Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I appreciate the Senator's comments. Delaware is now facing the beginning of another hurricane season. With the amount of money the State and the county have put into the mitigation effort in Glenville, we are concerned that they may be hard pressed to respond effectively to another storm like Henri or Isabel.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before Senator Boxer leaves the Senate floor, I want to thank her for her tenacity and leadership on this issue. I think we have come to a conclusion. I see my senior Senator, Senator Biden, has joined us as well. This is an issue he has worked on longer than I have been in the Senate. I want to say to my friend, job well done. I say to Senator Cochran and his staff on the Senate floor, and Senator Byrd as well, thank you very much for working with us in writing a very good compromise. A number of us have expressed concern upon learning that as money was added to this bill for transit security, there was an inability--in fact, no ability--for us to access these dollars to enhance security for inner-city passenger rail, on rails principally Amtrak, and to enhance the safety and security of freight railroad operations. As it turns out, the Northeast corridor, which runs from Washington, DC, up to Boston, MA, is owned by Amtrak. Not only do Amtrak trains ply these corridors from here to Baltimore to Wilmington to Philadelphia and New York, on to Boston, but you can stop in Providence, the State of the Presiding Officer. Also, a lot of freight rail use these tracks. The tracks themselves, the overhead wires, the tunnels through which these trains go, the bridges over which they cross are owned and operated by Amtrak. The commuter trains that use the tracks from here to New York City and on up to Boston in many cases are owned and operated by Amtrak. For us to have passed legislation here today which attempts to promote rail security at least by giving money through State and local governments to transit operations without allowing Amtrak to have any access to those moneys I believe would be very shortsighted. With the addition of this language which we have worked out on the Republican and Democratic side, we have actually a larger pot of money than we started with. That is good. With the addition of this amendment, we have the ability to enhance the safety and security of inner-city passenger rail operations and freight rail operations, too. When I go home later this week, I will probably take the train. There is a tunnel that runs under this Capitol in which we work that is about 100 years old. There are concerns about the safety and security of trains that go through there. There is a tunnel under Baltimore that is about 130 or 140 years old. There are six tunnels that are about 100 years old which go in and out of New York City and under the rivers. They have problems with respect to ventilation, lighting, surveillance, and all kinds of safety concerns. They need to be addressed, and they can be addressed at least partly with money made available here. Not all enhancements to safety and security for rail need to be as expensive as fixing old tunnels. Some of them can be as inexpensive as adding dollars for an old technology--the ability of our K-9 corps to detect bombs and explosives. It is as good today as it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago. With this money, those folks who are running our inner- city passenger rail will be able to better use K-9, if that makes sense, for detecting and ensuring our trains don't end up with explosives on board. Again, in conclusion, we have come to a good place. This is not an amendment that, frankly, asks for more money. It is an amendment that actually enables us to use some common sense in allocating the moneys that have been added to the bill. It will allow us to enhance the safety and operation of our commuter operations, whether it be commuter trains or buses. Hopefully, we will also be able to use a good deal of this money to enhance the safety of inner-city passenger rail and some of our freight operations. For that, I think we can all be grateful. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd for working with Senator Biden and me to try and assist the community of Glenville, in New Castle County, DE. About 1 year ago, on September 16, 2003, Tropical Storm Henri dropped between 8 and 10 inches of rain on the northern part of our State over a 14-hour period. Glenville was hardest hit. Every street in that development, home to 200 families, was flooded. Many resident's had to be rescued from their homes by boat. Hurricane Isabel hit just days later, causing further damage. Virtually the entire community is now uninhabitable.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I wish to rise today to recognize Marie Swajeski, founder of the Children's Repertory Theatre, now known as the Delaware Children's Theatre. Marie has dedicated her life to children and the theater. She literally has touched the lives of thousands. Marie was born in Philadelphia, PA to the late David and Helen Mondillo. Growing up in Philadelphia, she met her husband John at a dance hall shortly before World War II. They married a few years later in 1949. The couple moved to Delaware in 1951 when John took a job at Dupont. Marie's passion for the theater and to make people happy began at an early age. She carried this kindred spirit through adulthood and began direction of theatrical productions in the 1960s for the Ardensingers Candlelight Dinner Theatre and the Catholic Youth Organization. She became involved in both adult and children's activities, and in 1969 became chairwoman of the opera society's Junior Division, today known as the Family Opera Theatre. Marie's community theater experience involvement spans a wide variety of activities, including actor, director, choreographer, producer, and theater arts instructor. But Marie had a dream and a desire to do more. She wanted to leave a legacy for generations to come. In 1973, she founded and became the artistic director of the Children's Repertory Theatre, now known as the Delaware Children's Theatre, DCT. Rehearsing in various basements and garages, a touring company of children and adults was formed to bring professional quality theater to schools, parks, retirement and nursing homes, hospitals, and colleges throughout Delaware. Marie set her goals and standards high. At the time, many people thought that there would be little interest in children's theater. Marie proved them wrong. She was a true pioneer. Her strong belief that children would benefit from watching and participating in live theater carried her through this challenging period of time. She assembled an army of enthusiasts and volunteers who shared her vision. For the next 10 years, they conducted educational workshops for children. DCT received grant money from the Delaware Arts Council in the early years to perform and tour schools throughout the State. In its first decade, DCT presented to critical acclaim over 700 performances to more than 90,000 children. Over the years, the demand for more children's theater began to grow. The Delaware Children's Theatre needed a home. In 1984, the DCT bought the New Century Club Building on Delaware Avenue in Wilmington. It became more than just a theater to house productions; it has become a magical second home to thousands of children. DCT has served others as well since its inception. In the early years, the DCT offered free summer workshops for underprivileged children. DCT's outreach group, The Rainbow Players, often performs at the Ronald McDonald House, River Fest--benefiting The Boys & Girls Club--Ministry of Caring, and nursing homes. It is through Marie's hard work and perseverance that the lives of hundreds of thousands of children have been changed. She has helped shape and enrich the lives of thousands on the stage of the theater, and in the hearts of those who have been lucky enough to call her their friend. I rise today to honor and thank Marie for her selfless dedication to the betterment of others. She truly is a remarkable woman and a testament to the community she represents.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to set aside a few moments today to reflect on the life of a remarkable Delawarean, Rev. Dr. Brooks Reynolds, upon his passing at the age of 88. Dr. Reynolds was among the most remarkable men I have been privileged to know in all of the years I have lived in Delaware. Throughout his life, he demonstrated tremendous courage and integrity. He was a man with a kind heart, great abilities, and boundless energy. Unlike most people who are looking for ways to slow down when they turn 80 years old, Brooks Reynolds kept picking up the pace. In the way he lived his own life, Dr. Reynolds reminded each of us how good we can be. The Rev. Dr. Brooks E. Reynolds, Sr., was born in Shortly, DE, on November 2, 1915, to the late John and Lida Rickards Reynolds. Upon completing high school in Georgetown in 1933, he attended Goldey College, now known as Goldey Beacom College, in Wilmington and Washington College in Chestertown, MD, before earning a bachelor's degree in education and a master's degree in sacred theology from Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. His doctorate of divinity degree was earned at Howard University in Washington, DC. Dr. Reynolds was lucky enough to have found love twice in his life. He married Grace Collins Reynolds in 1939 and together they served a number of churches beginning in Hooper's Island, MD, in 1938, a part of the former Wilmington Conference of the Methodist Church. Grace passed away in 1993. His dear friend, Beatrice Simonds, was an important part of his latest ministries and they spent many happy years together before his passing. She describes him as having ``personality plus.'' In Bea's words, ``If there ever was a God on earth, he was.'' In 1945, Dr. Reynolds was called to start a new church in Wilmington Manor just south of Wilmington, DE. Beginning with meetings in a private home, the church grew through two building programs and the renaming to Asbury United Methodist Church. It had a membership of 2300 when Dr. Reynolds was reassigned to Bethesda United Methodist Church in Salisbury, MD, in 1974. Dr. Reynolds first retired in 1986 but returned to active ministry to serve three additional pastorates, most recently Christ United Methodist Church in Laurel from 1999 to 2001, where I was once privileged to speak as a lay person while Governor of Delaware. In 1954, he became the first chaplain of the Delaware State Police and in 2003 was awarded the first Delaware State Police emeritus status with promotion to major. Dr. Reynolds also served as the chaplain for the Delaware State Hospital. Other significant past affiliations included the chaplaincy of Governor Bacon Health Center in Delaware City, secretary of the board of evangelism and president of the board of trustees of the Peninsula Conference Board of Hospital and Homes, and president of the trustees of the Manor House in Seaford. He was a 32nd degree Mason and Past Grand Chaplain of the Masonic Lodge of Delaware. Dr. Reynolds will always be remembered by me and by the tens of thousands of people whose lives he touched and enriched as a kind and compassionate man who loved all people. He saw no distinction between color, gender, race, or creed. He was a visionary in every sense of the word. Life was about growth, and he was always trying to find new ways to reach out to people. When the church had no money, Dr. Reynolds bought a bus to transport people to church who otherwise had no way of coming to church. The bus transported parishioners, children to Sunday school, and to day care. Some 300 children rode his buses. The church's fleet of buses expanded to include 27 buses. Dr. Reynolds had a great sense of humor and was known for telling fabulous stories. One of my favorite all-time quotations came from him, too. ``The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.'' He often injected humor into his sermons and had a quick wit. He was a genuine person, and was not just comfortable to be around; he was a joy to be around. Dr. Reynolds is survived by his sons, Brooks E. Reynolds, Jr., of Topeka, KS, and State Representative Bruce C. Reynolds and his wife, Kathleen, of Bear, DE, as well as by seven grandchildren, Ty, Lyda, Blair, Bret and Chad Reynolds, Mary Bock, and Brian Seals, and one great-granddaughter, Tara Leek. I rise today to commemorate Dr. Reynolds, to celebrate his life, and to offer his family my support. Dr. Reynolds embodied the best of Delaware, and he will be sorely missed by us all.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, today I give thanks to the members of my National Parks Committee in Delaware for all of their efforts, time, and dedication in attempting to establish a national park in Delaware. Delaware is the only State that does not have a national park, national monument, national historic site or any other unit of the National Park Service. It is through the hard work of the members of this committee that we have narrowed down the search in recommending the first national park in the First State. I began the process of trying to establish a national park in 2002. My staff and I took suggestions from the public via surveys, a web poll, and phone calls. We received hundreds of responses, and suggestions ranged from Fort DuPont to Cape Henlopen State Park to the Underground Railroad to the World War II Towers. After several months of hearing what the public recommended, I established the National Parks Committee in 2003. The committee was comprised of 12 people, including Dr. James Soles, the head of the committee, Dr. Wilma Mishoe, Ms. Norma Lee Derrickson, the Honorable John Schroeder, Mr. O. Francis Biondi, Mr. Ernst Dannemann, Dr. Linda Johnson-Gilliam, Ms. Jane Richter, Ms. Maria Matos, Mr. Ruly Carpenter, Mr. Bill Powers and Mr. Edwin Mongan III. For several months, the members met and discussed extensively each of the suggestions offered by the public. They held workshops in each county whereby the public could attend, participate and offer suggestions. They took a tour of the proposed sites to determine which location would make the best national park. After months of deliberation, the committee came to its final recommendation: the creation of ``The Delaware National Coastal Heritage Park.'' This National Park would memorialize the rich and diverse history of Delaware's coastal areas, bringing that history and related attractions into sharp focus for area residents and visitors alike. This park would be unique among national parks in both its physical dimensions and its theme. Physically, the park would be comprised of a series of four interpretive centers. The centers would largely direct visitors to already existing attractions related to the theme of the park--that is that Delaware's coastal region is comprised of a series of historic, cultural and natural interwoven threads that hold great significance in the history of both Delaware and the United States. The concept of the unit recognizes that Delaware's coastal region is a near perfect microcosm of America's coastal regions and that they have always played a key role in human activity. It recognizes that the fabric that makes up our Nation is in turn made up of many threads of human and natural activity and that most of those threads have their origins in coastal regions like Delaware's. In the First State, these threads start with the development of the earliest human settlers in the area and run through to some of the most sophisticated human activities of modern times. Among the most significant are the history of the first European settlers in the Delaware Valley who built Fort Christina in 1638, the development of coastal defenses from the beaches of Cape Henlopen on the Atlantic Ocean to Pea Patch Island in the Delaware River and, the successful operation of the Underground Railroad, by which thousands of enslaved Africans found their way to freedom along Delaware's ocean, bay and river coastline. Other threads include: the history of the Native American tribes such as the Lenni Lenape in what is now Delaware, the arrival of the Finns and the Swedes at the Rocks in Wilmington, the increased influence of the English and Dutch as European immigration grew, the development of transportation and commerce along the same waterways starting with the earliest explorers and extending to today's ultra modern Port of Wilmington, the expansion of modern industry including the early gunpowder factories of Irenee DuPont, the rise of the chemical industry and today's two modern auto assembly plants and the credit card giants that dominate Wilmington's skyline, Delaware's significant contributions to the development of our constitutional republic, including Delaware's historic vote at the Golden Fleece Tavern in Dover to ratify the Constitution of 1787, making it the first State to do so, and the beautiful and ecologically important natural areas along the coast that are already preserved as wildlife refuges. These threads will be highlighted and showcased in a format unique to the National Park system. The park will be structured much like a series of four bicycle wheels, each with a hub and spokes. The hubs will be interpretive centers located strategically along the coast line. The spokes will be the multitude of attractions and sites that relate to the various threads described above. The ``gateway'' or ``headquarters'' hub will be located on the 7th Street Peninsula at the site of the original Fort Christina. Within a short walking distance of the existing Fort Christina State Park is the Old Swedes Church, the oldest Episcopal Church in America in continuous use; the Kalmar Nyckel, a replica of the ship that carried early Swedes to our shores; Tubman-Garrett Park, located at a point in Wilmington where escaping slaves swam across the Christina River as part of their journey on the Underground Railroad, and other attractions. As a hub, it would provide information, recommendations and directions about other sites in the Wilmington area that relate to the threads of the coastal region. A second hub would be located in the City of New Castle. It would provide information on attractions in the city's renowned historic district as well as related attractions in New Castle County such as Fort Delaware State Park on Pea Patch Island and Old St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Middletown, originally founded in 1705. A third would be located in Kent County, along the coast of the Delaware River. It would provide information on the existing preserved natural areas such as Bombay Hook and on the myriad other attractions in Kent County that are integral parts of the threads highlighted by the park. These would include the John Dickinson Mansion, Dover's historic Green and others. The fourth and final hub would be located in the Lewes area and would provide information on the numerous historic sites and natural areas that have made Sussex County's coastal region so pivotal to Delaware. These would include the Zwaanendael Museum, the Fenwick Lighthouse, and the Georgetown County Courthouse. Together, these four interpretative centers would direct visitors to the many existing attractions that help us understand and appreciate the entire fabric of our society, a fabric woven from the many threads of Delaware's coastal region. It is through the dedication and hard work of these sixteen members that this park is even a possibility. Each of the members took time out of their busy lives to help with this important project marking Delaware's history. I thank them, along with several members of my staff, for all their hard work and congratulate them on a job well done.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Pursuant to rule XII, paragraph 3, I ask unanimous consent to be excused from voting on this question.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I will not object.

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, on the Fourth of July, as many of my colleagues, I covered my State, and, as I have done for many years on the Fourth of July, I ended up in Dover, DE. Dover, DE, on the evening of July 4 is a politician's dream. People have had a full day of parades and family gatherings, community gatherings. We are there to await the fireworks when dusk finally comes. Roughly 10,000 people gathered in front of Legislative Hall, a huge American flag that almost masked Legislative Hall in its majesty, a C-5 aircraft soon to fly overhead, and then the fireworks themselves. I work the crowd at that gathering, and it is a lot of fun. People are in a good mood, a lot of good-natured kidding going on: Are you running for anything this year? No, I am not, I am just here because I love being in Dover on the evening of the Fourth of July. There was one serious question, at least one that was raised to me that evening. The question was: How are you going to vote on that amendment on gay marriage? In responding to that question, I pointed to Legislative Hall and I said to the questioner: When I was Governor of this State in 1996, I signed into law our own Defense of Marriage Act that said marriage is between a man and a woman. I believed that then. I believe it now. Later that evening I addressed the crowd, and I alluded to the Declaration of Independence. But I spoke more about the Constitution, a copy of which I hold. The Constitution of the United States was first ratified in Delaware. I told the crowd that night that the Constitution was ratified in the Golden Fleece Tavern about 300 or 400 yards from where we gathered. We all know the Constitution does a number of things. It establishes a framework of government. It says, this is how our Government is going to work. We will have three branches of Government: a legislative, executive, and a judicial branch. It says, there are certain things the Federal Government should be doing and certain responsibilities that are left to the States. Among the responsibilities left to the States in this Constitution are matters of family law: Who can marry, how do we divorce, how do we end those marriages, who gains custody of the children, how about visitation rights, matters of alimony, property settlement, and the like. Those are matters that we have left to the States for over 200 years. Senator Cornyn mentioned the concern he has over the state of marriage. I share it. Half the marriages in our country today end in divorce. Too many kids grow up in families where nobody ever marries, and families are not invested enough in their children. I also acknowledge the concern over efforts in some parts to recognize same-sex marriage. That concern has led many States to enact laws such as my State's Defense of Marriage Act and to enact here in this Congress the Defense of Marriage Act as well. That concern over proposals for same-sex marriage has led some States to actually consider constitutional amendments. With respect to same-sex marriages, let me offer this: There are a lot of views, but two of those views are basic when you cut to the chase. View No. 1: marriage is between a man and a woman. The alternative view is marriage is between two people. I think the view of most Americans today--not all but most Americans today--is that marriage is between a man and a woman. The question for us to consider here today is this: Is there a clear need to amend the Constitution of our country to ensure that the view I have just stated, the majority view, prevails in States such as Delaware and others? It is a legitimate question. As we seek to answer it, let's consider a couple of examples of State laws spelling out how marriage is supposed to operate and whether those laws have been sustained over the years. Let me mention three examples. A number of States have prohibitions against first cousins marrying. If two people live in a State where you have a man and woman who are first cousins and they want to get married, they go to another State to get married and return to their State. Their State does not have to acknowledge the validity of the marriage. Some States have restrictions with respect to divorce. If you get a divorce, you have to wait a while before you can remarry. If you live in a State with that restriction and you go to another State that doesn't have those restrictions, you return to your State, your State does not have to recognize that marriage. We have all seen movies about May-December marriages and how they can be interesting and entertaining, but a lot of States have a law that says a 57-year-old man can't marry a 13-year-old girl, and if you try to do that in a State where maybe you could get away with it, and you move back to your State, that marriage will not be recognized. Those State laws have been sustained whether we have a constitutional amendment. I believe that my law in Delaware will also be sustained without a constitutional amendment. If it isn't, then this is an issue that we can revisit, and I think we will. This Constitution that I hold in my hand is the work of man. I think it was divinely inspired. The folks who met at the Golden Fleece Tavern and the people in Constitution Hall in Philadelphia a long time ago largely got it right the first time--not entirely, but they largely got it right. This Constitution has been rarely changed. It is not easy to do. That is purposeful. Over 11,000 amendments have been proposed to this Constitution. To date, since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, 17 have actually been incorporated as amendments to this Constitution. On the issue of marriage and divorce alone, 129 amendments have been proposed to the Constitution. None have come close to passage. All of us today and all of us who will vote today realize this proposed constitutional amendment is not going to be enacted either. It is an important issue that has been raised. As some have said, it is one that, frankly, divides us and divides us deeply. When the last speech is given today, when the final vote is cast around 12:15 or 12:30, my fervent hope is that we will turn to some issues that unite us and, frankly, need to be addressed. They are closely related to what we are talking about today. We need to look no further than the 1996 Welfare Act that was adopted in this Chamber which has expired and been continued with short-term extensions time and again. It needs to be reauthorized. We need a vote on it and, frankly, to improve it. It is not perfect. We can make it better. We can strengthen marriage through the provisions of that law. We can strengthen families. We can increase the likelihood that more of America's children are going to grow up in homes where both parents are deeply committed to them and to their future, that they have decent childcare. We can do that. I hope when we finish today and this issue is behind us for a while, that we will turn to another closely related issue that will truly strengthen America's families. That is, to return to the issue of welfare reform and pass the legislation out of committee and send it to the House. Let's get on with the Nation's business. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CARPER. I do. I thank my colleague for yielding. There is a question I want to ask. But let my just say, first of all, I think you know how much I respect you and the high regard I have for you and how much I enjoy working with you. We agree on a lot of things. And there are one or two things we do not agree on, and that is, I think, to be expected. The issue that you raised early in your remarks is one I want to come back to; and that is, the question of whether we should in some way have an up-or-down vote on the amendment that is before us, or if there should be opportunities for other colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to offer their own amendments to this underlying amendment. I think the concern for our side is that we are mindful of the possibility of this not being just a debate, an opportunity to address whether there should be a constitutional amendment as marriage being between a man and a woman, but an opportunity to consider other issues of a constitutional nature. There are people on our side interested in amendments that deal with campaign finance, in restricting money spent on campaigns. That is one example. As a Member of the House, when I served with Senator Santorum over there, we were great proponents of something called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, not one that mandated a balanced budget, but one that said: Shouldn't the President be required to propose a balanced budget? And shouldn't we make it a little more difficult for the Congress to unbalance that budget? There are a number of constitutional amendments that are floating out there on your side and on our side. Here is my question.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, we just concluded a vote and a very disappointing chapter in our effort to reform the way part of our legal system works in this country. We have debated for the last several days how we might change the current system where people have been harmed by goods or services provided for their use by some company and did not get what they should have--they have been shortchanged or maybe even exposed to a dangerous product or harmed by it in some way--and how we might make sure they are made whole and that we have the opportunity to assemble that group of harmed people across States or across the country so they can have their day in court. We are looking for a way to make sure the companies that harmed those people are held accountable and know they are going to face a serious financial consequence if they do something untoward or just wrong with respect to their products or services which they provide. Today we were not able to proceed to the bill and have the opportunity to offer amendments which are germane, pertinent to the bill, relevant to the bill, or those which maybe were not. My colleague who is presiding has been here for a year and half or so. I know these are issues he has worked on a lot in those 18 months. This class action reform is probably an issue on which he has spent the most time. As we leave here tonight with this business unfinished, I am deeply disappointed. We come to the end of a chapter, not the end of the book. We have to turn a page and figure out how to go forward. Our system of justice is out of whack. It is out of balance. The tragedy of it all is we had a very good legislative product here to debate and fix. The system worked the way it was supposed to. We had hearings, I think as many as 10, on this issue and how to fix it. The committees of jurisdiction held hearings in the House and in the Senate. The committees of jurisdiction had a chance to actually debate and vote on the bills and to amend them. They had the opportunity to report those bills out. The House debated this on the floor. In the Senate, we had the opportunity. In the Senate, we fell one vote short of bringing the bill to the Senate floor last fall. We had the opportunity coming out of that disappointing vote to go back to make the bill even better and to bring a truly bipartisan bill to the floor of the Senate which would be supported by a Republican majority and with a good deal of Democratic support. Given that 65 Members in the Senate were prepared to vote for it, to go home tonight not having had a chance to actually vote for amendments, relevant amendments and nonrelevant amendments, is very disappointing. I am not going to get into assigning blame. There is probably enough on both sides. I said to the press in an earlier interview that this week in the Senate reminds me of maybe a new television reality show, a dysfunctional family. It is not pretty to watch or, frankly, to be a part of. When I came here, I wanted to fix things and right wrongs. I know most of us came here with that in mind. This is a wrong that needs to be made right. We had a great opportunity in this bill to do that. I leave here tonight bewildered, in a sense. One sure way to stymie a bill and stop progress on it this week was to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate in a way that closed off the opportunity for the minority to offer some reasonable number of nongermane amendments. I have said so many times to our friends on the other side of the aisle, when you bring the bill to the Senate floor, think of it as a bottle of wine we are opening. We are popping the cork and letting it breathe for a while. Maybe set aside a week and give us a week to debate the bill itself, relevant amendments and a reasonable number of nongermane amendments. If it becomes clear after several days or a week that our side is being dilatory, if it becomes clear our side is simply not interested in passing the bill, they are just playing games, those Democrats who support a bill will support an effort to close off debate and to force a final vote on the bill. For the life of me, after saying repeatedly since January that the one way to kill the bill is to bring it to the Senate in a way that stymies debate and closes off amendments that might be nongermane, the very first thing out of the box presented was a cloture motion and a move to fill the amendment tree so our side is precluded from offering amendments, except for those that are germane, I don't understand it. In the words of a colleague on our side who is opposed to the bill, the only way those who are opposed to the bill could have won was by bringing the bill to the Senate today, invoking cloture, and inflaming Democratic opposition to the bill, united Democratic opposition to the bill. There are at least a dozen or more on this side who very much want to pass class action legislation this year. God knows I do, and I know people on both sides have worked to get us to this point. For the life of me, I do not understand why we could not open that bottle of wine, let it breathe for a while, debate the amendments, germane and nongermane. If it became clear we were wasting our time and people were playing games, we could have cut it off, but do not do it right out of the box. I leave here bewildered and, frankly, more than a little bit disappointed. I say to those folks around the country who are as disappointed as I am, and others who support the bill, I am not one who gives up easily. Some of my colleagues hear me talk about my four core values that we built an administration on when I was Governor of Delaware and which I brought with me and I try to use them here with my legislative initiatives. One, figure out the right thing to do and do it. I am convinced changing this part of our legal system is the right thing to do. The second core value is to commit to excellence in everything we do. By golly, I know we can do better than the status quo with respect to this aspect of our legal system. My third core value is the Golden Rule: treat other people the way I want to be treated. When consumers are harmed, they ought to be compensated. When companies misbehave, they ought to have to pay damages. It is that simple. The way our system runs today is wrong. It is wrong for consumers and, frankly, it is wrong for companies, in many cases. It is a wrong that needs to be righted. My fourth core value is don't give up. I am not one who ever gives up. I, for sure, am not going to give up. While I go home disappointed, I will come back next week committed to do whatever we can this year to pass this bill and get it signed into law. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Federal court.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, Senator Reid and I came to the House together in 1982. We worked on a lot of issues together. He is a straight shooter and a real good leader on our side. I appreciate his words. Let me close with this: I have said any number of times to my Republican friends, when we are talking about how to bring this bill to the floor, the one sure way to kill it is to not permit the minority to have a reasonable opportunity to offer amendments, germane and nongermane. I was troubled this morning, after having tried to drive that message home again and again in the past months, for us to end up on the floor today with a motion to invoke cloture and to limit amendments to one nongermane amendment and a number of germanes. That was the wrong way to get started. We need to get back on the right track. We can do that. The people who can get us back on the right track are the majority leader and the minority leader. While the minority leader is not a proponent of the bill, he has been fair in terms of making sure those who are proponents can have our day in court on the floor and not be obstructionist. I am grateful for that. I hope that maybe even while we are speaking, or shortly thereafter, the two leaders will get together and have the kind of discussion in private that they need to have, and maybe later in public on the floor, so we can have a day that is more productive tomorrow than today was. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, before the Senator from Connecticut leaves the floor, I want to say how much I have enjoyed working with him on this issue. I appreciate the wisdom and experience he brings to the matter. We had a press conference today around noon, those of us Democrats and Republicans who support this compromise on class action. The real stars of the press conference were three guests: A woman from near Charlotte, NC; another from Wisconsin; and a third lady who, along with her husband, for many years ran a pharmacy down in Mississippi. They shared with us how they had been involved in class action legislation. In the case of the Mississippi lady whose pharmacy down there in this little county had been named in over 100 lawsuits, not because they had done anything wrong but because it was a way to be able to try to get a class action certified in that particular county of Mississippi, really the defendants were the big pharmaceutical company. Another lady talked about being a plaintiff in a class action involving the Bank of Boston and the issue was escrow accounts. Apparently somebody took umbrage at the way the Bank of Boston was handling escrow accounts and money going in and out of escrow accounts, and they filed a class action lawsuit. In the end, the folks on whose behalf the class action had been filed ended up losing moneys. Their accounts were actually debited in order to be able to help pay the attorneys' fees which were rather substantial. The other lady was a lady from Charlotte, NC. She talked about late fees by Blockbuster. She didn't like the fact that they had a late fee that was unfair. Over the course of time, because of the family and this sort of thing, they paid a fair number of late fees, and she didn't appreciate it, so there was this class action lawsuit. She apparently got named as a plaintiff because she had shopped there, and she was included in the lawsuit. In the end, the agreement that was worked out enables her to get--I will paraphrase: Out of this, maybe I am going to get a couple of coupons for rentals, for two videos. And I will get a dollar-off coupon. I could do as well clipping coupons from the newspaper from Blockbuster. She was not pleased, particularly when she mentioned how much the attorneys were going to get in the litigation. The point I am trying to make is, they were the really interesting people who spoke at our press conference. What they had to say reinforced my belief that we are trying to do the right thing. Again, I realize it is not something everybody agrees upon. We are trying to find some balance in this legislation which says when people have a legitimate beef, they have been harmed by a product or service or been taken advantage of, even people who don't have a lot of power, the little people, they would have an opportunity through a class action to join together and to hold accountable the big companies that have harmed them or at least treated them unfairly. I had hoped we would have a chance today by this time to have debated and voted on a couple of germane amendments, maybe a nongermane amendment or two, and even work into the night. From what I am told, we may be wrapping up here fairly soon. It is not even 6 p.m. I hate to see us waste the day. We had some exchange earlier today between our leaders where Senator Daschle had suggested maybe an approach where we agree to offer five nongermane amendments to the bill and maybe 10 germane amendments. Senator Frist countered with the ability for either side maybe to offer 1 nongermane amendment and maybe 10 or more unlimited germane amendments. If you look at the numbers between one and five in terms of nongermane amendments, there is a number between one and five that is probably more than two, maybe five, maybe four, but there is probably a number there we could agree on. Our side is not going to go along with the idea of the Republicans telling us what nongermane amendments we can offer. But I am encouraged that if the two leaders will take some time later today, maybe as early as this evening, and sit down, they can hopefully work out among themselves how many nongermane amendments and maybe even work out the ones that would be offered. There are a couple of amendments the Republican leader indicated he would not want to see offered as nongermane. And to the extent that is a concern he has, I respect that concern. I had hoped maybe he would change his mind. But if there is something he doesn't want to see offered as an amendment to this bill, it is not germane to this bill, but it might be germane to another freestanding bill that would be offered later, let's go ahead and make a commitment to offering that nongermane amendment, not on this bill but at a later point in time to another bill. So the proponents of that measure would know for sure that they are going to have a chance to debate their issue and get a vote on it in the Senate. I am not discouraged. Somebody asked me earlier--and it may have been the Presiding Officer--if we were going to make any progress this week on this bill. I think we are. I am encouraged. If our leaders will sit down and talk it through between the two of them, they can work this out. It is important they do that. Nobody on our side wants to be seen as obstructionist. A number of us have worked very hard on this proposal. Most of the folks on the other side are acting in good faith on this bill, too. Whether you happen to be a company out there that wants to just get a fair shake when you are taken to court, or if you are a consumer who wants to make sure you are not being ripped off by some company, there is a way to meet the legitimate concerns of both interests. The more I learn about this bill and the more I hear about the germane amendments that will be offered, frankly, the more I am pleased with the work that has been done. I think Senator Bingaman has a germane amendment or two he would like to offer. I think Senator Breaux has a germane amendment. I think maybe Senator Pryor has an amendment to offer that is germane. Maybe Senator Kennedy has a germane amendment to offer, too. There may be germane amendments on the other side. They are thoughtful amendments. Each of them bring some concern. They, frankly, need to be debated on the floor and we need to have a chance to vote.

Mr. CARPER. It has been certified in Federal court in California.

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

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, over the course of the next several days, a number of unkind things are likely to be said about class action lawsuits, usually by people who do not support this legislation which is before us. I simply suggest that some of the criticism we are going to hear is merited, but, quite frankly, some of it is not. The legal process that we call class action can be traced back to the old English courts of chancery. Despite the criticism leveled at class action lawsuits today, these lawsuits frequently have served a public good. They have proven a powerful weapon against unscrupulous or reckless businesses, discouraging those businesses from selling dangerous products or from cheating customers. Class action lawsuits reduce the likelihood that rogue companies can harm thousands of innocent people, confident in the belief that none of those people could ever afford to hold those companies accountable in court for their misdeeds. There are many examples over time where the bad guys were caught in the act, where they were taken to court and where they were ordered to pay up. The film ``Erin Brockovich'' tells a story about one such time. Not long ago I picked up a video at Blockbuster of the film starring Julie Roberts in the title role that some of us may have seen. The film tells the story of how one woman convinced hundreds of people residing in a place called Hinkley, CA, to join in a lawsuit. Together, they sued a utility company that was making people sick by polluting their water supply. Erin Brockovich's leadership won damages of $333 million for the victims of that pollution. That true story is just one example of the good that class action litigation can accomplish. While I will not take the time this evening to talk about those other examples, let me say there are plenty of them. Unfortunately, though, there are also a growing number of examples that are not as uplifting or not as inspiring as the tale told in ``Erin Brockovich.'' Let me mention several of those, too. Ironically, one of them also involves Blockbuster. That company was sued over its policy of charging customers for overdue rentals. The result was that plaintiffs, of which I may unknowingly have been one, will get two free movie rentals and a dollar-off coupon. Meanwhile, attorneys received more than $9 million in fees and expenses. Let me also mention Poland Spring. Poland Spring, if you are not aware of it, is a bottled water company. They were sued a couple of years ago in a place called Kane County, IL. Allegedly, the company's water was not pure and did not come from a spring. During the course of litigation, Poland Spring settled. The consumers alleging that they had spent their money on a product they did not actually receive were not compensated. Instead, they were awarded coupons which they could apply toward the purchase of the same Poland Spring water of which they originally weren't happy. The attorneys who negotiated the settlement on their behalf meanwhile were awarded $1.35 million. Poland Spring itself admitted no wrongdoing and has no plans, at least to my knowledge, to change the way they bottle and market their water. Here is another one: General Mills was sued because an unapproved food additive apparently was used in some oats that were used to make Cheerios. Although I am told there was no evidence of customer injury, a settlement was reached in the class action lawsuit. It provided for $1.75 million in fees for the plaintiffs' attorneys. The plaintiffs? They received a coupon for more Cheerios. In another class action suit involving Chase Manhattan Bank, plaintiffs' attorneys collected, I am told, over $4 million. The plaintiffs? They could collect 33 cents apiece if they were willing to pony up the money for a postage stamp. With the next one, I think it may actually get worse. In a different class action lawsuit against the Bank of Boston over escrow accounts, plaintiffs apparently didn't win a dime. In fact, their accounts were debited to help pay attorneys' fees of $8.5 million. Let me mention just one more. A couple of years ago, Intel was taken into court in I believe Madison County, IL, for asserting that the company's Pentium IV chips were faster than the company's Pentium III chips. Let me say that I have no idea which chip is faster. I do have a hunch, though, that the Madison County Courthouse probably isn't the best forum in which to make that determination. For that matter, neither were any of the other local courts in which the previous five cases that I have mentioned here were brought. Don't get me wrong. Class action lawsuits are still being brought for noble purposes that none of us would question for a minute. Last month, in fact, a class of 1.6 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees alleging gender discrimination at that company were certified as a class. Ironically, I believe it was in a Federal court in California. There is a growing phenomena, however, that is troubling, at least to me and I suspect to other fairminded people, including, I would be willing to bet, a number of plaintiffs' attorneys. We have witnessed the emergence in different parts of America of something called magnet courts. Oftentimes, they are county courts with locally elected judges and a reputation for verdicts that can put the fear of God in companies when cases are filed in one of them. Once a plaintiffs' class is certified in one of those courts, the companies generally realize that their goose is about to be cooked and the work of reaching a settlement begins in earnest. The attorneys who in many cases assembled the plaintiff class of aggrieved consumers from across the country oftentimes make out pretty well in those settlements. As you might imagine from the examples I have cited above, the people those attorneys represent sometimes do not. Those who are supporting the legislation before the Senate this evening do so in the belief somebody needs to do something about the growing trend toward forum shopping we are witnessing around the country. In addition, somebody needs to do so while preserving access to the courts when people are harmed. My colleagues, that somebody is us. The legislation before the Senate tonight, the Class Action Fairness Act, does not get rid of class action lawsuits. And it should not. For years, they have been an efficient way for small and large groups of consumers who have been harmed or shortchanged by some product or service to pursue legislation against the company, when those consumers lack the wherewithal to pursue justice on their own. What the legislation now before the Senate seeks to do is ensure class action lawsuits that are national in scope are decided in Federal courts. When the bulk of plaintiffs comes from across America, a decision can have an impact on all or most of the 50 States. Federal judges, not State, not county judges, should hear those cases more often than not. These issues are not new. They have been the subject of a number of congressional hearings over the years. These issues have been debated and voted on in the relevant committees in both the House and the Senate. These issues have been debated in the U.S. House of Representatives and last year the House approved and sent to the Senate a bill that sought to address the concerns we are raising this evening. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported out a more balanced bill, I believe, than the one we received from the House last year. That Senate bill was further improved through bipartisan negotiations last fall after efforts to proceed to class action fell one vote short in the Senate. It will come as no surprise that not everyone likes the measure before the Senate this evening. As is often the case with highly contentious issues, some would say this bill goes too far. Frankly, there are others who say it does not go far enough. The latter contend, for example, this is not real tort reform. They are right. It is court reform. It attempts to close the gaping loophole in Federal law. That loophole allows the plaintiffs from one State to be tried in a State or county court of another State on matters that have national implications. That loophole also allows those cases to be heard by judges who are locally elected and whose elections and reelections are supported at least in part by some of the very same plaintiffs' attorneys bringing cases before those judges against out-of-State defendants. Let me take a moment or two to be clear about what this bill does and does not do. This legislation does not limit the damages that can be awarded in class action lawsuits. It does not eliminate punitive damages. It does not mention joint and several liability. In fact, even if this bill is adopted, a majority of class action lawsuits will still be heard in State courts. For example, cases with fewer than 100 plaintiffs will be heard in State courts. The same holds true for cases involving less than $5 million, as well as for cases where two-thirds or more of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the defendant. Federal judges would also have the discretion to keep cases in State courts where as few as one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the defendants. That is not all. This bill includes what we call a local controversy exception. That local controversy exception will leave in State court class actions with multiple defendants as long as one of the primary defendants is local. That provision is intended to ensure State courts can continue to preside over local controversies even though plaintiffs may name an out-of-State defendant, such as a parent company. This bill is an improvement, at least in my judgment, over the House bill in some other ways, too. The House bill is retroactive. The Senate bill is not. The House bill allows defendants to file appeals of class certifications that would unnecessarily delay a plaintiff's day in court. The Senate bill does not. The House bill allows defendants to have multiple bites out of the apple and continue to appeal decisions by judges to keep cases in State court. The Senate bill does not. Unlike the House bill, the measure before the Senate allows lead plaintiffs, especially those in civil rights cases, to receive a greater payment that is reflective of the higher and riskier profile they have assumed. Other provisions have been adopted as well. In settlements where coupons were awarded to plaintiffs, the fees to their attorneys are linked directly under this bill to the coupons that are actually redeemed, not just issued. In addition, Federal judges may direct that the value of unredeemed coupons be donated to charity. These and other changes have caused several of our colleagues, especially on our side of the aisle, who had previously opposed class action legislation, to support the bill that is before the Senate tonight. But Members of the legislative branch are not the only ones who apparently have had a change of heart. Back in 1999, the Federal judiciary registered its opposition to a previous version of the Class Action Fairness Act through a letter the judicial conference sent to Henry Hyde who was then the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And why? Largely because Federal judges fear the bill could well flood Federal courts with class action cases that otherwise would be heard in State or in local courts. Today, that view has changed as the legislation has undergone some of the changes we have been talking about this evening. The Federal judiciary no longer opposes class action reform. I invite my colleagues to read those views for themselves. They are contained in this letter from the Judicial Conference which I hold in my hand. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER. The pages who are still here tonight would agree I may have talked at least long enough for one evening. As I prepare to wrap up, let me acknowledge that the impact of class action lawsuits on our Nation's business climate may not be as harmful as some of our business interests contend. In some cases, they may actually overstate the harm class actions have done. Having said that, a balance still needs to be found in today's system that is respectful on the one hand of the right to seek redress for wrongdoing by corporations while preserving a reasonable measure of fairness for business interests, too. Patti Waldmeir, who writes on legal issues for the Financial Times, summed it up in her column last month with these words: The class-action lawsuit was meant to be a vehicle for democracy in the U.S., a way to level the playing field between the powerless and powerful by allowing individuals to band together to sue big corporations. I believe the bill before us does strike the balance that is needed. I am pleased to say that view is reflected on the editorial pages of scores of newspapers across America: from the Chicago Tribune, to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Des Moines Register, the Christian Science Monitor, the Buffalo News, the Baltimore Sun, the Hartford Courant, Newsday, the Omaha World-Herald, the Oregonian, the Orlando Sentinel, the Providence Journal, the Santa Fe New Mexican, and, yes, even the Washington Post. Let me conclude my remarks this evening with these words from the editorial pages of the Washington Post in endorsing the Class Action Fairness Act. These are their words: It would ensure that cases with implications for national policies get decided by a court system accountable to the whole country. This is not, as opponents have cast it, an attack on the right to sue or a liability shield for corporate wrongdoing. It is a modest step to rein in a system that too often simply taxes corporations--irrespective of whether they have done anything wrong--and uses that money to pay lawyers who provided no services to anyone. Such a system does not deserve the Senate's protection for yet another Congress. Their words, not mine. But to those words let me simply add: Amen. With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time.