Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am reintroducing a bill I proposed in the last Congress to help prepare new teachers to recognize and meet the needs of gifted and talented students. According to the federally funded National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, the large majority of gifted and talented students spend at least 80 percent of their time in a regular education classroom. Of course, gifted students are not gifted only 20 percent of the time. They are gifted all the time. Unfortunately, the lack of teacher preparation means that gifted students are not being challenged during much of the time they spend in the classroom. Their educational needs are not being met. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about the needs of gifted children. You might say, ``Why should we worry about these children? They are the smart ones that the teacher doesn't have to spend so much time on.'' First of all, I'm not talking about your average straight A student who maybe learns the material easily, but much the same way as other students in the classroom. What makes a child gifted and talented is not how well the child does in school, but how he or she learns. A straight A student may or may not be gifted and a gifted student may not always get good grades in school. Gifted and talented children actually have a different way of looking at the world. They tend to have distinct approaches to learning and interacting socially, and they frequently learn at a different pace, and to different depths, than others their age. The bottom line is that gifted and talented children have unique learning needs that need to be met in order for them to achieve to their potential. To illustrate this point, I would like to remind the Senate of an example I first cited two years ago while speaking on another piece of legislation related to gifted and talented students. It concerns a young elementary school student from Iowa City named Jose. Jose was not putting much effort into his schoolwork and was getting bad grades. He was a good kid but he also had a tendency to act up in class. He got along with his classmates, but didn't have many friends. Jose's teacher was frustrated and couldn't figure out what to do with him. Still, Jose's parents saw in him a real hunger for learning and had his IQ tested over the summer. It turns out that what the teacher saw as behavior problems or a lack of work ethic were really symptoms of a gifted student who was not being properly challenged. Jose started leaving his regular classroom a couple of times a week to work with a teacher who was trained in meeting the needs of gifted students. As a result of the added stimulation he received, Jose started to enjoy school more, made friends with his gifted peers, and began to succeed with his regular school work. Jose was fortunate that his parents were so perceptive and were able to have him assessed privately. However, not all parents are in a position to recognize the signs of giftedness or to advocate for their child's needs. Even in schools where there are active gifted and talented programs, many students go unidentified. Moreover, even with pull-out programs like the one I described that supplement the classroom experience and other strategies like grade skipping, it is inevitable that many gifted students will spend much of their time in a regular classroom with non-gifted students of the same age but far different ability levels. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that all classroom teachers should have at least a basic knowledge about how to recognize and meet the needs of gifted and talented students in their classrooms. However, a national survey of third and fourth grade teachers by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented found that 61 percent of teachers had no training whatsoever in teaching highly able students. Only one State currently requires regular classroom teachers to have coursework in gifted education. Some of the techniques used in classrooms to accommodate gifted kids include differentiated curriculum, cluster grouping, and accelerated learning. The time to make sure teachers have the necessary knowledge is when prospective teachers are in their pre-service teacher training programs. If teachers aren't exposed to information and strategies to meet the needs of gifted students in their pre-service training, they may never acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. With the Higher Education Act due for reauthorization, this is the perfect opportunity to encourage schools of education and States to take a greater look at how they can improve teacher preparation programs to integrate instruction on the unique needs of gifted learners. Title II of the Higher Education Act already contains grants designed to enhance the quality of teacher preparation programs. My bill would simply add allowable uses to these existing grants to provide an incentive for states and teacher training programs to incorporate the needs of gifted and talented students into teacher preparation and licensure requirements. I should point out that this change would not cost the taxpayers any additional money. Under current law, Title II State grants are awarded directly to States and are to be used to reform State teacher preparation requirements. The law lists seven potential reforms under the allowable uses for grant funds. The first three allowable uses include: strengthening state requirements for teacher preparation programs to ensure teachers are highly competent in their respective academic content areas, reforming certification and licensure requirements with respect to competency in content areas, and providing alternatives to traditional teacher preparation programs. My legislation would add another allowable use, referencing these three reforms, to encourage states to incorporate a focus on the learning needs of gifted and talented students into reforms of state requirements for teacher preparation programs, reforms of state certification and licensure requirements, or new alternative teacher preparation programs. In addition, my bill would add a new allowable use so that States could use grant funds to create or expand new-teacher mentoring programs on the needs of gifted and talented students. This way, new teachers could learn from veteran teachers about how to identify classroom indicators of giftedness and provide appropriate instruction to gifted students. My bill would also add language to the Partnership Grants, which provide funds to partnerships among teacher preparation institutions, school of arts and sciences, and high-need school districts to strengthen new teacher education. These grants come with three required uses, including reforming teacher preparation programs to ensure teachers are highly competent in academic content areas, providing pre- service clinical experience, and creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development. One allowable use for which a partnership may use funds is preparing teachers to work with diverse populations, including individuals with disabilities and limited English proficient individuals. To this section, my legislation would add gifted and talented students. Recognizing that every teacher could have gifted students in his or her classroom, my bill would also add a new allowable use so that teacher preparation programs could use the funds to infuse teacher coursework with units on the characteristics of high-ability learners. In other words, the idea is not to require additional courses, but rather to discuss how to accommodate for the needs of gifted students throughout the teacher preparation curriculum when new teachers are learning how to present lessons. Again, my bill does not create a new grant program and doesn't cost any more money. It simply provides an incentive through existing grant programs to encourage States and teacher preparation programs to make sure that new teachers have the skills they will need to identify and meet the unique needs of the gifted and talented students who will be in their classrooms. I think we all recognize how important a quality teacher can be in helping a student achieve. This is no less true with gifted and talented students. Having a teacher that is equipped to meet the unique needs of gifted students can mean the difference between a child hating school and a child loving school; a child falling behind, and a child succeeding beyond all expectations. When a gifted child is left behind, the loss of human potential is doubly tragic. Gifted and talented children are a national resource that we must nurture now for our nation's future. This modest step could reap rewards for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in this investment in our future.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak today in remembrance of an Iowa soldier who has fallen in service to his country. Specialist Dakotah L. Gooding, a member of the C Troop, 5th Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, died on the 13th of February in Balad, Iraq when his vehicle overturned into a canal. He was 21 years old. SPC Gooding grew up in Keokuk, IA and eventually moved to the Des Moines area. He attended the Scavo Alternative School and Lincoln High School. In the fall of 2000, at the age of 17, Dakotah fulfilled a life-long dream of joining the U.S. Army, following in the footsteps of many family members. He had served in the United States and Korea before going to Iraq. SPC Gooding came to Iraq as part of an Army Special Security Force that helped with voter protection in the recent historic democratic elections. A cousin mentioned that SPC Gooding knew he had a mission to protect those around the world and those at home. SPC Gooding's mission was a noble one, and he carried it out with the courage and dignity that are so characteristic of our American soldiers. For his dedication and sacrifice, Dakotah deserves our respect and admiration. For family and friends who have felt this loss most deeply, I offer my sincere sympathy. My prayers go out to his wife, Angela, his mother, Judith, his two sisters, and his many other family and friends. May we always remember with pride and appreciation Specialist Dakotah L. Gooding and all those Americans who have gone before him in service to their country.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad we are now finally considering S. 256, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. Although a few amendments were accepted during the Judiciary Committee markup a couple weeks ago, and we did that to accommodate Democratic Members, this bill is practically identical to the conference report that both the House and Senate conferees signed in the 107th Congress, minus the poison pill abortion amendment. Many of my colleagues know I have been working on this bill for quite some time now and that there has always been strong bipartisan support for passing bankruptcy reform. I started working on bankruptcy issues in the mid-1990s, and I did that with my colleague, then-former Senator Heflin of Alabama. We served together as either chairman or ranking member of the Administrative Oversight Subcommittee for a period of, I believe, 12 years. During this period of time, we created what became known as the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. We held numerous hearings in the subcommittee on various topics dealing with the subject of bankruptcy reform. In the 105th Congress, Senator Durbin and I passed out of the Senate a bankruptcy bill by a vote of 98 to 1, but it never got to conference. In the 106th Congress, Senator Torricelli and I worked closely and negotiated many compromises. We were able to vote out of the Senate a Grassley-Torricelli bill by a vote of 83 to 14. The Senate then approved the bankruptcy conference report by a vote of 70 to 28. Mr. President, 53 Republican Senators and 17 Democratic Senators voted for that conference report, but President Clinton pocket-vetoed the bill, and although we had the votes to override it, we were, unfortunately, not to have that opportunity. That is what a pocket veto is all about. In the 107th Congress, I introduced, with Senator Biden, the same language of the conference report agreed to by both the House and Senate in the previous 106th Congress. We passed the bankruptcy bill by a strong bipartisan vote of 85 to 13, with further changes made to address concerns of Democratic Party members. We went to conference with the House and reached an agreement on a conference report. During that conference committee, numerous amendments were negotiated with Democrats who opposed the bill. We negotiated in good faith, but the inclusion of what has become known as the Schumer abortion language ultimately proved to be unacceptable to the House and we were not able to get to the finish line. The Senate tried to address the bankruptcy bill in the 108th Congress. The House passed the conference report language without the abortion provisions, but the Senate never took it up. In addition, the House amended a Senate bill with a bankruptcy bill and requested a conference, but Senate Democrats denied us the ability to have a conference on that bill. So after three Congresses, we are here again in the 109th Congress trying to pass bankruptcy reform. My Democratic colleagues, Senator Carper and Ben Nelson, have joined me, as well as Senators Hatch, Sessions, and others, on this bill, S. 256, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. The bill continues in the tried and true spirit and tradition of this bill being bipartisan, so we do have that bipartisan support on its introduction, and from the votes we have had on amendments today, it looks like that bipartisanship is still going to hold. So I hope my colleagues will not be fooled when longstanding opponents to this bill, even though they may never number more than 15, vociferously claim that the bankruptcy bill is really controversial and really unnecessary because those statements, made by the very small number of people in this body who do not think we need to do anything on bankruptcy reform, everything they are saying is far from the truth. I note that throughout the years, we really bent over backward in trying to accommodate Democratic Senators' concerns with the bill's process, even in this Congress. I do not think that it is any surprise to anyone that my position is that the bankruptcy bill is still very much simply unfinished business after all of these compromises throughout now the fourth Congress. This bill has passed both the House and the Senate a total of 11 times between these two Houses of Congress. It is about time that we get the job done now. Hence, simply unfinished business, even though some of my colleagues will try to make this be a totally brand-new debate, just like we were starting over with the purest bill that I would prefer, but because purest bills never get through the Senate, it takes bipartisanship. We are where we are because of compromise and unfinished business, and hopefully we will move this bill to the House and to the President, somewhat I hope a repeat of what we did 3 weeks ago with the class action tort reform bill. That is why at the beginning of this Congress I reintroduced the bipartisan conference report that was arrived at in the 107th Congress with only one change, and that change is to leave the poison pill of the Schumer abortion language out of it. Remember that this compromise that I introduced in this year, the 107th Congress, minus the Schumer amendment, otherwise is exactly the same language negotiated when the Democrats had a majority. It was two Congresses ago when Senator Jeffords changed from being a Republican to an Independent, sitting with the Democrats. They took over the Congress, and it is that Democratic Senate that negotiated this agreement for the Senate. That is the bill we are working on now as the underlying provision. The Schumer abortion language that tanked the bill in the House, in the 107th Congress, is left out. Other than that, the bill was basically the exact same language that Senate Members, both Republican and Democrats, have supported. The reason I did this is because we had reached many carefully crafted compromises and had a good bipartisan product. I did not think that we had to go through committee this time because this bill had been done so many times before, but Majority Leader Frist insisted that it go through regular order. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing and markup on this bill. So my colleagues are clear, the committee accepted five amendments to further accommodate Democratic members. The committee also defeated a number of other amendments that were clearly offered to open issues and weaken the bill. I would like to make my position crystal clear. We have all cooperated and compromised at great length in order to enact this legislation that fixes an unfair bankruptcy regime, provides new consumer protections, helps children in need of child support, and makes other necessary reforms to a system that is often open to abuse. I do not believe there is any need to reopen this bill and to disrupt those many compromises we have already reached with our Democratic colleagues, and more importantly with the House of Representatives. I hope this clarification on the history and procedural process of the bill will show that, one, the bill is a bipartisan effort; two, that we have been working on bankruptcy reform for too long and have gone over all the fine points of the bill in great detail; and, three, that we have bent over backward to allow a fair process to move forward with this bill. I discussed the merits of this bankruptcy reform bill. There is broad public support for reforming our bankruptcy system. The vast majority of people believe that individuals who file for bankruptcy protection should be required to pay back some of their debt if they have the ability to do so, and that is precisely what this bankruptcy bill attempts to do. Most people think it should be more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy. Most Americans are tired of paying for high rollers who game the current bankruptcy system and its loopholes to get out of paying their fair share. Most people recognize that too many people are filing for bankruptcy. Too many people are gaming the system, and the numbers are up in historically high proportions in recent years that prove that. Bankruptcy filings were at an alltime high even during the boom years of our economy. Opponents to the bill act as if there is nothing to worry about, but the fact is we have a bankruptcy crisis on our hands. I want to visit with my colleagues about how this bill will change the way bankruptcy is being treated. Simply put, bankruptcy is a court proceeding where people get their debts wiped away. Every time a debt is wiped away through bankruptcy, somebody loses money. Of course, that is common sense, and when somebody who extends credit has their obligations wiped away in bankruptcy, they are forced to make a decision. Should this loss simply be swallowed as the cost of doing business or are prices raised for other customers to make up for another's losses? Presently, when individuals file for bankruptcy under chapter 7, a court proceeding takes place and their debts are simply erased. But every time a debt is wiped away through bankruptcy, someone loses money. When someone loses money in this way, he or she has to decide to either assume that loss as a cost of business or raise the price for other customers to make up for that loss. When bankruptcy losses are infrequent, lenders maybe are able to swallow that loss. But when they are frequent, lenders need to raise prices for other consumers to offset their losses. These higher prices translate into higher interest rates for future borrowers. The result of the bankruptcy crisis is that hard-working, law-abiding Americans have to pay higher prices for goods and services because somebody else did not make good on their obligations to pay. This bill would make it harder for individuals who can repay their debt to file for bankruptcy under chapter 7. This would lessen, then, the upward pressure on interest rates and prices. It is only fair to require people who can repay their debts to pull their own weight. But under current bankruptcy law, an individual can get full debt cancellation in chapter 7 with no questions asked. The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 asks the very fundamental question of whether repayment is possible by an individual. It is this simple: If repayment is possible, then he or she will be channeled into chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code which requires people to repay a portion of their debt as a precondition for limited debt cancellation. In other words, people who have the ability to pay will not get off scot-free anymore. This bill does this by providing for a means-tested way of steering people who are filers, who can repay a portion of their debts, away from chapter 7 bankruptcy. This test employs a legal presumption that chapter 7 proceedings should be dismissed or converted into chapter 13 whenever the filers earn more than the State median income and can repay at least $6,000 of his or her unsecured debt over a 5-year period of time. In calculating a debtor's income, living expenses are deducted as permitted under IRS standards for the State and locality where the debtor lives. Legitimate expenses such as food, clothing, medical, transportation, attorney's fees, and charitable contributions are taken into account in this analysis, as provided under Internal Revenue Service guidelines. Moreover, a debtor may rebut the presumption by demonstrating special circumstances. So the means test takes into account a debtor's income, a debtor's expenses, and allows a debtor to, even beyond that, show special circumstances which would justify adjustments to the means test. In this way, the bankruptcy reform bill preserves the principle of a fresh start for people who have been overwhelmed by medical debts or sudden, unforeseen emergencies. As stated by the Government Accounting Office, the bill allows for the 100-percent deductibility of medical expenses before examining repayment ability. The bill preserves fair access, then, to bankruptcy for those people who are truly in need. So that I am crystal clear, people who do not have the ability to repay their debt can still use the bankruptcy system as they would have before. This bill clearly provides that people of limited income can still file under chapter 7 and get that fresh start. There is a specific safe harbor built in for these individuals, so their debts can be wiped away, as is done right now. I point this out because so often during this debate it is going to be pointed out to you, inaccurately, that somehow poor people are not getting that opportunity for a fresh start. So I want to repeat: There is a safe harbor for poor people. But the free ride is over for people who have higher incomes, and who can repay their debt. Personal responsibility has been one of the main themes of the bankruptcy reform bill, going back to my first introduction. But even before that, since 1993, the number of Americans who declared bankruptcy has increased, would you believe it, over 100 percent. While no one knows all the reasons underlying the bankruptcy crisis, the data shows that bankruptcies increased dramatically during the same timeframe when unemployment was low and real wages were at an all-time high. I believe the bankruptcy crisis is, in fact, a moral crisis. People have to stop looking at bankruptcy as a conventional financial planning tool, where honest Americans have to foot the bill for those who do not pay their honest debt. It is clear to me that our lax bankruptcy system must bear some of the blame for the bankruptcy crisis. A system where people are not even asked whether they can pay off their debts obviously contributes to the fraying of the moral fiber of America. Why should people pay their bills when the system allows them to walk away with no questions asked? Why should people honor their obligations when they can take the easy way out through bankruptcy? I think the system needs to be reformed because it is fundamentally unfair. This bill will promote personal responsibility among borrowers and create a deterrence for those hoping to cheat the system. This bill does more than provide for a flexible means test that gives judges discretion to consider the individual circumstances of each debtor in order to determine whether they truly belong in chapter 7. It also contains tough new consumer protections. But the opponents of this bill do not seem to realize that. So I want them to pay attention as I describe new procedures to prevent companies from using threats to coerce debtors into paying debts which could be wiped away once they are in bankruptcy. The bill requires the Justice Department to concentrate law enforcement resources on enforcing consumer protection laws against abusive debt collection practices. It contains significant new disclosures for consumers, mandating that credit card companies provide key information about how much they owe and how long it will take to pay off their credit card debts by only making the minimum payment. That is a very important consumer education for every one of us. Consumers will also be given a toll-free number to call where they can get information about how long it will take to pay off their own credit card balances if they only pay the minimum payment. This will educate consumers and improve consumers' understanding of what their financial situation is. Credit card companies that offer credit cards over the Internet will be required for the first time ever to fully comply with the Truth In Lending Act, so claims that this bill is unbalanced are off base. Moreover, the bill makes changes which will help particularly vulnerable segments of our society. Child support claimants are given a higher priority status when the assets of a bankruptcy estate are distributed to creditors. Here again, I make crystal clear that the bankruptcy bill makes significant improvements for child support claimants. This bankruptcy bill does not hurt them, as opponents of the bill are trying to claim. In fact, the organization, the very organization that specializes in tracking down deadbeat dads, feels this bill will be a tremendous help in collecting child support. The people on the front lines say the bankruptcy bill is good for collecting child support. An example: The bill provides that parents and State child support enforcement collection agencies are given notice when a debtor who owes child support or alimony files for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy trustees are required to notify child support creditors of their right to use child support enforcement agencies to collect outstanding amounts due. In addition, the bill requires creditors to provide the last known address of debtors owing support obligations upon the request of the custodial parent. The bill goes further--requiring that the identity of minor children be protected in bankruptcy proceedings. Concerns expressed by opponents to the bill about this being a flawed part of it just don't hold water. The bill also makes great strides in cracking down on very wealthy individuals who abuse the bankruptcy system. If you listen to our critics, you might get the impression that the homestead exemption is a giant loophole that this bill does not deal with, and that we are busy protecting the rich. The GAO looked at the question of how frequently the homestead exemption is abused by wealthy people in bankruptcy. The GAO found that less than 1 percent of bankruptcies filed in States where there are unlimited homestead exemptions involve homesteads over $100,000. That means 99 percent of bankruptcy filings were not abusive. This is not a loophole at all. In fact, the provision in this bill with respect to homestead is a significant improvement from current law. There is a Federal cap on homestead exemptions in current law. Under the current bankruptcy law, the debtors living in certain States can shield from their creditors virtually all of the equity in their home. Consequently, some debtors relocate to these States to take advantage of the mansion loophole provisions that are, in most cases, in their constitution. This bill would take a strong stand against this abuse by requiring that a person be a resident in a State for 2 years before he can claim the State's homestead exemption. Current requirements can be as little as 91 days. The bill further reduces the intent for abuse by requiring a debtor to own the homestead for at least 40 months before he can use State exemption law. Current law doesn't have any such requirement. Furthermore, the bill would prevent individuals who have violated security laws or individuals who have engaged in criminal conduct from shielding their homestead assets from those whom they have defrauded or injured. Specifically, if a debtor was convicted of a felony, violated a security law, or committed a criminal act intentionally, or engaged in reckless misconduct that caused serious physical injury or debt, the bill overrides State homestead exemption laws and caps the debtor's homestead at $125,000 as the amount that would be protected. To the extent that the debtor's homestead exemption was obtained through the fraudulent conversion of nonexempt assets during the 10- year period preceding the filings of the bankruptcy case, this bill requires such exemption to be reduced by the amount attributable to the fraud. These homestead provisions were delicately compromised between those who believe that the homestead should be capped through Federal law--I am one of those--or others who are uncomfortable with a uniform Federal cap which may violate their own State constitution. So, please, tomorrow when this debate is conducted on changing this provision that has been so carefully worked out over a period of at least two Congresses, don't believe it when people say we have a gaping loophole. The homestead provisions in the bankruptcy bill will substantially cut down on the abuses that might be referred to. I would like to talk about another thing this bankruptcy bill does which is so important for those of us who represent agricultural States. This bill makes chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, which gives essential protections to family farmers, a permanent chapter in the Bankruptcy Code. The bill enhances these protections. It makes more farmers eligible for chapter 12. The bill lets farmers in bankruptcy avoid capital gains tax. This is very important because it will free up resources to be invested in farming operations that otherwise would go down the black hole of the Internal Revenue Service. Farmers need this chapter 12 safety net. In addition, the bankruptcy bill will for the first time create badly needed protections for patients in bankruptcy hospitals and nursing homes. Let me provide an example of what could happen right now without the patient protections contained in this bill. At a hearing I held on nursing home bankruptcies, I learned about a situation in California where a bankruptcy trustee just showed up at a nursing home on a Friday evening and evicted the residents of that nursing home. The bankruptcy trustee didn't provide any notice whatsoever that this was going to happen. There was absolutely no chance for the nursing home residents to be relocated. The bankruptcy trustee literally put these elderly people out on the street and changed the locks on the doors so that they couldn't get back into the nursing home. The bankruptcy bill will prevent this from ever happening again. These are protections that we will be giving these deserving senior citizens for the first time. The truth is that bankruptcies hurt real people. It isn't fair to permit people who can repay to skip out on their debts. Yes, we must preserve fair access to bankruptcy for those who truly need a fresh start. This bill does not in any way compromise that century-old principle of our Bankruptcy Code. This bankruptcy reform act does that--it guarantees a fresh start. It lets those people who can pay their debts live up to their responsibilities as well. Let us restore the balance. Let us pass this bill. This bill is a product of much negotiation and compromise over three Congresses. It is fair, it is balanced, but, more importantly, it is a bill that once got to President Clinton and he pocket-vetoed it. This bill that passed by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress is long overdue legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation but, more importantly, help us defeat amendments that are opening all of the carefully crafted compromises that we worked on over the last 3 to 4 years. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier today, Senate Bill 470 was introduced. I am pleased to sponsor the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2005, with Senator Dodd. I am co-sponsoring this legislation as part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety agency. Enactment of this bill will be a meaningful step toward greater transparency and accountability in clinical trials and the scientific process. The Food and Drug Administration earned its prized reputation through decades of good work on behalf of the American people. The FDA's drug approval process has long been considered the ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.'' However, the Vioxx disaster and its aftermath have shaken the public's confidence. American consumers demand and deserve assurances that the medicines in their cabinets are safe. The health and safety of the public must be the FDA's first and only concern. Unfortunately, reforms at the FDA are necessary to place that mission front and center once again. I began my oversight of the FDA last year in response to concerns about the reluctance of the FDA to provide information to the public about the increased suicidal risks for young people taking anti- depressants. Last November, I chaired a groundbreaking hearing on drug safety, the FDA and Vioxx. That hearing and other critical drug safety concerns of the past year highlighted the need for reforms and more stringent oversight of the FDA. Sometimes congressional scrutiny of agency mismanagement can lead to necessary reforms. Sometimes an agency will act on its own to enhance its credibility. I have been pressing for reforms--both administrative and legislative--to bring about greater responsiveness and transparency at the FDA. The risks and benefits of prescription drugs should be readily available to patients and doctors seeking to make informed decisions. The FACT Act will expand www.clinicaltrials.gov to create a publicly accessible national data bank of clinical trial information comprised of a clinical trial registry and a clinical trial results database. The legislation will foster transparency and accountability in health- related intervention research and development and ensure that the scientific community and the general public have access to basic information about clinical trials. Importantly, the FACT Act will maintain clinicaltrials.gov as a registry for patients and physicians seeking information about ongoing clinical trials for serious or life- threatening diseases and conditions. The legislation will also prevent companies from withholding clinically important information about their products. The FACT Act will maintain a clinical trial registry accessible to patients and health care practitioners seeking information related to ongoing clinical trials for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions; establish a clinical trials results database of all publicly and privately funded clinical trial results regardless of outcome that is accessible to the scientific community, health care practitioners, and members of the public; require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make internal drug approval and safety reviews publicly available; build on the successful model of www.clinicaltrials.gov, which was established in 1997. The web site will continue to be run by the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health, with assistance from the FDA; apply to clinical trials for drugs, biologics, and medical devices. All trials must be registered in the database in order to obtain approval from a U.S. Institutional Review Board; require that foreign trials that are submitted to the FDA or used in advertising to U.S. physicians be registered in the database at the time of submission; require that researchers promptly disclose the objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of funding, and anticipated timeline of clinical trials. The bill's standards will meet all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on September 8, 2004; mandate that the results of clinical trials be available to doctors and patients. Recognizing that the peer review process is the best safeguard for scientific accuracy, the bill provides time for researchers to publish their results. The disclosure of important trial results satisfies the recommendation of the American Medical Association; establish strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill will provide for civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day for sponsors who refuse to comply. Monetary penalties will be earmarked for studies that compare clinical therapies; provide authority to audit the completeness and accuracy of the information in the registry; and ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to correct false or misleading statements about the results of clinical trials. Later this month I will also introduce legislation to establish an independent office of drug safety in the Food and Drug Administration. Today's legislation is an important step toward reforming the FDA. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier today, Senate Bill 470 was introduced. I am pleased to sponsor the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2005, with Senator Dodd. I am co-sponsoring this legislation as part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety agency. Enactment of this bill will be a meaningful step toward greater transparency and accountability in clinical trials and the scientific process. The Food and Drug Administration earned its prized reputation through decades of good work on behalf of the American people. The FDA's drug approval process has long been considered the ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.'' However, the Vioxx disaster and its aftermath have shaken the public's confidence. American consumers demand and deserve assurances that the medicines in their cabinets are safe. The health and safety of the public must be the FDA's first and only concern. Unfortunately, reforms at the FDA are necessary to place that mission front and center once again. I began my oversight of the FDA last year in response to concerns about the reluctance of the FDA to provide information to the public about the increased suicidal risks for young people taking anti- depressants. Last November, I chaired a groundbreaking hearing on drug safety, the FDA and Vioxx. That hearing and other critical drug safety concerns of the past year highlighted the need for reforms and more stringent oversight of the FDA. Sometimes congressional scrutiny of agency mismanagement can lead to necessary reforms. Sometimes an agency will act on its own to enhance its credibility. I have been pressing for reforms--both administrative and legislative--to bring about greater responsiveness and transparency at the FDA. The risks and benefits of prescription drugs should be readily available to patients and doctors seeking to make informed decisions. The FACT Act will expand www.clinicaltrials.gov to create a publicly accessible national data bank of clinical trial information comprised of a clinical trial registry and a clinical trial results database. The legislation will foster transparency and accountability in health- related intervention research and development and ensure that the scientific community and the general public have access to basic information about clinical trials. Importantly, the FACT Act will maintain clinicaltrials.gov as a registry for patients and physicians seeking information about ongoing clinical trials for serious or life- threatening diseases and conditions. The legislation will also prevent companies from withholding clinically important information about their products. The FACT Act will maintain a clinical trial registry accessible to patients and health care practitioners seeking information related to ongoing clinical trials for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions; establish a clinical trials results database of all publicly and privately funded clinical trial results regardless of outcome that is accessible to the scientific community, health care practitioners, and members of the public; require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make internal drug approval and safety reviews publicly available; build on the successful model of www.clinicaltrials.gov, which was established in 1997. The web site will continue to be run by the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health, with assistance from the FDA; apply to clinical trials for drugs, biologics, and medical devices. All trials must be registered in the database in order to obtain approval from a U.S. Institutional Review Board; require that foreign trials that are submitted to the FDA or used in advertising to U.S. physicians be registered in the database at the time of submission; require that researchers promptly disclose the objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of funding, and anticipated timeline of clinical trials. The bill's standards will meet all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on September 8, 2004; mandate that the results of clinical trials be available to doctors and patients. Recognizing that the peer review process is the best safeguard for scientific accuracy, the bill provides time for researchers to publish their results. The disclosure of important trial results satisfies the recommendation of the American Medical Association; establish strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill will provide for civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day for sponsors who refuse to comply. Monetary penalties will be earmarked for studies that compare clinical therapies; provide authority to audit the completeness and accuracy of the information in the registry; and ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to correct false or misleading statements about the results of clinical trials. Later this month I will also introduce legislation to establish an independent office of drug safety in the Food and Drug Administration. Today's legislation is an important step toward reforming the FDA. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that S. 306 includes a provision to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act. As chairman of the committee, I am obligated to point out that the Finance Committee has primary jurisdiction over title XVIII, as amended. The provision in S. 306 that is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee amends title XVIII relating to Medicare supplemental policies. I ask Chairman Enzi to acknowledge that the Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over title XVIII of the Social Security Act and ask that he endeavor to consult on matters before the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee that touch on the Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction. In order to avoid unnecessary confusion as to the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee or further delay in the consideration of this bill, I would agree to accommodate your request to withhold any objection to the Senate's consideration of S. 306 with the acknowledgment that this provision and title XVIII generally are in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. This does not represent any waiver of jurisdiction on the part of the Finance Committee on this subject. I ask the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Enzi, whether he would agree to this request.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree and will also endeavor to consult with the Senator on matters before the Senate Finance Committee that are in the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny. Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms reap most program benefits. The reality is over 72 percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers. There is good reason to be critical of our farm programs. What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit small- and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm. The Senate has agreed, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote during the 2002 farm bill debate and two Senate Budget Committee markups that targeting Federal assistance to small- and medium-sized family farmers is the right thing to do. It has been my hope since the 2002 farm bill conference committee dropped the payment limit amendment that Congress would establish legitimate, reasonable payment limits similar to S. 667, the payment limits bill we introduced last session. While we have not yet achieved our ultimate goal, no one can question that the votes have been there for payment limits. Unfortunately, a two-thirds majority in the Senate hasn't been enough to protect this issue in conference. But times are clearly changing thanks to the President's support for payment limits in his budget proposal. The legislation we are introducing today adopts the President's proposed cap of $250,000, while maintaining other concepts from S. 667 that the President has embraced like limiting the subterfuge surrounding the three-entity rule, curtailing the use of generic certificates, and developing a measurable standard to determine who should and should not be receiving farm subsidies. I look forward to working with Senator Dorgan again on this issue. With the President's support I believe we will have success. I ask unanimous consent, that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny. Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms reap most program benefits. The reality is over 72 percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers. There is good reason to be critical of our farm programs. What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit small- and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm. The Senate has agreed, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote during the 2002 farm bill debate and two Senate Budget Committee markups that targeting Federal assistance to small- and medium-sized family farmers is the right thing to do. It has been my hope since the 2002 farm bill conference committee dropped the payment limit amendment that Congress would establish legitimate, reasonable payment limits similar to S. 667, the payment limits bill we introduced last session. While we have not yet achieved our ultimate goal, no one can question that the votes have been there for payment limits. Unfortunately, a two-thirds majority in the Senate hasn't been enough to protect this issue in conference. But times are clearly changing thanks to the President's support for payment limits in his budget proposal. The legislation we are introducing today adopts the President's proposed cap of $250,000, while maintaining other concepts from S. 667 that the President has embraced like limiting the subterfuge surrounding the three-entity rule, curtailing the use of generic certificates, and developing a measurable standard to determine who should and should not be receiving farm subsidies. I look forward to working with Senator Dorgan again on this issue. With the President's support I believe we will have success. I ask unanimous consent, that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act, which we passed last week and which is set to be considered in the House this week. This little bill that Senator Kohl and I first introduced back in the 105th Congress is finally at the finish line. Little did I know it was going to take five Congresses to get it done. But we had to do it. The abuses in the class action system are real, and this is a good first step at fixing some of them. Although the Class Action Fairness Act was always a bipartisan bill, we had to negotiate numerous compromises to garner enough support to defeat a filibuster here in the Senate. In the end, this bill is a good example of what we can accomplish when we work together in a bipartisan fashion. The final passage vote of 72 to 36 is proof positive of that. So I am pleased that we are on the verge of getting class action reform to the President's desk. There are many colleagues that I would like to thank in the Senate for their leadership and support--Majority Leader Frist, Republican Whip McConnell, Chairman Specter, Senator Hatch, Senator Sessions, Senator Kohl, and Senator Carper. I also want to thank their staff as well for a job well done--Allen Hicks, Eric Ueland and Sharon Soderstrom with the majority leader; John Abegg and Kyle Simmons with Senator McConnell; Harold Kim, Michael O'Neill and David Brog with Chairman Specter; Kevin O'Scanlin with Senator Hatch; William Smith and Cindy Hayden with Senator Sessions; and John Kilvington with Senator Carper. I would like to acknowledge in particular Jeff Miller with Senator Kohl, who worked closely with my staff on this bill over the years. Finally, I would like to thank Rita Lari Jochum, my Judiciary Committee chief counsel, who has worked on this bill since 1998, and whose legal skills and determination were instrumental in getting this bill passed in the Senate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Feingold's amendment which would add a provision to the bill requiring the Federal courts to consider remand motions in class actions within a set timetable. This amendment needs to be rejected because it is unnecessary. There is not any evidence that the Federal courts are particularly slow in dealing with class actions, or specifically that they are slow relative to remand motions. In fact, there is evidence that the Federal courts move more quickly than State courts in considering these motions because they always consider jurisdictional issues first. Senator Feingold cites three examples of delay to support his amendment, but I do not think that is enough to start placing strict time limits on court procedure. I think that Senator Feingold is in search of a problem that does not really exist. Also, the amendment could make it hard for judges to issue fair rulings in complicated class action cases because judges would be forced to make rushed decisions. This deadline may be too stringent and inflexible to deal with complex cases, where sometimes several remand motions are considered jointly in order to conserve judicial resources. These motions may require hearings, and the timeframe provided in Senator Feingold's amendment may not be enough time for a court to schedule a hearing and consider all the evidence. I also understand that Federal judges who have learned of this possible time limitation on deciding these kinds of motions are concerned that it would place an unreasonable restriction on their ability to fairly decide cases. The Judicial Conference sent a letter opposing a previous iteration of Senator Feingold's amendment that was more stringent that the current language. However, this amendment still puts significant time constraints on Federal judges that could prove to be too stringent. So there just is not any evidence that there is a problem with remand motions in class action cases that requires this time limitation that Senator Feingold is proposing. This is just an attempt to weaken the bill. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been working on this legislation for five Congresses, and I would like to get this legislation to the President without any amendments. We have heard from the highest levels of the House of Representatives that if we can pass this bill without amendments, we will be able to get it to the President without going to conference; in other words, the House will adopt it the way we do. I don't know how many times I would like to have heard that in the House of Representatives. I don't know when I have ever heard that in my entire career. I hope everybody in the Senate has a strong heart. If I didn't have a strong heart, I wouldn't say that. And if I heard it, I wouldn't believe it. I would pass out if the House was going to take something the Senate did without question. We ought to grab the ball and run with it. Regardless of the merits of the amendment by the Senator from Arkansas, I hope we can defeat that amendment. This amendment would exclude this language from the bill: ``Any action brought by or on behalf of the Attorney General of any State.'' I ask my colleagues not to be fooled. Although this amendment sounds good, and there was a good presentation made by the authors of the amendment, it is potentially harmful and could lead to gaming by class action lawyers. I will explain what I mean by gaming. First, before I do that, in my judgment, the amendment is not necessary. I will explain. State attorneys general have authority under the laws of every State to bring enforcement action to protect their citizens. Sometimes these laws are parens patriae cases, similar to class actions in the sense that the State attorney general represents the people of that State. In other instances, their actions are brought directly on behalf of that particular State. But they are not class actions; rather, they are very unique attorney general lawsuits authorized under State constitutions or under statutes. One reason this amendment is not necessary is because our bill will not affect those lawsuits. Our bill provides class actions under that term ``class action'' as defined to mean any civil action filed in a district court of the United States under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any civil action removed to a district court that was originally filed under State statute or rule authorizing an action to be brought by one or more representatives as a class action. The key phrase there is ``class action.'' Hence, because almost all civil suits brought by State attorneys general are parens patriae suits, similar representative suits or direct enforcement actions, it is clear they do not fall within this definition. That means that cases brought by State attorneys general will not be affected by this bill. The supporters of this amendment say it is necessary because State attorneys general can bring class actions and those cases might become removable to Federal court. That possibility does not make this amendment necessary. That is because State attorneys general are not required to use class actions to enforce their State laws. If State attorneys general want to recover on behalf of their citizens, they can always bring actions as parens patriae suits under statutes that authorize representative actions or even as direct enforcement actions. Again, such lawsuits will not be subject to this bill. In addition, our bill has been drafted so as to distinguish between solely truly local class action lawsuits and those that involve national issues. That compromise, which was not part of my original bill, was reached with Senator Feinstein on the home State exception provision as well as further compromises made with Senators Dodd, Schumer, and Landrieu, dealing with the local controversy exception. As a result of these compromises, they will keep then truly local cases where they ought to be--in State court. Another concern with this amendment is that it is worded in such a way to exclude class actions, not just by State attorneys general but also, in their words, on behalf of State attorneys general. The way this provision is drafted would allow plaintiffs' lawyers to bring class actions and simply include in their complaint a State attorney general's name as a purported class member, arguably to make their class action completely immune to the provisions of this bill. Plaintiffs' lawyers could simply ask State attorneys general to lend their name to a class action lawsuit so as to keep them in the State court. That creates a very serious loophole in this bill. We should not risk creating a situation where State attorneys general can be used as pawns so that crafty class action lawyers can avoid the jurisdictional provisions of this bill. Our bill would put an end to class action abuses without diminishing the ability of State attorneys general to protect their citizens in State court. This is another way for lawyers to keep cases in State courts. This is what this bill is all about, to make sure that cases that have national significance are not determined by some county judge in one of our 50 States that end up having national implications. Those cases should be in Federal court and, for the most part, under our legislation will be. This amendment would seriously create a loophole in the reforms we are trying to accomplish with this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, when I spoke prior to Senator Pryor's amendment, I made a pitch that I want to repeat about the opportunity we have now, after four Congresses--this is the fifth Congress--to get this bill to the President. It has passed the House so many times, and we have never been able to get it to finality in the Senate. We have the House in position now, even after all of these compromises we have made which have diluted the bill more than I would have liked to have done, of passing a bill the leadership in the House of Representatives tells us they will take the way we pass it and send it to the President as long as there are no changes, and this assurance about no changes comes from two standpoints. One, in the previous Congress we made compromises to get Democratic votes with the idea that once those changes were made and we got this bill through the Senate, they would not be changed in the House. We also got the assurance from the House that they would not change it, even though the House has passed much stronger legislation a couple of times. So there is an assurance in this body for people who would rather not pass strong legislation but they know there needs to be some changes in class action regime, to make some modest changes, and make sure that what they agree to will be what gets to the President, and then the House saying now for a new Congress they will pass this legislation without amendment. So every Democrat who has made a compromise with us so we can get this bill behind us can be satisfied that they will not be nickeled and dimed to death. Obviously, not all Democrats are satisfied with this sort of agreement and that is their right as individual Senators to try to change it more. But as I said before, any changes in this bill negate both promises that have been made. It means the promise to go through the House will not be kept because the bill has been changed in the Senate, and then for those Senators who got the assurance from me that this bill would not be changed in the House so that they were not nickeled and dimed away with their compromises are going to lose the opportunity of getting what they want without the assurance that somewhere else in the legislative process, probably conference, there might be a much stronger bill than they want. This bill was originally introduced in the 105th Congress, then the 106th Congress, then the 107th Congress. We moved it in the 108th Congress. Now we are here in the 109th Congress. Almost everybody seems to believe there is some reform that needs to be done in the class action tort regime. This bill is it. Now we have amendments. We defeated the amendment of Senator Pryor. We had an amendment by Senator Bingaman that we were going to deal with, that would have destroyed this compromise. There must have been a belief on the part of the people behind the Bingaman amendment that it would not go, so instead of the Bingaman amendment we have in front of us a Feinstein modification of the Bingaman amendment. I am in the same position I was with the amendment of Senator Pryor, asking people to defeat the Feinstein-Bingaman amendment. I will be very precise why that needs to be done. But the substance of the amendment and my arguing against the substance of the amendment should not carry as much weight with my colleagues as my pleading with them that we defeat all amendments because this bill has been compromised to satisfy a supermajority of Senators--not a bare majority, a supermajority. So I take this opportunity to speak out against the Feinstein- Bingaman ``choice of law'' amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Pure and simple, this amendment blows a hole in the bill and guts the modest reforms we are finally going to be able to get to the President. This amendment would require the Federal courts to certify a class that does not meet basic class action requirements. In addition, what the amendment does is a contravention of the requirements of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which rule says you have to have similar law in fact in order to certify a class. The net result of this amendment is that it would require Federal judges to hear dissimilar claims that do not belong together as a class action, and would not be allowed to proceed as a class action under current law. Requiring courts to subclass does not make this amendment any better. This amendment would require Federal judges to not follow the requirements for certifying class under rule 23. Why do the proponents of this amendment want to do that? They have given reasons for their amendment and I think, whether this is their intention or not--and I should not question the motives of people--but the end result is perpetuating the abuses that were already seen in the magnet courts, these infamous judicial hellholes which have been referred to. I remember only one out of dozens throughout the country, but one was in Madison County, IL. The purpose of class actions is obvious: to enable courts to decide large numbers of similar claims and to do it fairly and to do it in an efficient manner. Different claims cannot be pulled together as a class action because that would be unfair and it would violate the due process rights of both plaintiffs and defendants. But the Feinstein- Bingaman amendment would require judges to do just that. As you know, that is exactly what the problem is all about, what our bill was trying to correct: judges certifying classes that should never have been certified in the first place. Rules are in place as to what should or should not be certified, and the Feinstein-Bingaman amendment blows those rules off. The efficiency and the rationale of that rule should not be followed. The Federal courts should undertake a review to determine whether multistate class actions involving State law claims should be certified. They need to determine that the legal claims are sufficiently similar to warrant class certification. Most State courts make the same kind of determinations as well. The magnet State courts, on the other hand, do not make this determination and that is why they certify huge classes that involve claims that are completely dissimilar, to the detriment of both plaintiff and defendant. That ends up being a due process problem. In addition, this amendment before us ignores how diversity jurisdiction works, and it eviscerates the reforms that are contained in our bill. Another argument for this amendment by Senator Feinstein and Senator Bingaman is allegedly that Federal courts refuse to certify nationwide class actions. That sort of presumption is plain wrong. That is not the case. There are numerous examples of where Federal courts have certified multistate class actions based on State law claims. There is not a rule against nationwide class actions. Federal courts do certify nationwide class actions where the laws that govern the claims are similar. Class actions are also certified when the plaintiffs' lawyers organize the claims in a manner so that they may be litigated fairly, even under differing State laws, where they appropriately organize the claims into subclasses. But this amendment does not give the courts any choice to determine whether it is appropriate to subclass. So for a third time during this period that I am standing, I remind my colleagues again about the extensive efforts on the part of Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, Senator Hatch of Utah, and this Senator from Iowa, getting to this version of the Class Action Fairness Act. No one can question that we negotiated in good faith with our colleague Senator Feinstein, as well as our colleagues Senators Dodd, Schumer, and Landrieu, to make changes to address concerns they had about the original bill introduced. The bill we have now will keep many class actions in State court under the Feinstein home State exception. That was accepted in committee, way back there in early 2003, in the 108th Congress. Also under the local controversy exception we crafted with Senators Dodd, Schumer, and Landrieu, that will stay in State court. So I hope I get us back in an understandable way, and what people think is rational after all these compromises, so that there is no further need to change this bottom-line compromise. Again, the purpose of this amendment is to gut the modest, commonsense reforms contained in this bill. This is an attempt to legitimize the class action abuse we have been seeing in the magnet State courts. It is an attempt to legalize the problem by putting it into the rule. All I can say is, that is not all right. It is not OK. If we are serious about putting a stop to class action abuse, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter by Walter Dellinger.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is no loophole in this bill. This amendment would force the Federal courts to certify dissimilar and unmanageable claims, which is the problem occurring in certain magnet State courts right now. This is a fairness and a due process problem. This is not really a compromise at all. It defeats the purpose of the bill. The amendment tells courts to ignore State law and forget about fairness just so a class can be certified. It would require courts to subclass even where it would be unwieldy and impractical. If you want to stop the abuses and pass class action reform, you will oppose this amendment. This underlying bill is the compromise.

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank my colleague from Delaware, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are in our second day of debate on the important Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Because of my responsibilities as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I have not had a chance to participate in the debate of a bill that I have been the sponsor of going back to the 105th Congress. It is a pleasure for me to participate and anticipate the passage of this legislation. It is about time that the Senate gets this bill done and gets it to the President. Of course, I am very pleased that Majority Leader Frist sees this as an important enough issue to move so early in the 109th Congress. I also thank Chairman Specter, as new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for getting this class action bill through committee so very quickly. I hope we can move expeditiously with few or no amendments, pass this bill, and have the President sign it, which we are sure he will. My colleagues will recall that in the 108th Congress, Senator Frist brought the class action fairness bill to the floor in October 2003, but we were not able to proceed to the bill. We lost the vote on cloture on the motion to proceed by just a one-vote margin; in other words, 50 votes as opposed to the 60-vote supermajority that cloture takes. After that vote, I worked with Senator Hatch, who was then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and our lead Democratic cosponsors, Senators Kohl and Carper, to modify the bill to address concerns that were raised by three Senators and maybe others, but I remember specifically Senators Dodd, Landrieu, and Schumer. Then we reintroduced the Class Action Fairness Act in February 2004 as a new bill with a new number, S. 2062. It contained the compromise language that we worked out with Senators Dodd, Landrieu, and Schumer. Senator Frist then attempted to bring up the bill last July. Unfortunately, we were once again denied the ability to close debate on the bill, and we lost, again, a cloture vote. This was because Senators wanted to offer nongermane amendments--amendments, as you know, Mr. President, that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the underlying bill. This was particularly disappointing to me after all of the hard work we had done to reach an acceptable compromise with several Democrats. We could have passed the bill in the 108th Congress, but raw politics got in the way. Now is the time to get this bill done. We have reintroduced the language contained in last year's bill, a compromise worked out with Senators Dodd, Landrieu, and Schumer. That is what is now before us in S. 5, the very same bill. We made no changes to last year's bipartisan compromise. So I hope we can stop having politics interfere with this bill and pass what is a relatively modest bill that will help reform a class action regime that has gotten to be very bad, which ends up most of the time serving no one except the lawyers who bring these class action suits. I would like to give some background on the need for this very important legislation. Everyone has heard about the abuses going on with the current class action system. These problems undermine the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants. Class members often do not understand what their rights are in a class action suit, while the class action lawyers drive the lawsuits and the settlements. Class members cannot understand what the court and the settlement notices say because they are in very small type and written in hard-to-understand legalese. So class members often do not understand their rights and they don't understand the consequences of their actions with respect to the class action lawsuit in which they are invited to participate. Moreover, many class action settlements only benefit the lawyers, with little or nothing going to the class members. We are all familiar with the class action settlements where the plaintiffs got coupons of little value, or maybe no value, and the lawyers got all of the money available in the settlement agreement. So what is the point of bringing a lawsuit? I thought it was to find redress for the plaintiffs and not to benefit the lawyers who bring the case. But that is what happens many times now in these class action lawsuits. The lawyers drive those cases, not the individuals who allegedly have been injured. The lawyers are the ones who get the millions and millions of dollars in fees while the people who allegedly have been injured get worthless coupons. In addition, the current class action rules are such that the majority of large nationwide class actions are allowed to proceed to State court when they are clearly the kinds of cases that should be decided in Federal Court. The U.S. Constitution provides that cases involving citizens of two different States and an amount of controversy of $75,000 can be heard in Federal Court. However, the law has been interpreted in such a way that class action lawsuits; that is, cases involving large sums of money, citizens of many different States, and issues of national concern, have been restricted to State courts even though they have national consequences. Crafty lawyers game the system. Crafty lawyers file these large class actions in certain courts. They are shopping for magnet State courts, and they are able to keep them there. For example, in Madison County, IL, the most notorious class action magnet State court, which has been called a ``judicial hellhole,'' class action filings have jumped from 77 in 2002 to 106 in 2003. I understand that Madison County has had an increase of over 5,000 percent in the number of class action filings since 1998. That surely says something. Clearly, the judges there are playing somewhat fast and loose with the class action rules when they are deciding whether to certify a class action lawsuit. So unscrupulous lawyers are gaming the present rules to steer their class action cases to these certain preferred State courts, such as Madison County, IL, where judges are quick to certify classes, quick to approve settlements, with little regard to the class members' interests or the parties' due process rights. Of course, that is the reason for this legislation. We need to do something about this kind of abuse of the judicial process. Class action lawsuits at least should have the opportunity to be heard in Federal court because usually they are the cases that involve the most amount of money, citizens from all across the country, and issues of nationwide concern. Why should a State county court be deciding these kinds of class action cases that impact people all across the country? Of course, that just doesn't make sense to me; hence, the authorship of this legislation. I hope it doesn't make sense to at least a majority of my colleagues. Both the House and Senate held numerous hearings on this legislation and on other kinds of class action abuse. We heard about class lawyers manipulating case pleadings to avoid removal of a class action lawsuit to Federal court, where it should be, claiming that their clients suffered under $75,000 in damages in order to avoid the Federal jurisdictional amount threshold. We heard about class lawyers crafting lawsuits in such a way to defeat the complete diversity requirement by ensuring that at least one named class member was from the same State as one of the defendants even if every other class member was from one of the other 49 States. We heard about attorneys who filed the same class action lawsuit in dozens of State courts all across the country in a race to see which judge would certify the fastest and the broadest of class. We heard about class action lawyers entering into collusive settlements with defendant attorneys which were not in the best interest of class members. These are only a few of the gamesmanship tactics lawyers like to utilize to bring down the entire class action legal system. The bottom line is that many of these class actions are just plain frivolous lawsuits that are cooked up by the lawyers to make a quick buck, with little or no benefit to the class members who the lawyers are supposed to be representing. Out-of-control frivolous filings are a real drag on the economy. Many a good business is being hurt by this frivolous litigation cost. Unfortunately, the current class action rules are contributing to the cost of business all across America, and it particularly hits small business because it is the small business that gets caught up in the class action web without the resources to fight. Too many frivolous lawsuits are being filed. Too many good companies and consumers are having to pay for this lawyer greed. Make no mistake about it, there is a real impact on the bottom line for many of these companies and, to some extent, on the economy as a whole. They have to eat this increased litigation cost or else it is farmed out to consumers, such as you and me, and this is all in the form of higher prices for goods and services we buy. This is unacceptable, and we need to do something about this. We need to restore some commonsense reform to our legal system. We need to restore common sense to the class action system. We should pass this bill. I now wish to say something about class action lawsuits. They can be a very good tool for many plaintiffs with the same claims to band together to seek redress from a company that has wronged them. I am not against the use of class action lawsuits, and neither are other supporters of this bill. We are not here to put a stop to the class action tool. I certainly know my friend and original cosponsor of this bill, Senator Kohl, feels the same as I do. People who have been injured should be able to sue companies that do not follow the law. Our problem is many class actions are not proceeding in the way they were originally intended. Our problem is many of these lawsuits are not fair and violate the due process rights of both plaintiffs as well as defendants. Our problem is many times these lawsuits are not helping the class members at all. They are an effective tool for lawyers to make a big, easy buck. Our problem is these kinds of suits should have an opportunity to be heard in Federal court, not stuck in a magnet court in a county that has no connection whatsoever to the case. That is why Senator Kohl and I joined forces several Congresses ago--this is the fifth Congress this bill has been around for us to try to do something about this situation. That is a period of 8 years past and 10 years including this Congress--to do something about the problems we were seeing and about the runaway abuses. The Class Action Fairness Act will address some of the more egregious problems with the class action system while preserving class action lawsuits as a very important tool which brings representation to the unrepresented. Let me underscore for my colleagues that S. 5 is a very delicate compromise. As my colleagues already know, this bill has gone through many changes to accommodate Democratic Senators, much to the frustration of some of my Republican colleagues who think we have gone too far. I worked in good faith with these colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring people together and to address valid concerns to increase support for this bill, most importantly to, hopefully, have 60 votes on board, the supermajority it takes to bring a halt to debate, to get to finality, to get this bill passed, to get it to the House where we are told it will pass if we do not change it, and go to the President very quickly. I did not think then that we needed to make any changes to the class action bill that was originally introduced several Congresses ago, but as compromise is often necessary in this process if I wanted to move the class action bill forward, I did my best to listen to the issues raised and to make modifications to the bill where there was room for that compromise. Nevertheless, with all the compromises we cut, S. 5 still retains the goal we set out to achieve: to fix some of the most egregious problems we are seeing in the class action system and to provide a more legitimate forum for nationwide class action lawsuits. The deal that was struck is a very carefully crafted compromise that does not need to be modified any further. So I am asking my colleagues to withhold the offering of amendments to avoid disrupting the balance we have achieved. My colleagues should not be fooled. The amendments that are going to be offered are an attempt to weaken or gut the bill. Some amendments may sound reasonable, but they pose a problem in the other body. Other amendments may sound good, but they do not have anything to do with class action reform. Other amendments are, plain and simple, poison pills. We have worked far too long and we have worked far too hard to have this bill come down because folks are misled into supporting an amendment that in reality perpetuates the problem and preserves the status quo. We have worked far too long and too hard to have this bill delayed and complicated with amendments that the House will never accept. We have also worked far too long and far too hard to have this bill bogged down by amendments that are not critical to the core purpose of the legislation. So then let's get this bill past the finish line, not create more hurdles and obstacles. I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendments and keep the bill clean. How often do we in this body, the Senate of the United States, have the respect the House is giving us by saying if this bill is not changed any more, they will buy it the way it is? That happens once in a decade. We ought to take advantage of it. I would like to highlight, before I sit down, some of the changes we made to the bill to increase support for this bill since Senator Kohl and I introduced the first Class Action Fairness Act in the 105th Congress, now 8 years ago. The bill, as was originally introduced, did several things. It required that notice of proposed settlements in all class actions, as well as all class notices, be in clear, easily understood English and include all material settlements, including amounts and sources of attorney's fees. Since plaintiffs give up their right to sue, they need to understand the ramifications of their actions and should not have to hire another attorney to find out what these notices mean. Then our bill required that State attorneys general or other responsible State government officials be notified of any proposed class settlement that would affect the residents of their States. We included this provision to help protect class members because such notice would provide State officials with an opportunity to object if the settlement terms are unfair to their citizens. Our bill also required that courts closely scrutinize class action settlements where the plaintiffs only receive coupons or noncash awards while the lawyers get the bulk of the money. It required the Judicial Conference to report back to the Congress on the best practices in class action cases and how to best ensure fairness of these class action settlements. Finally, the bill allowed more class action lawsuits to be removed from State court to Federal court. The bill eliminated the complete diversity rule for class action cases but left in State courts those class actions with fewer than 100 plaintiffs, class actions that involve less than $5 million, and class actions in which a State government entity is the primary defendant. Our bill still does many of these things, but we have made a number of modifications to get this bipartisan support. In the Judiciary Committee in the 108th Congress, we incorporated Senator Feinstein's amendment which would leave in State court class action cases brought against a company in its home State where at least two- thirds or more of the class members are also residents of that State. We also incorporated changes to address issues raised by Senator Specter relative to how mass actions would be treated under this bill. In our negotiations and outside the committee with Senators Schumer, Dodd, and Landrieu, we made numerous changes, so I will only mention a few of the more important compromises we reached. For example, we made changes to the coupon settlement provisions in the bill providing that attorney's fees must be based either on the value of the coupons actually redeemed by class members or the hours actually billed in prosecuting the case. We deleted for these Senators the bounties provision because of a concern that it would harm civil rights plaintiffs. We deleted provisions in the bill that dealt with specific notice requirements because the Judicial Conference had already approved similar notice arrangements to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To address questions about the merry-go-round issue, we eliminated a provision dealing with the dismissal of cases that fail to meet rule 23 requirements so that existing law applies. We deleted a provision allowing plaintiff class action members to remove class actions to Federal court because of gaming concerns. We placed reasonable time limits on the appellate review of remand orders in the bill. We clarified that citizenship of proposed class members is to be determined on the date the plaintiff filed the original complaint or when plaintiffs amend the complaint. We made further modifications to the Feinstein compromise already referred to and to the mass action language Senator Specter was concerned about. We clarified that nothing in the bill restricts the authority of the Judicial Conference to promulgate rules with respect to class actions. Finally, we drafted a new what is called local class action exception, which would allow class members to remain in State court if, one, more than two-thirds of the class members are citizens of this forum State; two, there is at least one in-State defendant from whom significant relief is sought by members of the class and whose conduct forms a significant basis for the plaintiffs' claims; three, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State where the action was originally filed; and, four and lastly, no other class action asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons has been filed during the preceding 3 years. We did all of this to ensure that truly local class action cases, such as a plant explosion or some other localized event, would be able to stay in State court. So we have made significant concessions to get our Democratic colleagues on board this Class Action Fairness Act. Of course, some of my Republican colleagues feel we have made too many compromises. But these folks on the other side of the aisle have been telling us that they are ready to support the bill and get it passed, so the time has come that hopefully no more politics are played, that we get down to business and we get this bill done. It is time to make real progress on a class of lawsuits that has become burdensome for business, not beneficial to the plaintiffs, and enriching of attorneys. If we do that--and we do that when we pass this bill--again I want to remind my colleagues that we have crafted a carefully balanced bill that consists of a number of compromises and some would say too many compromises. I think we have done a pretty good job of addressing legitimate concerns with the bill and I am hopeful we will not see a lot of amendments to disrupt this compromise. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me and vote against all killer amendments that gut or weaken the bill. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me and vote against poison-pill amendments that the House will never accept. All of these amendments need to be defeated because we should send a clean bill to the House. All of our hard work on forging a bipartisan compromise bill should not go down the drain. The bottom line is this class action reform is badly needed. Both plaintiffs and defendants alike are calling for change. The Class Action Fairness Act will help curb the many problems that have plagued the class action system. S. 5 will increase class members' protection and ensure the approval of fair settlements. It will allow nationwide class actions to be heard in a proper forum, the Federal courts, but keep primarily State class actions where they belong, in State court. It will preserve the process but put a stop to the more egregious abuses. It will also put a stop to the frivolous lawsuits that are a drag on the economy. Now that we have worked together on a very delicate compromise, we should be able to get this bipartisan bill done without changes. I see another person who has worked very hard on this bill has come to the Chamber and that is Senator Carper of Delaware. There is no person who has been more determined to get this bill passed and get it passed in a bipartisan way, and I appreciate very much the cooperation he has given us over the last year but, more importantly, in a time when I have been involved with a lot of issues other than class action, he has kept me focused on this bill that I want to get passed, and he has helped me get the job done. I thank Senator Carper as well as other Democrats who have helped in this process. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a fallen Army soldier, SGT Javier Marin, Jr., of the A Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. Sergeant Marin died on the 24th of January, 2005, in Mohammed Sacran, Iraq, when his military vehicle overturned into a nearby canal. He had just turned 29 years old on the 21st of January. Sergeant Marin is survived by his mother, Leslie Marin, and his sister, Evalina Marin, who live in Storm Lake, IA, as well as his father, Javier Marin, Sr., and many more family members and friends. This simple tribute does not do justice to the immense courage and patriotism exemplified by SGT Javier Marin, Jr. In times of war and conflict such as this, it is often difficult to appreciate the gravity of a single loss in the midst of the increasing numbers of those who have given their lives. However, it is important that we take the time to reflect upon the lives of each of the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the peace and freedom of the United States and the world. Today we honor the life of Sergeant Marin as we contemplate the ideals of liberty and democracy for which he fought and sacrificed. SGT Javier Marin, Jr., and all the men and women who have lost their lives in service to their country will have our eternal gratitude. My prayers are with Javier's family and friends and my most heart-felt appreciation goes to the late SGT Javier Marin, Jr.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of an Iowa Marine who has fallen in service to his country in Iraq. Marine Corporal Nathan A. Schubert, of the 1st Battalion 3rd Marine Regiment, was killed on January 26, 2005 when his helicopter crashed during a sandstorm near Ar Rutbah, Iraq. The helicopter carried Corporal Schubert and thirty other Marines who were part of a security mission to aid in the safe conduct of the national democratic elections last Sunday. He is survived by his mother, Cheryl Winklepeck, a sister, Elizabeth Householder, and a brother, Matt. Corporal Schubert died one day before his 23rd birthday. A native of Cherokee, IA, Cpl. Schubert attended Washington High School and went on to continue his studies at Kirkwood Community College in the fall of 2001. Just weeks after the terrorist attacks on September 11, Nathan Schubert enlisted in the Marines to fulfill what he saw as his patriotic duty. Describing Corporal Schubert as a friendly, likable, and patriotic young man, his brother noted that he ``lived life to the fullest.'' I ask all of my colleagues in this body and all Americans to remember with respect, admiration, and gratitude this courageous Marine who made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of the principles we value most as Americans: freedom, democracy, and justice. Corporal Schubert died honorably while supporting and defending these values by aiding the birth and development of democracy in Iraq. He is to be commended for his bravery as he joins the honorable ranks of those Americans who have gone before him in service of their country. My prayers go out to Nathan's family and friends and my greatest respect and appreciation go to Cpl Nathan A. Schubert.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.