrawn it would actually be a good addition to a managers' amendment. I learned today there is not going to be a managers' amendment. As a result, I am not going to be able to support this amendment. I discussed this this morning with Senator Specter; he finds favor with your amendment. I think he mentioned that at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. He said to me--and he has no reason to say this, but I think it is just in his heart--he thinks you are onto something here and would like to take the Senator's approach on this provision and include it in another bill that he is working on and presumably will have hearings on. I think this idea, if it does not pass tomorrow and does not get included in the underlying bill, is going to live for another day and we will be back to where we can hopefully all support it. I thank the Senator for a real thoughtful approach and for his willingness to compromise and try to find some middle ground. I think he has found it. I think his efforts will ultimately be rewarded.

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter for yielding to me. I say to my friend and colleague from Arkansas, he knows how fond I am of him and how highly I regard him, both in his previous role as attorney general and as a colleague in the Senate. When I heard of the amendment he was preparing to offer, I stopped and I said to my staff, let's find out if this is something I can support. As many of my colleagues know, we have endeavored to improve this bill over time, and the legislation before us today is a far different bill than was first proposed 7 years ago or even was debated 2 years ago and reported out of committee. Senator Specter has spoken of the option that is available to most attorneys general, an approach called parens patriae, which I understand means ``government stands in the place of the citizen.'' For most attorneys general who wish to file a case on behalf of their citizens against some defendant, they have the opportunity to use parens patriae. For those who do not, in my judgment, they still have the opportunity to use the class action lawsuit. What we have sought to do over the last couple of years in modifying this bill is to make sure that the class action lawsuits brought by an individual in a State, if they are of a national scope, they would be in a Federal court. If they are not, if they are more of a local issue involving residents of that State, a defendant in that State, or even where there are multiple defendants, but a defendant in that State who has a principal role as a defendant, not just somebody who was sort of pulled out of the air, to make sure there is a real defendant with a real stake in it that has a real financial ability to pay damages, then the legislation that is before us actually permits an attorney general or, frankly, any attorney, plaintiff's attorney, to bring that kind of class action. The legislation that is before us says if two-thirds of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit are from the same State as the defendant, it will stay in the State court, no question. The legislation before us says that if anywhere from one-third to two- thirds of the plaintiffs on whose behalf the class action is brought meet certain standards that are set out in the bill, that can stay in State court as well. The legislation that is before us today provides exemptions as well for incidents involving a sudden single accident. The legislation before us today also provides exemptions under the Dodd-Schumer- Landrieu language that provide even further opportunities to proceed with a class action lawsuit if the matter that is being discussed is truly a local matter, if most of the people involved both as plaintiffs and defendants are within that State. The last thing I would say is there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who would like to offer amendments. My fear is if any of those amendments were adopted, we invite the House of Representatives to come back and to offer quite a different bill than the compromise that is before us today. To those of us who seek reasonable, modest reforms--and this is a court reform bill, not a tort reform bill--but to those who seek moderate reforms incorporated in this legislation, I did not support this amendment because I think it would simply invite the adoption of other amendments and, frankly, put us in the situation which will end in a conference with the House of Representatives with a bill that is frankly far different than this one and will provide an end product not to my liking and I suspect even less to the liking of those who are opposed to this compromise. I reluctantly oppose this amendment with that in mind, but it is not something I do easily or lightly. I thank my friend Senator Cornyn for making it possible for me to have this time.

Mr. CARPER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes today to speak to the amendment being offered by Senators Feinstein and Bingaman. I don't think we will find on either side of the aisle a Democrat or Republican more thoughtful than either of them, or more fair-minded. Senator Feinstein, in particular, has been heroic in her efforts to try to bring about consensus on class action so we end up with legislation to make sure little people who are harmed by big companies are able to bind together and be made whole; to ensure that the companies that are accused know if they step out of line there is a price to pay for that; legislation that will also make sure that the defendant companies, large or small, have the opportunity to have a fair trial for whatever they are accused of in the litigation; and our last goal is to make sure the Federal judiciary is not overwhelmed with litigation that could be in State courts, ought to be in State courts, and is needlessly moved to Federal courts. Those are the objectives we all share, Democrats and Republicans, whether we like or do not like the bill. I am in support of the legislation. Most consumer laws that end up in courts are laws that are adopted by our States. There are some areas where the Federal Government has laws in place to protect the consumers, but the lion's share of the consumer protection laws are written by the various States. The effort by Senators Feinstein and Bingaman is laudable; that is, to make sure that when State laws have been violated, particularly when State laws have been violated in a number of States, that whoever has violated those laws is going to be held accountable. The question is, If you have a class action case that is brought forward based on the laws of 10, 20, or 30 States or more, under whose State law do we argue in court the class action litigation? Is it in a State that has fairly weak consumer protection laws or a State that has very strong consumer protection laws? I am not a lawyer by training, and I come at this as a lay person simply trying to figure out what is the right and fair thing to do. As I understand class action litigation, I will use the example of where we have maybe 21 States that have been bound together in a class action filed in a particular State court, one of those 21 States, and in particular, a State where the litigation is brought, the effort might be to apply that State's laws to all the other States that are part of this. Senator Sessions talked about a situation in a case involving class action with State Farm, where the suit alleged that consumers were being harmed because in the car repair business, when replacement parts were used, some of the States allowed the use of non-original equipment replacement crash parts, sometimes referred to as generic parts. In this case, Avery v. State Farm, an Illinois judge applied the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act to a 48-State class, even though there were significant differences in the States' consumer protection laws and vast differences in the laws of the different states on the use of these types of parts. Most States explicitly authorize their use and a few States even require their use to reduce costs for consumers. As I have looked into this matter, I have learned when there is an effort to move a class action litigation on consumer issues from a State court to a Federal court, the Federal judge has a number of decisions to make as to whether they want to receive it and hear it at the Federal level. One, they can say, yes, on the basis of the law that is in question here, and the facts, this is one that makes sense to be heard at the Federal level and to go forward. The Federal judge can say--again, using the example of 21 States because the math works easily--let's divide those 21 States into three subgroups, and each of those 7 States have laws that are fairly similar but distinct and apart from the other two subgroups. So a Federal judge could say, we are going to go forward with this class action litigation. We will do it as one case, but we will have three subcategories of subgroups. A third alternative that is available to a Federal judge would be to say, we are not going to have one case; we will have maybe three cases. In those instances where the laws of the States are pretty similar, we will group those seven, and the same would be true for this seven and that seven. And we will hear three separate cases, not one. If none of that works, the Federal judge is always free to say this is a State matter. The laws and the facts are in such disarray that it is difficult to try them as one case. Some States have very strong consumer laws, some not. There is a whole big range in between where the laws and the facts are just too disparate and different, and the judge can simply remand it back to the States. If the Federal judge declines to hear that consumer class action, then it can be tried in State court. Whoever the plaintiffs are, in those instances, will have their day in court. If you happen to be from California, the latter course is not a big deal because you have so many people, 30 million people, and it is not as difficult to put together a meaningful class and to be able to attract an attorney to represent your case. If you happen to be from a smaller State, with fewer people, then it can be more of a challenge to put together a large enough plaintiff class in that State to pay for an attorney to represent the interests of consumers in that State. I acknowledge that. Having said that, my overriding concern with this legislation is this. I mentioned the four principles earlier, but my overriding concern with this legislation is that we not begin to pick apart this carefully balanced compromise on which we have worked. I have been here 4 years. We have worked on it for almost those 4 years I have been in this Senate. I know people worked on this 3 years before that. We have come so far from where this legislation began in 1997. This is not tort reform, as a lot of people like to think of it. This is, as others have said today, court reform. Our goal is to, again, make sure if people get harmed, they have an opportunity to be made whole, to band together into similar groups to make sure the accused and the defendants in the case have a chance to be fairly defended in a courtroom. It is a fair shot. My fear is, to the extent this amendment would be adopted, it invites amendments of others who may not like this bipartisan compromise because it does not go far enough. Earlier this month, in the House of Representatives, their bill, which passed by a fairly wide margin in the last Congress, was reintroduced. There are some people in the other Chamber, as well as some in this body, who would like nothing better than to be able to change this bipartisan compromise and move it, frankly, a lot closer to where the House bill is. Eventually, my friends, we are going to pass a class action bill this year. My own view is it is not going to get any better or more balanced or fairer to plaintiffs and defendants than the compromise we have worked out here this year. As a result, I will oppose, albeit with some reluctance, the amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Bingaman. I know they have put a lot of time and energy into this amendment. Frankly, my staff and I have as well, trying to find a way to accommodate the concerns they have raised. In the end, I do not believe we can, and I must reluctantly oppose the amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before Senator Grassley leaves the floor, I simply want to say how much I have enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to work with him on this issue. If we go back 7 years when this idea first took legislative form and look at the changes that have occurred over each of the last three or four Congresses, they have been dramatic. My goal, and I believe it is a goal many of us share who support the legislation, is to make sure that when what I term little people are harmed by the actions of big companies or small companies, those little people have a chance to aggregate together and be made whole. I think we agree on that principle. We want to make sure the companies that do something that is wrong or that are contemplating an action or behavior that is inappropriate or wrong, that they know if they get caught, they will pay a price, and class actions can help catch them at that and make sure they are put on notice. I think that is a principle on which we all agree. A third principle is to make sure the defendant companies, if they are called on the carpet, can go to a court where they have a fair chance of defending themselves and presenting their case. The last one is to try to do all of this in the context of not needlessly overburdening the Federal judiciary. It is tough to balance all of those different principles, but I think on the legislation the Senator has authored and that some of us have been privileged to work with the Senator to help shape, we have come close to realizing those principles. I wanted to say a special thanks to the Senator for his willingness to work with people on both sides of the aisle, to hear us out, to hear our ideas, and be willing to accept a number of the ideas we have put forward. My hope is at the end of this week we will have passed that legislation. It is a delicate compromise and balance and, God willing, our friends in the House of Representatives will accept that and the President will sign it into law. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CARPER

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