[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 4, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1502-S1518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION REFORM ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to offer. I 
will not do it at this point because in order to offer the amendment, I 
have to ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside. 
I will describe at least what I am intending to offer. I am going to 
speak for a couple of minutes because there will be time later to 
consider this amendment.
  This amendment does not deal directly with the underlying 
legislation. It certainly deals with consumers and this bill deals with 
consumers. I first applaud my colleague from Arkansas for the work he 
has done on the bill. I have a couple of amendments to the bill that I 
will offer as we move along. But this amendment that I wish to offer 
deals with something else that is urgent and important, and either I 
get it done on this bill or the next authorization bill that comes 
along.
  The price of oil is somewhere around $103 a barrel at this point. It 
is bouncing around up in that stratosphere, and the price of gasoline, 
depending on where one lives, is $3, $3.25, $3.50, some analysts say 
going to $4 a gallon. Even as the price of oil has ratcheted way up, 
this Government of ours and the Department of Energy is taking oil from 
the Gulf of Mexico by awarding royalty-in-kind contracts to companies

[[Page S1503]]

with to the Federal Government. Instead of putting this oil into the 
supply pipeline by allowing companies to simply sell it, our Government 
is actually putting oil underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  I support the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but I do not support 
filling it when oil is $103 per barrel. Putting 60,000 to 70,000 
barrels per day, every single day, underground makes no sense at all. 
That puts upward pressure on gas prices. The EIA Administrator 
estimated this morning at an Energy and Natural Resources hearing that 
the Government's action is raising prices about a nickel a gallon. The 
fact is, I believe it is more than that.
  In any event, I do not think we ought to be taking oil out of the 
supply pipeline as a deliberate policy of the Federal Government and 
sticking it underground in these caverns. That makes no sense to me.
  This issue came up in the hearing this morning. We have had hearings 
previously on this topic. I have indicated I intend to offer 
legislation. My legislation would do two things. It would say, at least 
for the next year: Let's take a pause on sticking oil underground and 
taking it out of the supply. Let's take a pause as long as oil is above 
$75 a barrel. When oil is above $75 a barrel, let's at least, for the 
next year, not be taking it out of the supply and sticking it 
underground.
  Here is what is happening. On this chart, these are places that our 
Federal Government is now putting oil underground--Bayou Choctaw, West 
Hackberry, Big Hill, and Bryan Mound. We are getting oil from the Gulf 
of Mexico and putting it underground in these salt domes.
  The price of oil is subject to a lot of things including excess 
speculation these days which I have described on the floor of the 
Senate previously. We had a hearing on this topic. Here are comments 
from Fadel Gheit, a top analyst from the Oppenheimer & company. He 
says: There is absolutely no shortage of oil. I'm absolutely convinced 
that oil prices shouldn't be a dime above $55 a barrel. Oil speculators 
include the largest financial institutions in the world are speculating 
on the future's market for oil. I call it the world's largest gambling 
hall.
  He is talking about the futures market on which these prices are 
made.

       I call it the world's largest gambling hall. . . . It's 
     open 24/7. Unfortunately, it's totally unregulated. . . .This 
     is like a highway with no cops and no speed limit and 
     everybody is going 120 miles an hour.

  We have hedge funds that are speculating every day in a significant 
way in the oil futures market. We have investment banks that are 
speculating in the oil futures market. In fact, we now read that 
investment banks are actually buying storage facilities so they can 
take oil off the market, put it in storage, and wait until the price 
goes up. We have not had that before. This is not about a supply-and-
demand relationship of oil. It is about speculators who are driving up 
the price of oil and a futures oil market that is rampant with 
speculation.
  Even as that is occurring and we see oil bouncing at $103 a barrel, 
we have a policy in the Federal Government to take oil from the Gulf of 
Mexico and stick it underground. That makes no sense to me at all. What 
we ought to be doing is, the royalty-in-kind oil we get from those 
wells that belongs to the people of the United States that comes to our 
Government ought to go into the marketplace to be sold, to be part of 
the supply system. The Federal Government gets the money for it because 
it was the Federal Government's payment for that oil as part of the 
royalty. The oil goes into the supply pipeline and, as a result of 
that, we put downward pressure on gas prices.
  Instead, as a matter of deliberate policy, our Government has decided 
to stick it underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is now 
about 60,000 to 70,000 barrels a day, and it is going to increase to 
125,000 barrels a day in the second half of this year. It is oblivious 
to all common sense to be putting upward pressure on gas prices as a 
deliberate policy of the Federal Government. It makes no sense.
  As I indicated, my amendment would very simply say: Let's take a 
pause; let's use a deep reservoir of common sense, take a pause during 
this year, during a 1-year period, that if the price of oil remains 
above $75 a barrel, we ought not put that oil underground.
  The average price, by the way, in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 
oil that has been stored is about $27 a barrel. Why on Earth would you 
buy oil at $103 a barrel, put upward pressure on gas prices, and stick 
that expensive oil underground? It makes no sense.
  I indicated that I do not intend to speak at length about this 
amendment. I have spoken about this before and will later. I see 
Senator Barrasso from Wyoming is on the floor. He was part of the 
hearing in the Energy Committee this morning. He and I talked about 
this subject. He and I have some of the same concerns. I visited with 
him, perhaps, about cosponsoring this amendment at some point.
  With that, I don't know whether we have been able to clear offering 
this amendment. I understand not at this point. In order for me to 
offer an amendment--in order for anybody to offer any amendment I have 
to ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside. So if I 
were to offer that, I understand that has not yet been cleared. My hope 
is we will be able to clear it so I will be able to offer this 
amendment later this afternoon.
  Mr. President, I have spoken with the manager of the bill and I will 
withhold asking unanimous consent to offer this amendment that I 
apparently cannot yet get. However, I would like to come back later 
this afternoon and hopefully we can clear my offering this amendment.
  I understand my colleague from Wyoming is seeking recognition. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak in morning business for not more than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.


                   Craig and Susan Thomas Foundation

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, years from now, young people in Wyoming 
will talk about the many events that have helped shape their lives--
people such as their parents, their friends, and their teachers, places 
such as the Tetons, Devil's Tower, and the Wyoming Range, and some will 
say that Craig and Susan Thomas helped change their lives. They will 
say there was a foundation. Almost out of the blue they will say that 
it gave them a scholarship, that it encouraged them to succeed, and 
that it helped them back into school. And one of those individuals will 
be able to say: I now have a great job, I have a family, and I get to 
keep living in Wyoming. These young people will say: If it wasn't for 
the Craig and Susan Thomas Foundation, I don't know where I would be 
today.
  We know the Craig Thomas who fought every day for the people of 
Wyoming, advocating before each of you with a Western common sense that 
is legendary, but on the weekends and on his time in Wyoming, for 
nearly two decades, the one thing our friend Craig Thomas dedicated 
himself tirelessly to was the young people of Wyoming. Every kid--top 
of the class, middle of the class or simply in the class--Craig Thomas 
would want to meet with them, would want to talk with them, want to 
laugh with them. He even played Hacky Sack with them in his cowboy 
boots. He would find out how they were doing, what they were thinking, 
what they were going to do with their lives. He would tell them to find 
out what it was they liked to do the best and then do it.
  Craig believed everyone should be a good citizen, learn as much as 
possible, and then have a chance to be happy. But for economic reasons, 
for family challenges or just a raw deal, we know some of these kids 
face tall hurdles. Some kids have a harder time, and Craig was always 
there to help.
  Many of my colleagues know Craig also had a wonderful partner in his 
mission for Wyoming kids, Susan Thomas. A lifelong teacher herself in 
developmental education, she joined him proudly in reaching out to 
Wyoming's youth. Together they did an amazing job. I saw them do it. I 
know many of my colleagues also saw it when Craig would bring members 
of Susan's classes through the Capitol each year. They would come to 
watch, to learn, and to be invited in.
  Craig and Susan inspired kids across Wyoming and kids right in this 
area

[[Page S1504]]

too. When Craig passed, the letters came streaming in. They came from 
young adults who said that when Craig Thomas told them they could do 
something, that they could be anything they wanted to be, when he 
helped steer them toward achievement, it made a difference in their 
lives. He inspired and he improved their lives.
  Today, March 4, 2008, Susan Thomas is in Cheyenne to launch the Craig 
and Susan Thomas Foundation. It is a foundation that will reach out, 
that will search out, that will find the young Wyoming people who need, 
as Susan says it, a leg up in getting back on a horse after falling 
off.
  Technically, it is a foundation that serves at-risk kids by helping 
them into programs--programs from cosmetology to culinary schools, 
votech to high tech, mechanical to anything they are interested in 
achieving.
  The Craig and Susan Thomas Foundation is also ready to identify these 
young people through many avenues, through the traditional school 
systems but also through people active in the community. For those 
people who champion the causes of Wyoming's young people, the 
foundation will give them special leadership awards.
  This is a program for kids who may not qualify for other programs, 
kids who deserve our attention, kids whom we should not ignore, kids 
whom our Senator Craig Thomas almost instinctively knew how to help, 
how to lift up. The Craig and Susan Thomas Foundation will continue to 
find them, thankfully, and to help them.
  This is an exciting day, and congratulations to Susan Thomas, who, 
with courage and love, carries on Craig's legacy for inspiration, for 
hope, and for a better life for all of Wyoming's young people.
  We miss Craig very much. We are still touched by his deeds. Good 
luck, Susan, and our very best to you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. PRYOR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let me start our conversation this 
afternoon about the consumer product safety bill with a chart. I will 
come back to it in a few minutes, but as the camera focuses on this 
chart, these are the toys that were recalled in the last year. You can 
see it starts in March of 2007 and goes to February of 2008. 
Represented on this calendar are the record number of recalls that we 
saw last year. I am sure members of the public recall over the summer 
months--May, June, July, August, and even into September--there were a 
series of newspaper articles, news magazine stories, television, radio, 
in addition to Internet stories about the excessive number of recalls.
  Really, this matter came to the public's attention through the toy 
recall issue. Now, of course the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
deals with a lot more than just toys. Toys are very important, and it 
is a big piece of what they do, but the CPSC does a lot more than toys. 
But this chart shows the toys, to give a sense of how many recalls we 
are looking at every year. And what we have done is, we have picked one 
item that would represent that recall every month. You can see that 
most months it is four or five recalls in that given month.
  So the CPSC has been very busy. Unfortunately, that is part of the 
problem. They are overwhelmed with the marketplace today, and it has 
been very difficult for the CPSC to keep up with the tremendous number 
of imports.
  By the way, every single toy on this calendar is from China--every 
single toy. I didn't come here to pick on China today, but facts are 
facts. Last year, in 2007, every toy recall was from China.
  One of the things we are trying to accomplish in this legislation is 
to make sure imported toys meet our safety standards. This is a very 
basic function of Government; that is, to provide for the health and 
safety and the general welfare of the people. The Consumer Product 
Safety Commission is on the front line of doing that.
  Now, I want to talk about this again in a few moments, so I will 
leave it up and allow people to look at it if they want. But before I 
do, I want to talk about another provision in the legislation that some 
have found to be controversial. To be honest with you, some of this 
controversy is because people have looked at the previous version of 
the bill.
  In the previous version of the bill, we had an attorney general 
enforcement provision that was very aggressive and somewhat open, and 
people were very concerned that the attorneys general might go wild, so 
to speak, and start to initiate litigation and bring lawsuits that the 
CPSC was reluctant to bring.
  Regardless of how the committee bill was drafted, that has changed in 
this legislation. I want to be very clear for my colleagues and, again, 
for staff members who are watching in their offices on Capitol Hill, 
that has changed dramatically. I want to go through those changes, if I 
may, very quickly.
  First, when we talk about adding State attorneys general to this 
enforcement mechanism for the CPSC, we are talking about putting more 
cops on the beat or, as someone said the other day, ``more feet on the 
street.'' You can call it what you want, but the idea is that we have a 
choice to make. If we want to enforce CPSC decisions, we can do it one 
of two ways: We can hire more people at CPSC and maybe the Justice 
Department and pay another $5 million, $10 million, $20 million, $50 
million, or whatever it may be for enforcement personnel, who are 
Federal employees, or we can turn this responsibility over to the 
States and allow the States a piece of this so if there are problems in 
their home States, they can go after their problems with no Federal 
taxpayer expense. And that is the route we have chosen in S. 2663.
  I know there are some, especially in the business community, who fear 
the attorney general. When I say that, I mean the State attorney 
general. They have seen what happened in the tobacco case several years 
ago. They have seen what has happened in a few other cases since then, 
and they fear what the attorney general can do, and will do, given the 
opportunity. Well, let me say a couple of things about that.
  First, I was the attorney general of my State, and I know how that 
office works and I know how attorneys general think and the approach 
they take to problem solving. I would say that most attorneys general 
have resource issues like everybody else. They are strained in terms of 
how much time and attention they can devote to certain matters. Most 
AGs--not all but most AGs--have the consumer protection ability in 
their State offices right now. There are very few who don't.
  The other thing that is very important about the attorney general is, 
in the States, the attorney general position is a very respected 
position. If you take a poll around the country and ask various people 
in their States, they have a high degree of respect for the attorney 
general because, by and large, these men and women have done a great 
public service for their States. In fact, we have to remember, as 
Members of the Senate, these attorneys general are elected by the very 
same people we are. I think it is 44 States--I can't remember the exact 
number--where the attorney general is popularly elected. There are a 
few that are not. I think Tennessee has the State supreme court appoint 
the attorney general. But, regardless, most State AGs are elected by 
the people, and the people trust them.
  The other thing I wanted to say about attorneys general is, in 
general, the reason the State attorneys general act is because Congress 
fails to act. We saw that in the tobacco case. Several years ago--
again, this has been about 10 years ago now or a little more--there was 
a bill in Congress to regulate tobacco and to fundamentally change 
Federal tobacco law and the national tobacco policy. Again, I don't 
remember exactly what year this was--it was sometime in the mid-1990s, 
I don't remember exactly, but that bill got bogged down. That bill did 
not make it out of the Congress, and it never became law.
  That was the triggering mechanism for the States' tobacco litigation 
to rev up. I think it had existed before that, but once the Congress 
failed to act,

[[Page S1505]]

once people here in Washington couldn't address and couldn't resolve 
one of the Nation's great problems, the States acted. And that is the 
nature of it.
  So one thing I encourage my colleagues to think about is to think 
about our acting and our taking care of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission so we don't see that patchwork out in the many States, where 
State legislators come in with these great ideas about consumer product 
safety legislation, where State AGs don't try to get creative and come 
up with some sort of master plan for litigation. Let's avoid that. 
Let's pass this S. 2663, the CPSC Reform Act. Let's pass this and allow 
the State AGs some enforcement responsibility but also keep this in the 
Federal purview.
  Let me talk briefly about that. S. 2663 would authorize the State 
attorneys general to bring a civil action to seek--and this is very 
important--injunctive relief only for clear violations of the statute 
or clear violations of orders by the CPSC. So I need to be very clear.
  What we are talking about is enforcement only. We are talking about 
injunctive relief only. That means no money damages. That is what we 
are talking about. We are talking about the States watching the CPSC, 
maybe the best example, maybe doing a recall somewhere in the State. 
They find that product is still on the shelves; it should not be. Maybe 
it is showing up in Dollar Stores, maybe some retailers like small guys 
or whatever ignoring it. The State attorney general can step in and get 
those products off the shelf.
  You all know as well as I do the way that is going to work in the 
real world is the minute the attorney general shows up at that store, 
they are going to get those products off the shelves. That is the way 
it works.
  It is like a friend of mine told me--one time I called him up and I 
was the attorney general. He said: Oh, man, my worst nightmare is to 
have the attorney general call me at my office because you never know 
what the AG is going to do. It is like having ``60 Minutes'' show up in 
your front lobby or something.
  But, nonetheless, that is the way it is going to work. The mere fact 
that the States have this authority gives a local hammer to the CPSC 
that they do not have right now. Right now, what we have to do is rely 
on the Justice Department or we have to rely on CPSC employees to turn 
around and try to enforce those out in the various States; try to track 
down all of these products wherever they may be.
  It is hurting enforcement. The States and the State attorneys general 
are naturally in a better position to know what is going on in their 
State, and they are in a better position to enforce the CSPC orders in 
their State. That is the way it is.
  Let me say a few more things. I want to get back to this chart. The 
Consumer Product Safety Commission bill we are talking about now not 
only limits the attorneys general in the two ways I have mentioned, 
they have to follow the CPSC, and it has to be for injunctive relief 
only, but also this requires that the State would serve written notice 
on the Commission 60 days prior to them filing. So they have to 
actually notify the Commission.
  The fourth thing, the fourth out of five safeguards that are built 
into this legislation, is that the Commission, if they so choose for 
whatever reason, can intervene in that litigation.
  The last thing is that if the Commission has a pending action going, 
the States cannot get in that action. Here again, we want to make sure 
that the CPSC remains in the driver's seat. One of the myths about this 
legislation that I have heard--and, quite frankly, it has been mostly 
on this side of the aisle and this is in the business community--is if 
we pass my bill, what is going to happen is there are going to be 51 
different standards out there, there is going to be litigation coming 
everywhere. That is not the case. Again, because of Senator Stevens' 
work that he did to make this bill a bipartisan bill, what we are left 
with is these very tight controls on the attorneys general. 
Nonetheless, I think there is value, good value in the States having 
that enforcement mechanism on a State level.
  The other thing I wanted to say before I turn to this chart is this 
is not a new approach. This is not a new approach. In fact, for over a 
decade State attorneys general have been able to seek injunctive relief 
under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act, a statute enforced by the 
CPSC. This authority has not resulted in varying interpretations of law 
that have been a concern--if we give the States some authority, we are 
going to have all of these 51 jurisdictions out there doing all of 
these different things. That is not the case. We have a 10-year track 
record with the Hazardous Substances Act and the States have not abused 
it. They have not abused it. So we know the States can play a very 
important role with the CPSC and with the Federal Government.
  And, by the way, there are lots of other examples--I do not have to 
get into all of those right now, but lots of other examples where there 
is a Federal component and a State component to something where the 
States are allowed to do some enforcement or play a State role, an 
important State role. I think that is what this has as well.
  Let me go to this ``toxic toy'' calendar again. Here again you see 
these toys that look very familiar, like Thomas up here. Here is the 
``Evil Eye'' up here in June of 2007. If I am not mistaken, this is one 
where they actually had kerosene in the eyeballs. Can you imagine that? 
They sell these little rubbery or plastic eyeballs that actually had 
kerosene in those. And this was a children's toy. It is hard to 
believe.
  But you see tops, you see Sesame Street characters, you see little 
things such as building blocks, you see little scooters, dart boards, a 
wagon, you see all kinds of things. Some of these might have had lead 
paint, some of these may present choking hazards. But you can see how 
busy the Consumer Product Safety Commission is.
  Again, part of our legislation is to give them the resources they 
need in order to do these recalls. But you can imagine with all these 
recalls and how busy they are--you know, they are over here in 
September of 2007. They do these toy recalls. Well, suddenly it is 
October, and they are working on five more. They do not have time to go 
back to the State of Arkansas or the State of Delaware or Wyoming or 
wherever it may be in order to go back and enforce what they had been 
doing in the previous month. They do not have time for that or have the 
resources for that.
  Again, I think the way we have this structured is very positive. Let 
me give a few examples of what we are talking about here. Let's start 
with this first month, March of 2007. See this airplane right here? The 
batteries can overheat in this airplane and cause a fire. This animal 
farm, this little farm right here, these little pieces can fall off and 
they become a choking hazard. This keyboard can catch fire. This easel 
has lead in it.
  Then we go over here to April. We see on the infant bouncer, which is 
right here, this little infant chair, a falling hazard out of the seat. 
There may have been something in the design or construction that made 
children susceptible to falling out of this.
  This puzzle has a choking hazard. Again, maybe these knobs come off 
or something will break off, I am not quite sure, but a choking hazard; 
this activities chart, a choking hazard; the bracelets that you see 
here, lead poisoning. Again, you can go down this list. This infant 
swing right here is an entrapment hazard. I am going to tell you, these 
entrapment hazards are terrible stories. I have talked to those 
families before. We had a case in Arkansas a few years ago. It was not 
with an item here, but it was with a crib type playpen. I am going to 
tell you, it collapsed on the child and choked the child. It was 
terrible. Unfortunately, we see that all over the country.

  This ``Evil Eye'' eyeball, they are ``evil eyes'' because they are 
full of kerosene. It is hard to believe. Seriously. Think about that. 
It is hard to believe that any company with any sense at all--I mean, 
unbelievable--would actually put kerosene in the little toys. Think 
about it. I do not know why in the world they would ever do that. But 
that is exactly what they did.
  Again, we can go down a long list of what can go wrong with these 
toys. But this is why the marketplace needs some supervision. The 
marketplace needs something such as the CPSC and someone on a State 
level, such as the

[[Page S1506]]

State attorneys general, to make sure these toys are not present in the 
stream of commerce in the various States.
  Again, the attorneys general provision of this proposed bill has been 
a little bit controversial, but it should not be anymore because we 
have built in the safeguards. We have tried to find the consumer 
protections. We have tried to make the right policy but at the same 
time make sure that the attorneys general have the right parameters on 
them and also keep the CPSC in the driver's seat and to make sure that 
the State AGs can only seek injunctive relief.
  That is a very important point, that injunctive relief, because what 
that means is there are no money damages with an injunction. They are 
going out there to force someone to do something such as pull something 
off the shelf or stop selling something or whatever the case may be. 
That is a very positive development.
  I have heard from a few groups in the last several days on this 
concern about contingencies: We should not have any contingent fees. 
Well, realistically, as a practical matter, I do not think you are 
going to see any contingent fees with injunctive cases. It is very rare 
to find injunctive cases with a contingency fee. I guess it can happen. 
I have seen one example where some lawyers tried to do that.
  The other thing about the State AGs, given the nature of these 
claims, I do not think you are going to see very many States use 
outside counsel. Usually the States bring in outside counsel when there 
is something very complicated, where there are a lot of costs, or it is 
a long-term piece of litigation that is going to take years and maybe 
millions of dollars to repair, very complicated. Again, this is not one 
of those types of cases. This type of case is you see a CPSC finding, 
for example, they say the evil eyeballs, kerosene-filled eyeballs 
cannot be sold in the United States. Some AG is out, they look around, 
they see it being sold in a Dollar Store, they see it being sold in 
some discount store somewhere, and they can go after that store and 
make them get them off the shelves.
  Again, I think what you will see here is probably very little 
litigation. I think once that attorney general tells them, we are about 
to come after you, in my experience as attorney general, most people 
will respond to that and respond to that very quickly. They do not want 
the publicity, they do not want the hassle of selling something such as 
that.
  The last thing I was going to say on the contingent fees is 
contingent fees, of course, are used in lots of different types of 
litigation. But if you think about it with injunctive relief cases, 
there is no money to base a contingent fee on. So if you are going to 
pull a bunch of ``Evil Eye'' eyeballs off the shelf, how does the 
contingent fee work? I think more often than not, much more often than 
not, you will not see any contingent fee cases. I do not think they 
apply.
  The last thing I was going to say on the outside counsel, most States 
have a process you have to go through to get outside counsel. In fact, 
when I was attorney general of Arkansas, we never went through the 
process. We knew about the process; we never went through it. But you 
actually had to get approval of the State legislature and have the 
Governor sign off on it. They did that before I became AG. I do not 
think they ever did that when I was there. I do not think they have 
done it since. Everyone has a different process, but usually the States 
will have to go through an RFP type process that can take months. 
Again, we already have a provision in here where they have to send 
notice to the CPSC for 60 days. So I would be surprised if you see the 
States want to stretch out this timeframe, because usually what they 
have done is they have found a dangerous product in their State, and 
they are trying to get rid of it.
  We have worked very hard to listen to everyone's concerns about the 
State AGs. We have tried to meet these concerns. We have tried to make 
sure the concerns are valid. We have tried to meet those and tried to 
make sure we can keep this bill bipartisan, and hopefully get the 50 
votes on this bill as it is written right now.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Amendments Nos. 4095 and 4096

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
speak on two amendments I called up this morning. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak. These amendments certainly relate to the consumer 
product safety bill my colleague from Arkansas has done such a great 
job ushering through committee and onto the floor. It is clearly a very 
important issue for us as a nation.
  Last year, we were reminded a number of times of the problems when 
the safety of our products is not ensured. We saw some products coming 
in from other countries that gave us cause for concern, as well as from 
within our own country. In the food and drug area, we have certainly 
seen problems there. So we need as a Congress to make sure we do 
everything we can to ensure the products that are sold in this country, 
particularly for our children, are safe.
  This was an issue the House of Representatives took very seriously. 
They have worked for a number of weeks, if not months, on a consumer 
product safety bill. Speaker Pelosi was very involved with the bill, as 
well as Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton. They produced a 
bill that had been vetted by a number of people. It had support from 
consumer product groups, as well as from a number of manufacturers, 
which is key, that we cannot ignore in the Senate. We need to make the 
products safe, but we also need to make sure we do not put such a 
burden on American businesses that they cannot create the jobs and grow 
the opportunities in the future. That is a delicate balancing act which 
I believe the House achieved.
  In a remarkable vote, the House voted unanimously to support the 
consumer product safety bill they had on the floor. That bill does a 
number of things we talk about here.
  Let me first read a quote from Chairman Dingell, who is the chairman 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It was his committee that 
worked so hard on this bill. He said, in a New York Times editorial:

       Let's hope that the Senate acts expeditiously and with the 
     same bipartisan commitment as the House.

  It is a quote I very much appreciate. We were here in the Senate 
disturbed, a few weeks ago, when we worked real hard to pass a 
bipartisan Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that we hoped the 
House would act on in the same bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, the 
House decided they needed to include some provisions, some special 
interest provisions that allow plaintiffs' lawyers to sue the 
telecommunications companies that are helping us intercept messages 
from suspected terrorists.
  I am afraid we are doing the same thing now on the Senate side that 
our House colleagues did. We have a very important issue in front of 
us, which is consumer product safety. The House has sent us a 
bipartisan bill with clear support from all our constituencies. Yet we 
have decided on the Senate side to add some special interest 
provisions, specifically for plaintiffs' attorneys and union bosses.
  The House bill does a lot of the things I believe in and I think most 
of my Senate colleagues believe need to be done.
  First of all, it requires there be third-party testing of children's 
products for lead and other hazards to ensure that unsafe toys never 
make it to the shelves.
  It also requires, as my colleague from Arkansas was mentioning 
earlier today, that manufacturers place distinguishing marks on 
products and packaging of children's products to aid in the recall of 
those products. It can be years later that a product is found to be 
defective and recalled, and we need to have a way to identify those 
defective products and recall them and to notify consumers of safety 
problems.
  The bill the House passed unanimously also replaces the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission's aging testing lab with a modern, state-of-
the-

[[Page S1507]]

art lab that will allow them to find which toys are safe and which ones 
are not.
  It improves the public notice about recalls so we have a better 
system of letting the public know when we find a safety problem.
  It preserves a strong relationship between industry and the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission to ensure that industry continues to share 
information we can use to determine the safety of products.
  It also restores the full panel of five Commissioners to the 
Commission.
  This bill is a bill we should pass in the Senate. We know if we go 
through the process this week of adding amendments and changing the 
bill, even if we ultimately pass a bill, we are looking at weeks if not 
months in conference with the House to come out with a final bill.
  We have an opportunity. If we pass this amendment, which is a 
substitute to the underlying bill, passing the House bill, we can send 
a new bill, a consumer product safety bill, to the President that can 
be implemented right away.
  Again, this is a bill that passed 407 to nothing in the House, with 
the Democratic leadership taking the initiative on this bill and 
Republicans agreeing. What we are doing here in the Senate is adding a 
number of provisions that are not for consumer product safety but 
designed to create loopholes for special interests.
  One is the whistleblower protection provision, which I have a 
separate amendment to strike. There are ways we can fix this provision. 
We have a Federal standard we apply to our own agencies that does not 
create an open-ended litigation process but focuses more on protecting 
those who make us aware of a problem that an employee tells us about. 
We need to do that in industry.
  I am certainly willing to work with the majority on this issue. I 
believe Senator Cornyn has an amendment that applies that Federal 
standard, which would improve this legislation, provide whistleblower 
protection, but at the same time not create a playground for 
plaintiffs' attorneys as well as create an opening, as this bill does, 
for disgruntled employees to wreak havoc inside an organization.
  The way the bill is set up, any employee--who may be aware he is 
getting ready to lose his job for incompetence or something else--can 
complain about a safety issue, which may or may not be real, and that 
employee is basically guaranteed a job for life because this bill does 
not allow a company to fire someone who complained about a safety 
problem. Even if there was not a safety problem, all the employee has 
to do is say they had a reasonable belief there was a safety problem.

  Folks, it is hard enough to do business in this country today. It 
seems everything we do in this Congress makes it more expensive and 
more difficult for our companies to compete in a global economy. 
Countries throughout Europe lowered their corporate tax rate to 25 
percent. China has lowered its corporate tax rate. We continue to keep 
ours at a level that makes it very difficult for our companies to 
compete. We need to realize, as we seek consumer product safety, 
particularly safety for children, we do not need to put unnecessary 
burdens on our companies and make it more difficult for them to operate 
in this country.
  The whistleblower provision in this bill does not improve consumer 
product safety, but it does create a potential for increased problems 
with folks who are manufacturing in this country. We need to realize 
foreign-based companies are not faced with this same provision. It is 
only those that are American owned, operating here, that have to follow 
this whistleblower law the Senate is attempting to add in the consumer 
product safety legislation. So what we have are American companies at a 
disadvantage to companies in other parts of the world that do not have 
to comply. My amendment would strike this provision. Perhaps we can 
reach a compromise and protect the whistleblower without damaging our 
competitiveness as a nation.
  Mr. President, these are two amendments, and I have a number of 
others that get at some of the problems in the bill. But, again, I 
commend the chairman for his work and the commitment by this body to 
improve consumer safety in this country. I hope we can work together in 
a bipartisan fashion to create a bill that is focused on safety and not 
so much on doing favors for our different constituencies.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
5:30 p.m. be used for debate on DeMint amendment No. 4095; that the 
time be equally divided between Senator DeMint and Senator Pryor or 
their designees; and that following the use or yielding back of time, 
the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 
4095, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the DeMint amendment. 
Senator DeMint, by the way, has been very constructive in our meetings 
and in our discussions. His staff met with my staff last night. The 
meetings to date have been constructive and positive. We are hoping 
that they might actually lead to some improvements to the legislation, 
but we will have to wait and see to know how some of this works out.
  I think it is very important for colleagues to understand what this 
amendment does that Senator DeMint is offering first and that we will 
vote on at 5:30, and that is it would take the work the Senate has done 
on this legislation so far and throw it out the window and adopt the 
House-passed measure. Now, there are a lot of differences between the 
House and the Senate versions. Senator DeMint was correct a few moments 
ago when he talked about how there are a lot of similarities as well, 
and that is exactly right. I think I can be fair in my discussion when 
I say that at least my impression is that when the House started their 
process last fall, they were doing it--again, from my perspective--more 
in terms of a reaction to a lot of the news stories everybody was 
seeing about dangerous toys and children's products that were setting 
off alarm bells all over the country. I think their bill started as a 
reaction to that. That is not a bad way to start a bill; I am not 
critical of the House in any way on it. I am proud of what they did and 
glad they got it through their committee and actually passed it on the 
House floor. I believe it was the very last day they were in session 
last year--if not the last day, it was the last week. So I am proud of 
what they have done. I would say their bill is a pretty good bill.
  Part of the reason, though, or the primary reason their bill has a 
lot of similarity to ours is during that process--and this is just 
legislation; I am not critical at all, but during that process they 
eventually looked at our bill that we were working on in committee, and 
they took about half or so of it--maybe about 60 percent of it--and did 
some cutting and pasting and just put it in their legislation. Again, I 
am honored that they did and flattered that they did because we had 
been working hard in the Commerce Committee to make sure the reform we 
were talking about was comprehensive and was good.
  I would say generally, in broad strokes, there are two or three major 
differences between the House bill and the Senate bill as the Senate 
bill exists today. One is that we have more enforcement in our 
legislation. We have more transparency in our legislation. We have more 
comprehensive reform in our legislation than the House bill does. 
Again, I am not taking away from the House bill. I appreciate their 
bipartisan effort over there, so I don't want my words to be 
interpreted as in any way critical. But I do think our bill is better. 
Ours is bipartisan--and so is theirs, by the way--with Senator Stevens 
and Senator Collins. I have spoken with several of my Republican 
colleagues over the last few days, and I would hope they would consider 
joining

[[Page S1508]]

us as cosponsors. I would love for them to consider doing that today. I 
had some discussions yesterday with a handful of Republicans who said 
they were interested in at least considering cosponsoring. So we are 
waiting to hear back from some of those offices today, but we would 
love to add more Republican cosponsors if at all possible.
  Let me go through some of the primary differences in what the House 
bill does and what the Senate bill does. There are many. Again, the 
bills are largely similar because the House adopted a lot of what we 
did, or more or less adopted what we did in the committee. A lot of 
that has not changed at all, or it has changed very little. So let me 
run through a few points, five or six points.
  First, I would say the Senate bill is more transparent. When I say 
that, what I am talking about is, under our bill--again, the bipartisan 
Senate substitute--what I am talking about is there is more information 
publicly available to people under the Senate bill. We have seen this 
happen on many occasions. I was going to tell this story later. We have 
some charts to this effect I didn't want to bring out right now because 
we will get into this in more detail later. We are going to talk about 
several examples of incidents where people were injured and where they 
had bought and used a product that the CPSC had known about and known 
about the dangers of it, but the CPSC was in negotiations or in 
discussions with the manufacturer about doing a recall. In fact, there 
is one incident we are going to talk about later--and it may be 
tomorrow at this point, depending on how the rest of the day goes--
there is one product we are going to talk about where a baby crib 
collapsed, and it caught a young girl's hand in that crib. I think she 
was roughly about a year old. We will get the facts on this when we go 
to it. I think she did end up avoiding serious injury, but it was 
scary. There were some moments there for the parents.
  So the father called the manufacturer of the crib and the 
manufacturer played dumb. They say: Gosh, we didn't know. We never 
heard of this problem before. We didn't know our cribs had this 
problem. Are you sure you had it set up the right way? Are you sure she 
wasn't abusing it somehow? All of those kinds of things.
  The father found out later that by the time he called, that company 
had 80 complaints about that crib doing exactly the same thing. But 
because there is no transparency under the current law, there was no 
way for the father to find out.
  If our bill passes, we will set up a database that is searchable 
where you can go and look at a specific product and know if there have 
been complaints about it before. This will be a huge benefit to parents 
and grandparents all over the country. We need to do this. The House 
bill doesn't have that provision. The House bill has a study. It says: 
Yes, we ought to study this idea of a database, but they don't have a 
database. In fact, the database we are talking about, we are not 
inventing this out of whole cloth. We are using another Federal 
agency's idea which has worked very well, and that is NHTSA, the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I would encourage--here 
again, I mentioned this before--all of the staff people who are 
watching in their offices and who think their boss might be undecided 
on this legislation or undecided on this one point, I would encourage 
them right now to go to the NHTSA Web site, and there is a little area 
you can click on that talks about recalled products. I encourage you to 
do that and go through that and see first how easy it is to use; 
secondly, the quality of the information that is on there.

  Again, we are going to show this later with charts to show all of my 
Senate colleagues how easy it is, but also how balanced and how fair it 
is. The industry has had some concerns they will be smeared, that they 
will be slandered or libeled with all of these complaints. But I think 
the NHTSA Web site shows it can be done in a very responsible way and 
done in a way that does help the general public.
  Another difference I want to talk about, the second difference 
between the House version and the Senate version is, the Senate bill--
the bill we are on right now--adopts what they call ASTM963-07, which 
is a standard that is widely accepted by the industries. ASTM stands 
for the American Society for Testing and Materials, and that has just 
kind of become a lingo--ASTM has become a lingo in the consumer product 
world for a set of standards. ASTM963-07 has become a widely 
recognized, widely utilized standard.
  What we do is, we codify that standard. If our bill passes, it is not 
going to be voluntary. It is not going to be--some people may be 
following it, and some people may not. We are going to codify it. We 
will make it law. Again, these are standards that the industry has been 
using and has accepted. This is not a controversial piece of this 
legislation. However, this ASTM963-07 is not in the House bill. So the 
House bill keeps the status quo. They say they are going to assess the 
effectiveness. Well, it has already been assessed. It has been out 
there for years and years and years. Again, it is basically universally 
agreed that these are good safety standards that set the standard for 
industry and should be adopted into Federal law.
  The third difference with the House bill I wanted to talk about is 
this idea of punishing companies when they do the wrong thing. The 
Senate committee passed the bill out of committee with a $100 million 
civil penalty--$100 million. It went from $1.8 million to $100 
million--over 50 times what is in existing law.
  The House, in the meantime, passed a provision that had a $10 million 
penalty. Well, the concern I have with the $10 million penalty--civil 
penalty--is that for a lot of these big companies, $1.8 million can 
just be the cost of doing business. Again, we have some charts on this 
that we may show in the next couple of days--it can be the cost of 
doing business for some of these big companies--$10 million is better. 
It gets their attention. But what we do is, we set our cap under the 
Senate bill at $10 million unless there are aggravating circumstances. 
If there are aggravating circumstances such as maybe you have a repeat 
offender, maybe you have some particularly egregious behavior, or maybe 
you have a company that just absolutely does not have any regard for 
U.S. safety standards. Again, a lot of these products that are 
defective are coming in from overseas. Maybe they don't have the 
quality control over there. I don't know. They maybe have a chronic 
problem or whatever it may be. The Senate bill allows you to take the 
$10 million max and do an additional $10 million, again, if there are 
aggravating circumstances.
  Quite frankly, I hope the CPSC never has to use that, but the fact 
that they have that ability maybe will put a little fear in some people 
when they make some of these decisions about cutting corners on lead 
paint or making defective products, whatever they may be.
  So, again, the Senate bill has a 10-plus-10 provision, which is $10 
million max in lesser aggravating circumstances, and then you can go 
for an additional $10 million. The House bill just has the flat $10 
million.
  Another difference, and I would call this the fourth difference 
between the Senate bill and the House bill, is that the Senate bill has 
a protection for employees who notify the CPSC of violations. Now, this 
is important. You don't want employees to be punished for doing the 
right thing. We all know how it works in the real world. It happens 
where an employee will, over the objections of a company--over the 
objections of his employer--go and inform the CPSC about some safety 
violation. It does happen. Again, we have examples. We have charts if 
anybody wants to see them, or we have memos and background, news 
articles, et cetera, if people want to see those. But the truth is, you 
have to keep this in perspective.
  What we are talking about with our so-called whistleblower provision 
is a provision where an employee--it is basically only triggered when 
an employee of a company tells the CPSC about a dangerous product.
  This is fundamental stuff. This employee is out there letting the 
public know, basically telling the Government there is a dangerous 
product that is either in the U.S. market or about to get to the U.S. 
market. Again, that employee for doing the right thing should not be 
fired or demoted or whatever the case may be. If we set up a process in 
our law that is based on existing law where the employee goes

[[Page S1509]]

through the Department of Labor process, it is well established, we 
adopt what this Congress has passed in previous years as the standard 
we would like to see on our whistleblower statute. The House bill has 
no such protection. We feel as if this is an important improvement in 
the legislation because we think we will get more information to the 
CPSC if the employees understand they are protected.
  Let's talk about misinformation about this one provision. In the 
Commerce Committee bill, we actually had a bounty for these employees 
for turning in companies. We had a bounty in the bill. When I talked 
with Senator Stevens, that was not acceptable to him. He made it very 
clear that he thought it would cause a lot of heartburn on the 
Republican side. He was very adamant we take that provision out, and we 
did.
  We have also done some other things to build in some safeguards. For 
example, if an employee files a frivolous claim with the Department of 
Labor, he can be subject to a $1,000 penalty. I don't have to go 
through all that today.
  Our Senate bill, we believe, is balanced, we believe it is fair, we 
believe it is in the public interest to have this information come 
forward and the employee not be punished at work for telling the 
Government about a safety violation.
  The fifth matter I wish to talk about is lead. I heard someone say 
this bill is the ``get the lead out'' bill. This bill does, for the 
first time, in a very historic manner, set a standard for lead in 
children's products. Most Americans believe there is a standard for 
lead in children's products. There is not a standard. There is a 
standard for lead in paint but not for children's products.
  Every pediatrician with whom I have ever talked and every 
pediatrician who has testified either on the House side or the Senate 
side and every scientist will tell you of the dangers of lead. It is 
basic scientific medical knowledge today that lead is bad for children.
  What we do in the Senate version of the legislation is we essentially 
ban lead. We do not completely ban it because we understand that lead 
is a naturally occurring element. We are going to have trace amounts of 
ambient lead in the atmosphere. We acknowledge that in our legislation. 
And our legislation, when it comes to lead, is more aggressive in 
getting the lead out of children's products. We do it quicker, and I 
think we do it in a better way than the House bill does.
  The last point I wish to mention on the seven major differences 
between the House version and the Senate version is the DeMint 
amendment--and that is what we are talking about today--to make sure 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission has the funding it needs to do 
what we want it to do.
  The Senate version is a 7-year reauthorization. The DeMint amendment 
would flat line the funding at a 10-percent level after 2009. Our bill 
actually has a slower ramp-up or it does have a ramp-up in resources, 
but we acknowledge there is a lot of work to be done with this 
Commission. We cannot just give it a year or two of increased 
appropriations and then flat line it and hope it is going to be OK. 
What we need to do is continue to invest in this Commission to make 
sure long term we set it up for success.
  The Senate version has that major advantage over the DeMint 
amendment. The current version has a big advantage over the DeMint 
amendment when it comes to providing the resources to the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission.
  On that point, I say this: My colleagues all know, because they have 
seen my voting record, there have been times when I have been pretty 
much a deficit hawk around here and times when I have tried to shrink 
Government and different efforts such as that. I am not a person who 
believes we ought to throw money at a problem because I think generally 
when we do that, we do not get a very good result. I have seen that 
time and time again on the Federal level. But this is an exception. 
This is one of those times when I think we are being targeted, I think 
we are being responsible, I think we are slowly ramping up this 
Commission and not throwing a bunch of resources at it right now, but 
we are measuring out those resources over time, over a several year 
period.
  I think what we will see in 7 years is a much stronger CPSC than we 
have today. It is not just about the CPSC as a commission being 
stronger. That may, in and of itself, be OK, but what is good about our 
legislation, the Senate version, is I believe very strongly we will 
have a big improvement in safety all across America.
  We talk about toys, and toys are a very important piece of what the 
CPSC does, but they do all kinds of things. Part of this legislation is 
to have a Federal standard on portable gas cans and the caps that are 
on gas cans. We have seen that problem in many incidents around the 
country because there is no common standard on gas caps on these gas 
cans.
  What we will be able to do with this legislation, with the Senate 
version, is to make the consumer product safety world much safer. 
Again, my hope is that when we stand here, say, 5 years from now, we 
will see a precipitous decrease in litigation, we will see a decrease 
in recalls, we will see a decrease in injuries, and we will see a 
decrease in deaths as a result of consumer products and consumer 
product violations.
  I say to my fellow Senators, it looks as if we are going to vote on 
the DeMint amendment at 5:30 p.m. today. I encourage Senators and their 
staffs to look at the DeMint amendment and look at how it weakens the 
Senate version of the Consumer Product Safety Reform Act. It does 
weaken the Senate version. The DeMint amendment is basically--well, it 
is exactly accepting everything the House has done. We can do better 
than that. We can be stronger. In fact, I have talked with several 
House Members who like what we are able to do in the Senate version. 
The DeMint amendment puts us where the House is, and we need to have 
the Senate's stamp on this legislation so we can go back home and tell 
the people what we are doing for them.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during the quorum call be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that 
the time come out of the Republican time, because I think the 
Republicans have 55 minutes, or something like that, and the Democrats 
only have 28 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. That is acceptable to our side. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                               The Budget

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I think it would be helpful for us to 
spend some time before the fiscal year 2009 budget bill is before us to 
review the fiscal year 2008 budget. This is something we could not do 
last year. Last year, the majority was in their first year and in sort 
of a honeymoon phase. They had the benefit of the doubt and no recent 
record to be saddled with. They could make pledges and promises, they 
could make forecasts and make predictions, and we were under an 
obligation to wait for those results. The charge of tax and spend was 
from the past. Perhaps things were different.
  Well, the Democrats' 2008 budget raised taxes by $736 billion. It 
assumed the largest tax increase ever, hitting 116 million people. It 
failed to extend middle-class tax relief, as promised. The Democrats' 
fiscal year 2008 budget

[[Page S1510]]

increased spending by $205 billion. It hiked nondefense discretionary 
spending $205 billion over 5 years. That is $350 billion over 10 years. 
It manipulated reconciliation to spend $21 billion in entitlements. It 
allowed entitlement spending to grow by $466 billion over 5 years.
  The budget and its supporters repeatedly ignored, waived, or 
gimmicked pay-go to the tune of $143 billion. The Democrats' fiscal 
year 2008 budget grew the debt by $2.5 trillion. It passed the debt 
along to our children, who will each owe $34,000 more. The Democrats' 
fiscal year 2008 budget ignored entitlement reform. It failed to offer 
any real solutions to the $66 trillion entitlement crisis.
  The budget and its supporters rejected reasonable proposals to 
address this entitlement crisis and, instead, allowed entitlement 
spending to grow by $466 billion over 5 years. The budget wildly 
overstated revenues from closing the tax gap to justify more spending. 
That bill was, in fact, a classic Democratic tax-and-spend bill.
  The majority had a clean slate, a new dawn. They went with the worst 
policies of the past--bigger taxes, bigger spending, bigger debt, and 
larger government. One example will show we are dealing with what can 
only be described as either cold cynicism about the value of their 
rhetoric or gross ignorance of government realities. The SCHIP 
authorization bill increased entitlement spending $35.4 billion over 5 
years and $71.5 billion over 10 years. However, a blatant budget 
gimmick drastically cut the program's funding in 2013 by 85 percent to 
avoid a pay-go point of order. Nobody seriously expects this funding 
cut to occur. Nobody seriously believes this qualifies as paying as you 
go. Yet both claims were made on this floor.
  I voted against the fiscal year 2008 budget. The budget represented a 
6.8-percent increase in domestic Federal spending in 1 year. And let us 
look at the debt figures. We see the debt is increasing unimaginably. 
We are seeing a tremendous growth in the deficit, increasing by $440 
billion. We see mandatory spending growing unchecked by $411 billion in 
fiscal years 2008 through 2012. We spend more than $1 trillion of the 
Social Security surplus. Unfortunately, what we end up with is a growth 
in the debt of over $2.2 trillion.
  Yet the deficit is increasing while more taxes are expected to be 
collected. If the tax increase goes into place--and that happens 
because there was no provision to make the tax cuts that were passed in 
the Republican Congress in 2001 and 2003 permanent--by default these 
taxes are going to increase by over $736 billion. So we have a deficit 
that is increasing even though we have a dramatic increase in revenues 
which were taken into account in this budget. That is going to be the 
largest tax increase in the history of this country contributing to 
overspending.
  We are entering a new phase in our economy, a time when the negative 
effects of the housing crunch are coming due. But the housing problems 
are attacking the prosperity that resulted from our earlier tax 
policies. The tax cuts we put in place in 2003 stimulated the economy. 
As a result of those tax cuts, there was more money available for local 
governments to help pay for their programs, including State 
governments. There was more money available for the Federal Government. 
That is why it was so easy for the majority party to put together that 
budget last year, because of the large amount of revenues coming in to 
the Federal Government. I attribute that to the fact that we cut prices 
for the working men and women of this country, primarily those who own 
their small businesses and, by the way, who put in more than 40 hours a 
week. Many times they work 7 days a week to keep those small businesses 
operating, supporting their communities. That is where we generate the 
revenue.
  Now that our economy is trending in the wrong direction, and when we 
need the benefits of a reasonable and progrowth tax policy, the reality 
is going to be that we are going to depress our economic growth. We are 
talking about increasing taxes on corporations that do business all 
over the world. Well, they are in a competitive environment. They have 
to compete with other countries. We cannot constrict our economy to 
strictly American borders. We have to extend beyond that. If we want to 
get our economy going, we are going to have to talk about trade. We are 
going to have to talk about doing business all over the world.
  Let's look and see how individuals are going to be impacted by this 
tax increase that will happen by default because we do not keep it from 
expiring in the outyears. A family of 4, earning $40,000 a year--that 
is if both the husband and the wife are working and making $20,000 
each--will face a tax increase of $2,052. We have 113 million taxpayers 
who will see their taxes go up an average of $2,216.
  Now, if we look at this a little further, we see that over 5 million 
individuals, families who have seen their income tax liabilities 
completely eliminated, will now have to pay taxes. That is the new tax 
bracket we have created to provide tax relief for many of those working 
families. So that is going to expire. When that expires, that is going 
to impact 5 million individuals and families who will begin to have to 
pay taxes that they were allowed to get by without having to pay so 
they could pay for the education of their kids, so they could pay for 
health care, so they could pay for the needs of the family, food and 
shelter.
  We are not talking about individuals who are making a lot of money in 
this case. Forty-five million families with children will face an 
average increase of $2,864; that is the marriage penalty. Fifteen 
million elderly individuals will pay an average tax of $2,934. These 
are the people who are on retirement. Twenty-seven million small 
business owners will pay an average tax increase higher than any of 
those groups that I mentioned of $4,712. That is where our economic 
growth is generated--or was generated.
  People of Colorado have asked me: How is this likely to affect me as 
a Coloradan? Let me talk a little bit about how this could affect 
taxpayers of the State of Colorado.
  In Colorado, the impact of repealing the Republican tax relief would 
be felt widely. For example, more than 1.6 million taxpayers statewide 
who are benefiting from a new low 10-percent bracket would see their 
tax rates go up; 590,000 married couples could face higher tax rates 
because of an increase in the marriage penalty; 432,000 families with 
children would pay more taxes because child tax credits would expire; 
and 310,000 Colorado investors, including seniors, would pay more 
because of an increase in the tax rate on capital gains and dividends.
  Remember, seniors who have retired have a lot at stake when we talk 
about capital gains taxes and dividends because they put their money in 
the stock market. They have put it in investments. As retired 
individuals, they are finding that they are beginning to pull that out 
for their retirement. The consequences are that without that tax break, 
they would not have been able to save as much money toward their 
retirement.
  Tomorrow, we are going to get our first glimpse of the majority's 
proposed fiscal year 2009 budget. We have more clarity now on what we 
can actually expect when pay-go--which some refer to as ``tax gap''--
and spending curbs and other terms are thrown at us by the supporters 
of that budget. We know that last year the words might have implied one 
thing, but the numbers said an entirely different story: Spending went 
up, the deficit went up, and taxes went up. Let's hope this year is a 
better year for the taxpayers and the citizens of this country.
  I yield the yield floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will retract that and not set aside 
the pending amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4104

  I would like to speak on an amendment I intend to submit at the 
appropriate time.
  There are six chemicals that are often included in plastic toys. What 
those chemicals do is essentially make the toy softer, more pliable--
ergo, more attractive to children.
  This is my communications director's young son. His name is Max 
Gerber. He is 8 months old in this picture.

[[Page S1511]]

He is sucking on his favorite book. I ask unanimous consent that I 
might show you what that book looks like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is that book. The book is called ``Hello Bee, 
Hello Me.'' As you can see, it is an attractive book. It was studied in 
2006, and it was found to be loaded with phthalates. But this is what 
babies do; they put everything in their mouths.
  Phthalates all too often are found in high quantities in children's 
toys and other products. Studies have found that they are linked to 
both birth and other serious rare reproductive defects. When these 
young children chew or suck on a toy with phthalates, these chemicals 
can leech from the toy into the child and enter the child's 
bloodstream.
  They interfere with the national functioning of the hormone system, 
and they can cause reproductive abnormalities and result in an early 
onset of puberty. Parents across the country actually have no idea of 
these risks.
  These chemicals have been banned in the European Union, five other 
countries, and my home State of California, and eight other States are 
now proposing similar bans. I believe this is the appropriate time for 
the Federal Government to shield children from these chemicals.
  Now, of course, my communications director, like many parents, had no 
idea that this book contained high levels of phthalates. But it is not 
just books; phthalates can be found in a variety of soft children's 
toys such as rubber ducks and teethers like this one.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may show you that teether.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is this. It is very flexible. It is loaded with 
these chemicals.
  So you can see Max is a little bit older, chewing on a teether. Tests 
found that teether contained a high level of phthalates.
  In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle sent 16 common children's toys 
like this teether to a Chicago lab to test whether they contained 
phthalates. They did, in fact.
  The results should alarm parents everywhere. One teether contained a 
phthalate level of five times the proposed limit. A rubber duck sold at 
Walgreens had 13 times the amount of phthalates now permissible under 
California law. The face of a popular doll contained double 
California's new phthalates limits.
  Another study tested 20 popular plastic toys. The results were 
equally troubling. A Baby I'm Yours doll sold at Target contained 
nearly 32 percent of phthalates. A toy ball sold at Toys R Us was found 
to contain 47\1/2\ percent phthalates. Three types of squeeze toys--a 
penguin and two ducks--contained high levels of phthalates. They were 
also bought at Wal-Mart and Target.
  So I would like to, if I can, if I will be cleared to do it, send an 
amendment to the desk. The amendment would replicate what will be 
California law in 2008 and ban the use of the chemical phthalates in 
toys as California has done and eight States are continuing to do.
  The European Union banned phthalates in 2006. That is all these 
countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. They 
have all banned the use of these chemicals in children's toys. Fiji, 
Korea, and Mexico have also banned or restricted phthalates in 
children's products.
  Beginning next year, toys containing more than trace amounts of 
phthalates cannot be sold in California stores. My home State was the 
first State to ban phthalates in toys and other children's products. 
Governor Schwarzenegger signed the legislation, which, as I say, will 
become effective in January of 2009. Eight States are following 
California's lead. Legislation has been offered in Washington State, 
Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and 
New York.
  Unfortunately, toys containing phthalates are still available to 
children across this country. I think it is time for the rest of the 
country to follow the lead of California, the European Union, and other 
nations because without action the United States risks becoming a 
dumping ground for phthalate-laden toys that cannot legally be sold 
elsewhere. I think American children deserve better. Parents in every 
State should be able to enter any toy store, buy a present for their 
child, and know they are not placing their son's or daughter's health 
at risk.
  This amendment follows the same standards already set by the European 
Union and California. It bans the use of six types of phthalates in 
toys. Three of the phthalates are banned from all children's toys; 
three others are banned from toys children place in their mouths. The 
amendment clearly states these chemicals cannot be replaced with other 
dangerous chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency 
as carcinogens, possible carcinogens, or chemicals that can cause 
reproductive or developmental harm.
  Now the science. The science involving phthalates is still evolving; 
however, we know exposure to phthalates can cause serious long-term 
effects. Some of the potential health effects and defects are highly 
personal and difficult to discuss. They are problems no parent would 
ever want a child to experience.
  I have two anthologies here which I will make available, a phthalates 
research summary and a paper which summarizes several of the works of 
science.
  Here are some of the effects: Pregnant women with high levels of 
phthalates in their urine were more likely to give birth to boys with 
reproductive birth defects. That is a University of Rochester 2005 
study. Phthalate exposure has also been linked to the premature onset 
of puberty in young girls as young as 8 years old. That is a 2000 study 
published in Environmental Health Perspective. A 2002 study linked 
phthalate exposure levels to decreased fertility capacity in men. And 
phthalates found in household dust have been linked to asthma symptoms 
in children. That is a Swedish study. The evidence that phthalates 
cause health problems continues to mount. Young children whose bodies 
are growing and developing and extraordinarily sensitive are 
particularly vulnerable when exposed to phthalates in the toys around 
them.
  Now, many American toy retailers have already stepped up when it 
comes to phthalates. I am very grateful for this. Target has already 
eliminated phthalates from baby changing tables. Late last year, they 
announced that most toys they sell will be phthalate-free by fall of 
2008.
  Wal-Mart and Toys R Us announced they will voluntarily comply with 
California's standard nationwide. These are two huge retailers that 
will voluntarily comply with the California standard. They informed toy 
producers that beginning in 2009, they will no longer sell toys that 
contain phthalates.
  These retailers should really be commended. I would like to do so. 
Thank you, Wal-Mart, thank you Toys R Us and thank you, Target.
  This action also underscores the emerging uneasiness about those 
chemicals, with toy retailers acknowledging that parents do not want to 
unwittingly provide their young children with toys that could prove 
hazardous to their health. The amendment I hope to enter levels the 
playing field in the toy industry, requiring every toy store and 
manufacturer to comply with the standards being voluntarily put in 
place.
  I do wish to underscore an important point: This voluntary action, 
while highly commendable, should not take the place of an official 
regulatory standard.
  Candidly, I can't imagine why we have waited this long. We always 
wait until the States take action. Some manufacturers have marketed 
products as phthalate free, but tests conducted by independent 
laboratories have found phthalates. Parents wishing to purchase 
phthalate-free toys must be able to know what it is they are buying. I 
firmly believe only a legal standard with the full weight of the law 
and potential legal consequences behind it will make that guarantee.
  I wish to read from a letter from the Breast Cancer Fund:


[[Page S1512]]


       On behalf of the Breast Cancer Fund and our 70,000 
     supporters across the nation, I am writing to express our 
     strong support for your amendment to the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission Reform Act . . . which would prohibit the 
     manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of children's 
     toys and child care articles that contain phthalates.

  It goes on to describe phthalates. It is signed by Jeanne Rizzo, 
R.N., Executive Director.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 3, 2001.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the Breast Cancer Fund 
     and our 70,000 supporters across the Nation, I am writing to 
     express our strong support for your amendment to the Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission Reform Act (S. 2663) which would 
     prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce 
     of children's toys and child care articles that contain 
     phthalates.
       Phthalates are a family of industrial chemicals used in a 
     wide variety of consumer products including plastics, nail 
     polish, perfumes, skin moisturizers, baby care products and 
     toys, flavorings and solvents. These chemicals don't stay in 
     the plastics they soften or in the countless other products 
     in which they are used. Instead, they migrate into the air, 
     into food and/or into people, including babies in their 
     mother's wombs. Phthalates have been found in indoor air and 
     dust and in human urine, blood, and breast milk. What's 
     especially troubling about phthalates is that they are 
     powerful, known reproductive toxins that have been linked to 
     birth defects in baby boys, testicular cancer, liver problems 
     and early onset of puberty in girls--a risk factor for later-
     life breast cancer. The European Union and 14 other 
     countries, including Japan, Argentina and Mexico, have 
     already banned these chemicals from children's toys.
       BCF was one of the primary sponsors of AB1108--a bill 
     recently signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger which 
     made California the first State in the Nation to ban the use 
     of phthalates in toys and other childcare articles. Now 12 
     other States have followed suit and have introduced--or are 
     considering introducing--legislation to ban phthalates in 
     toys and other products.
       Obviously, there is nothing more important to the future of 
     this country, and the world than ensuring our children are 
     healthy today. By supporting your amendment, Congress has the 
     opportunity to protect children from dangerous, unsafe and 
     unnecessary exposures to toxic chemicals in the products they 
     play with every day such as teethers, toys and childcare 
     items. Thank you for your critically important leadership on 
     this issue.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     Jeanne Rizzo,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Many organizations support the amendment, and I ask 
unanimous consent to have a list of those printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Breast Cancer Action, 
     Breast Cancer Fund- Center for Environmental Health, Center 
     for Health, Environment and Justice, Citizens for a Healthy 
     Bay, Clean Water Action Alliance of Massachusetts, Coalition 
     for Clean Air, Commonweal, Environment California, Healthy 
     Child Healthy World, Health Education and Resources, Healthy 
     Building Network, Healthy Children Organizing Project, INND 
     (Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders), 
     Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Institute for 
     Children's Environmental Health, MOMS (Making Our Milk Safe), 
     Minnesota PIRG, Olympic Environmental Council, Oregon Center 
     for Environmental Health, Oregon Environmental Council, PODER 
     (People Organized in Defense of Earth & her Resources), 
     Safe Food and Fertilizer, Sources for Sustainable 
     Communities, The Annie Appleseed Project, US PIRG, WashPIRG, 
     Washington Toxics Coalition, WHEN (Women's Health & 
     Environmental Network).

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It has been a long time since I had a small child, 
but I used glass nursing bottles, not fancy flexible bottles. I used 
cloth diapers. The toys were not as flexible as they are today. My 
daughter grew up fine. One of the real hazards of this society is 
chemicals and how chemicals are used, and we don't know how they are 
used. When it comes to children's toys, I didn't know you could make 
plastic that way, so soft, so flexible. The reason you can is because 
of all the chemicals added to it. When these chemicals have a toxic 
factor and you know these chemicals are going in a child's mouth and 
you know they leach out of the plastic into the child's system, it 
simply isn't right. We ought to stop it.
  People out there know that. People out there want this. I would have 
liked to have taken the time to have had a committee hearing on this. 
But candidly, this bill came up. And because this is already law in so 
many places--the European Union, 5 other nations, California, 8 other 
States ready to pass it--and you have retailers who understand and are 
willing to take voluntary action, it seemed to me the legal standard 
should be established. That is what this bill does.
  I call up my amendment which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4104.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution in 
 commerce of certain children's products and child care articles that 
                     contain specified phthalates)

       On page 103, after line 12, add the following:

     SEC. 40. BAN ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS CONTAINING SPECIFIED 
                   PHTHALATES.

       (a) Banned Hazardous Substance.--Effective January 1, 2009, 
     any children's product or child care article that contains a 
     specified phthalate shall be treated as a banned hazardous 
     substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1261 et seq.) and the prohibitions contained in 
     section 4 of such Act shall apply to such product or article.
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Certain Alternatives to Specified 
     Phthalates in Children's Products and Child Care Articles.--
       (1) In general.--If a manufacturer modifies a children's 
     product or child care article that contains a specified 
     phthalate to comply with the ban under subsection (a), such 
     manufacturer shall not use any of the prohibited alternatives 
     to specified phthalates described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Prohibited alternatives to specified phthalates.--The 
     prohibited alternatives to specified phthalates described in 
     this paragraph are the following:
       (A) Carcinogens rated by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency as Group A, Group B, or Group C carcinogens.
       (B) Substances described in the List of Chemicals Evaluated 
     for Carcinogenic Potential of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency as follows:
       (i) Known to be human carcinogens.
       (ii) Likely to be human carcinogens.
       (iii) Suggestive of being human carcinogens.
       (C) Reproductive toxicants identified by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency that cause any of the following:
       (i) Birth defects.
       (ii) Reproductive harm.
       (iii) Developmental harm.
       (c) Preemption.--Nothing in this section or section 
     18(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1261 note) shall preclude or deny any right of any 
     State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce 
     any provision of State or local law that--
       (1) applies to a phthalate that is not described in 
     subsection (d)(3);
       (2) applies to a phthalate described in subsection (d)(3) 
     that is not otherwise regulated under this section;
       (3) with respect to any phthalate, requires the provision 
     of a warning of risk, illness, or injury; or
       (4) prohibits the use of alternatives to phthalates that 
     are not described in subsection (b)(2).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Children's product.--The term ``children's product'' 
     means a toy or any other product designed or intended by the 
     manufacturer for use by a child when the child plays.
       (2) Child care article.--The term ``child care article'' 
     means all products designed or intended by the manufacturer 
     to facilitate sleep, relaxation, or the feeding of children, 
     or to help children with sucking or teething.
       (3) Children's product or child care article that contains 
     a specified phthalate.--The term ``children's product or 
     child care article that contains a specified phthalate'' 
     means--
       (A) a children's product or a child care article any part 
     of which contains any combination of di-(2-ethylhexyl) 
     phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl 
     phthalate (BBP) in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent; and
       (B) a children's product or a child care article intended 
     for use by a child that--
       (i) can be placed in a child's mouth; and
       (ii)(I) contains any combination of diisononyl phthalate 
     (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), or di-n-octyl phthalate 
     (DnOP), in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent; or
       (II) contains any combination of di-(2-ethylhexyl) 
     phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), benzyl butyl 
     phthalate

[[Page S1513]]

     (BBP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate 
     (DIDP), or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), in concentrations 
     exceeding 0.1 percent.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I wish to address a question to the distinguished 
chairman of the committee who has done fine work on this bill. I would 
at some point like a vote on this amendment, if possible. I am happy to 
set it aside if that is helpful and not ask for the yeas and nays at 
this time, but I do want to vote. I believe children are at stake in 
this.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator from California for being so gracious. 
While she was speaking, I talked to some of the Republican staff. I 
think they need a little more time and maybe even people on our side 
need a little more time on the amendment. If possible, I ask the 
Senator from California to set it aside. We will have a vote at 5:30. 
We have several Senators who we think will come and speak on the DeMint 
amendment. We will be working with the Senator as this goes along.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. Out of deference to the Senator 
from Arkansas, I am happy to do so.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bingaman and Menendez be added 
as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that time under the quorum be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a very important 
issue that is intended to protect Americans and to protect our 
children.
  Before I make my comments, I wish to give a shout out to Senator Mark 
Pryor, who has been leading this effort on behalf of the Senate. I 
worked with Senator Pryor during his time as attorney general from 
Arkansas. If there is one thing that typifies the reality of attorneys 
general, they are protectors of the people. Mark Pryor, as attorney 
general of Arkansas, was a great example of a protector of the people 
of Arkansas, and he has continued that fine tradition in the Senate by 
moving forward in the Commerce Committee and being the lead person in 
putting together this legislation that will protect American consumers, 
in particular American children.
  I wish to begin today by sharing a story about a brave 4-year-old boy 
from Severance, CO, by the name of Tegan Leisy. Tegan and his family 
found out about toy hazards the very hardest of ways.
  Last year, when Tegan was only 3 years old, he suddenly and 
inexplicably became very sick. He was vomiting and in a lot of pain. 
Tegan's parents rushed him to the emergency room, and the doctor took a 
series of x rays. The x rays showed something in Tegan's stomach that 
looked like a metal object. The doctors said the object would pass in 
72 hours and not to worry. Unfortunately, it did not pass.
  Tegan remained in severe pain, so Tegan's parents took him back to 
the hospital. This time they admitted Tegan, and they held him for 
observation. Over the next 2 days, the doctors x raying Tegan found 
there was an object inside his stomach that was not moving.
  On the third day, the surgeon decided to operate. What did they find 
in the 3-year-old young man's stomach? They found six magnets--six 
magnets--from toys that Tegan had swallowed. The magnets had stuck 
together, and it created 11 holes in Tegan's intestines. The doctors 
had to remove 6 inches of his intestines that day during surgery.
  Think of that, Mr. President. Think of that, all those who are 
watching this debate on the Senate floor today. A 3-year-old boy had to 
have portions of his intestines removed because he swallowed pieces 
that had come off his toys. Tegan is, in fact, one of the lucky ones. 
He is alive because of the good work of doctors who saved him and 
because his parents helped him catch the problem on time. Not all kids 
in America are that lucky today.
  Congress created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, now more 
than 30 years ago, to protect American consumers against death or 
injury from unsafe products. However, the agency is grossly underfunded 
and understaffed. The CPSC estimates that products it is authorized to 
regulate are related to 28,200 deaths and 33.6 million injuries each 
year. Over 28,000 deaths a year. Yet the agency only gets $63 million a 
year to carry out its mandates.
  As a result, stories such as Tegan's are commonplace across America.
  In the last few months, newspapers have run stories on hundreds of 
cases of unsafe chemicals in toothpaste, contaminated dog food, and 
toys tainted with toxic levels of lead.
  I support the CPSC Reform Act for several reasons. First, this bill 
would restore funding for the CPSC so that it can stop dangerous 
products and toys from even reaching the marketplace. If a dangerous 
product reaches the shelf, it is often too late.
  Second, the bill finally takes steps to ban lead in children's toys. 
Exposure to lead can cause serious neurological and developmental 
health problems in children. In the past year, millions of children's 
toys have been recalled for containing hazardous levels of lead. The 
toys have included metal jewelry, train sets, and Halloween costumes. I 
see no reason why Congress would pass a Federal law banning lead in 
paint, but not in children's toys.
  Third, the CPSC Reform Act would grant State attorneys general the 
ability to bring a civil action on behalf of its residents to obtain 
injunctive relief against entities that the Attorney General believes 
has violated a consumer product safety. I had the great privilege of 
serving as Colorado attorney general for 6 years. As an attorney 
general, you want to do everything in your power to protect the 
citizens of your State. The narrowly tailored watchdog power granted in 
this bill would have given me another tool to help protect the citizens 
of Colorado from unsafe and hazardous products.
  There are many other fine provisions in the CPSC Reform Act. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill and to help restore 
American confidence in the safety of the toys and other products that 
are sold in the marketplace. We must do what we can to prevent parents 
across the country from experiencing the nightmare that Tegan's parents 
experienced.
  This Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act will take major 
steps in moving forward the solution to an issue that is facing 
American consumers every day in our Nation.
  I conclude my statement by making this comment: There has been a lot 
of discussion here about a particular provision of this legislation 
that gives attorneys general the opportunity to come in and to enforce 
the law. It is appropriate whenever you have a situation such as this 
to throw more cops into the situation to try to make sure consumers are 
protected. This is an area of law where attorneys general from across 
the country--both Democrats and Republicans--have been waging the war 
on behalf of consumers for a very long time. They do not do it based on 
Republican or Democrat. They do it based on what is good to protect the 
American consumer.
  So for those colleagues on the other side who will argue against 
giving this power to the attorneys general of America--I would say 
they, frankly, are mistaken, that when you look at the history over the 
last 30 years of attorneys general taking the lead role in terms of 
enforcing the laws of our country to protect consumers, this is exactly 
the kind of situation that calls out for giving that power to the 
attorneys general of the United States of America.
  So I am hopeful we can come together as a Senate, as a Congress, and 
push legislation that gets to the President's desk and that he signs 
into law so we protect the kids of America, we can protect the 
consumers of America, and keep situations such as the one I described 
in Colorado from occurring again.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in

[[Page S1514]]

the Record a letter, dated February 29, 2008, from the National 
Association of State Fire Marshals. It is addressed to Senator Inouye 
and Senator Stevens, where they endorse this legislation, this Senate 
bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                                          State Fire Marshals,

                                Washington, DC, February 29, 2008.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
         Transportation, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Vice Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
         Transportation, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Inouye and Stevens: The National Association 
     of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) consists of state public 
     safety officials committed to the protection of life, 
     property and the environment from fire and other hazards.
       NASFM deeply appreciates all you have done to produce a bi-
     partisan substitute for the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission Reform Act (S. 2663), and we support the 
     substitute language without reservation. However, NASFM 
     believes that these compromises go far enough. We would 
     prefer that this legislation be settled in the next Congress 
     if further reductions in fines and federal and state 
     authority become necessary as a result of floor amendments or 
     in negotiations with the House of Representatives.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John C. Dean.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be listed 
as an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I understand we are trying to 
divide the quorum calls, so until some other Senator comes and wants to 
speak, I will seek the appropriate parliamentary position.


                       Florida Democratic Primary

  But I wish to take this opportunity to speak about the bill, the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission. I also wish to speak about another 
unrelated subject, but one in which we are having a potential train 
wreck coming on the American political scene if, in fact, the worst 
were to happen, and we did not have a nominee in the Democratic Party 
for President all the way down into late August, going into the 
convention in the State of the Presiding Officer--Denver, CO--where the 
Democratic National Convention will be. Because then the issue would be 
so raw as to whether to seat the Florida and the Michigan delegations 
at the convention.
  Now, the reason I am making these remarks is I have talked to a 
number of our colleagues, and what I am about to tell you our 
colleagues don't know about the State of Florida in this fracas that is 
going on. Because most people think it was the Florida Democratic Party 
that suddenly got all riled up and shifted the Democratic primary in 
Florida ahead of the permitted time of February 5 and shifted it a week 
earlier to January 29. Not so. It was the Republican Legislature of 
Florida passing a law that was signed into law by the Republican 
Governor that changed, by law, Florida's date from its previous date of 
a primary in March to January 29. At the time the legislature did this, 
a year ago, in the annual legislative session, in early 2007, the rules 
of the Democratic National Committee said any State moving ahead 
earlier than February 5 would be penalized with half of its delegates 
taken away. Interestingly, that is what the rules of the Republican 
National Committee said as well. But when the Florida Legislature moved 
the date--and by the way, here is another fact that my colleagues of 
the Senate are surprised about when I tell them. When the bill came 
forward, it was an election reform bill, an election machine reform 
bill that was clearly going to pass on final passage in the Florida 
Legislature.

  It had a provision put forth by the Republicans in the legislature of 
moving the primary date early, to January 29. The Democratic leader of 
the Florida Senate offered an amendment to put it back to comply with 
the rules of the Democratic National Committee to February 5. That 
amendment was defeated, and then the bill went on to final passage 
since the main part of the bill was election machine reform--something 
we are sensitive about in Florida, by the way--and the Governor signed 
it into law, thus making part of the bill January 29. But then, once it 
became the law--and nobody is going to change that in Florida; that is 
the law. That is the date of the election. That is the date around 
which all of the State election machinery would operate, and the State 
of Florida would, in fact, pay for that election. And indeed they did--
$18 million worth of paying for.
  Then an interesting thing happened on the way to this crisis. The 
Republican National Committee said: No, Florida, you moved your date 
early. You broke the rules. Our rules say we are going to take away 
half your delegates. That is exactly what the Republican National 
Committee did. The Republicans went on to have a primary election, 
realizing they were only going to get half their delegates. But that is 
not what the Democratic National Committee did. The Democratic National 
Committee rules said: We are going to take away half your delegates. 
But over the course of the summer, some on the Democratic National 
Committee got so riled up about Florida jumping ahead of South 
Carolina, which wanted the privilege of being the first Southern State 
to have a primary, that they convinced the Democratic National 
Committee to exact the full measure of punishment--not what the rules 
called for, to take away half the delegates--but instead take away all 
the delegates.
  Then, another interesting thing happened. Those who wanted to punish 
Florida decided to concoct a pledge that they would force all of the 
Presidential candidates to sign, and the pledge said they would not go 
into Florida to campaign. Campaigning was defined as having staff, 
having an office, using telephones, even holding a press conference. 
But, by the way, there was an exception. They could go into Florida and 
raise money.
  So my colleagues can see how this has created a highly distasteful 
bad taste in the collective mouths of four and a quarter million 
registered Democrats in Florida, almost half of whom turned out on 
election day, January 29, when they were being told: Your vote is not 
going to count. Well, it is pretty precious to us in Florida that our 
vote count, and our vote count as intended, and 1.75 million Florida 
Democrats turned out. That was far in excess of twice the number that 
had ever turned out in any Presidential primary held in the State of 
Florida before. The Democratic National Committee still says they are 
not going to allow Florida's votes to be counted. Well, all of this 
fracas is coming full circle.
  Now, by the way, it wasn't that a lot of us didn't try. A whole bunch 
of us in the Florida congressional delegation first tried to work a 
compromise. We tried to say if everyone would get in the order that 
they wanted, the first four original States could end up being the 
first anyway. But, no, they were not about to listen to a compromise. 
This is back in the summer. This is in August. This is in early 
September, before the final decision became effective in September from 
the DNC of cutting off all the delegates in Florida. Congressman Alcee 
Hastings and I even filed suit in Federal district court against Howard 
Dean and the Democratic National Committee on the constitutional 
arguments that due process and equal protection of the laws under the 
Bill of Rights in the Constitution was violated. The Federal judge who 
heard the case in December decided he bought the argument of the DNC, 
that a court case from the 1970s--a Wisconsin case, in fact--applied, 
and that

[[Page S1515]]

the DNC could do whatever it wanted in the setting of its rules.
  So what we come to is an unfortunate turn of events where, if the 
race is close, and delegates pledge delegates and decisions of 
superdelegates going into the summer, and if Florida and Michigan, 
which have a different set of circumstances, which are both being 
denied, were to make the difference, and if they are not seated at the 
Democratic National Convention, it is finally dawning on the partisan 
party leaders that how are Florida and Michigan and the people of those 
States going to feel 2 months hence after the Democratic National 
Convention, when election day, November 4, comes around. That is 
starting to make some people very nervous.
  So I call on all the reasonable heads--as the Good Book says, come 
let us reason together--to honor the fact that almost 2 million Florida 
Democrats went and voted and they expect their vote to count and count 
as they intended it to count. I call on the reasonable leadership to 
come together for the sake of unity and allow us to go into a 
convention in a unified fashion so that we can have a very legitimate 
election process for the leader of our country for the next 4 years.
  I understand there are other Senators who wish to speak, so I will 
defer my comments about the Consumer Product Safety Commission bill, of 
which I am a cosponsor, until a later time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4095

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes on 
my amendment that I believe we will be voting on at 5:30 today. This 
amendment brings up the House-passed consumer product safety bill. This 
was a bill that had extraordinary bipartisan support. It was led by 
Speaker  Nancy Pelosi and Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton. 
They worked together for a number of weeks to create a bill that did a 
lot of the things we had hoped to do in the Senate, and Chairman 
Dingell has encouraged us to take up the House bill and pass it today.
  I see Senator Stevens has come to the floor, and I know he wants to 
speak on this bill. I would be glad to yield my time or part of my time 
and then follow Senator Stevens, if he would like me to. I think we 
have the balance of the time until 5:30 together, and I understand the 
Senator from Alaska needs 5 minutes. I yield 5 minutes to Senator 
Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is very generous for sharing 
his time. I have come to the floor to speak on his substitute bill.
  I hope the Senate realizes this is a complete substitute, and it will 
take the House bill and replace it for the actions that the Senate has 
taken through our Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor so far. 
While there are some portions of the House bill that are positive, and 
I am pleased to say we will be happy to work with them in conference. I 
must oppose this amendment because it would gut this entire bipartisan 
compromise that is now before the Senate.
  Consumer product safety has been before the Senate before, and we 
have not been able to get to this point. We have gotten to this point 
because Senator Pryor, Senator Inouye, Senator Collins, myself, and 
others have worked together to bring to the Senate a bill that has 
positive safety provisions that are not currently in the House bill. I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment because what we have 
done in this bill will provide some very positive changes that I 
believe the House will be willing to accept in conference. The 
difficulty is this amendment would not include those additional 
protections. We would have to go back and start all over again in the 
legislative process to address the additional provisions we have added 
to this bill.
  I believe we can get through the amendment process in the next couple 
of days, and it is my hope we can go to conference and this bill will 
be sent to the President as soon as possible. I believe the country is 
ready for a change and a reemphasis on consumer product safety, 
particularly as it relates to children.
  I am the father of 6 children, grandfather of 11, and I hope to have 
more--at least grandchildren. That is supposed to be funny. I think we 
ought to be able to take this compromise bill to conference, and I 
welcome that. I promise I will confer with my colleague with regard to 
the changes we might make in conference, but this is not the time to 
end this bipartisan process.
  If there is one thing the Senate needs, the one thing Congress needs, 
it needs bipartisanship to move forward on the business we should act 
on during this Congress. This is a product of that, the product of a 
long, hard conference on a bipartisan basis.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. It is my hope the 
Senate will allow us to go to conference on the bill on which we worked 
so hard.
  I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I agree with a number of points the 
Senator from Alaska just said, particularly the importance of working 
in a bipartisan fashion on a bill as important as consumer product 
safety. That is exactly what I am proposing with this amendment because 
this is something that not only had bipartisan support in the House, it 
had unanimous support in the House.
  The Senator from Alaska also mentioned the importance of moving 
quickly. He suggested that my amendment might actually slow this bill 
down. In fact, the opposite is true. If we were to adopt this 
amendment, the consumer product safety bill could go to the President 
tonight. This is a bill that has been thoroughly vetted and includes a 
lot of good provisions about which I would like to speak. But even my 
colleagues who would like to vote for the final Senate bill--I don't 
know whether my amendment will be adopted or not tonight--can still 
vote for the Senate bill even if they vote for the House bill.
  Voting for this amendment is voting for a good, clean, bipartisan 
consumer product safety bill that we might not have at the end of this 
process. As all of us know, the longer this debate goes on, the more 
nongermane amendments will be added to the bill, and the possibility of 
this bill being passed and going to conference and actually coming out 
with a bill we can all support--we don't know what the odds of that 
are. But we do know if we pass the House version of the bill tonight, 
we will have a new consumer product safety bill that does a number of 
the things all of us want. I will mention a few of those.
  One of the items we talked about is not just to count on companies to 
test their own product safety but to have a third-party testing, 
particularly of children's products, for lead and other hazards. The 
House bill sets that up.
  We also require manufacturers to put distinguishing marks on their 
products so that in the event of a recall, we would know how to 
identify the products that are out in the marketplace that need to come 
back. Consumers would know which ones are safe and which ones are not.
  It also replaces the aging testing labs the Commission uses now and 
installs a state-of-the-art testing system that will help us determine 
more quickly which products are safe and those that are not.
  We create a new system of advising the public when we have found a 
safety problem through using the Internet, radio, and television, and 
we preserve the strong relationship between industry and the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, so we get the information from them on a 
constant basis if there are any safety problems or even improvements in 
safety in different product categories. And we restore the full panel 
of Commissioners to the Commission, which is not in place right now.
  The House bill had support from a total range of Members. From the 
most conservative Republican to the most liberal Democrat, they agreed 
to come together without further delay and pass a bill that we need.
  The groups from the outside that look at these issues, particularly 
the manufacturer groups, such as the National Association of 
Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce, that represent millions of 
jobs across this country--and that is really what we

[[Page S1516]]

are talking about here. The Senate bill would actually put an 
additional burden on American-based manufacturers that our foreign 
competitors do not have. If there is one thing we do not need to do as 
a Congress, it is to make it even more difficult to do business in this 
country, to put our workers at a further disadvantage to workers from 
overseas by adding an unnecessary burden to this consumer product 
safety bill, provisions that do not necessarily improve safety but do 
make it increasingly difficult to be competitive as an American 
manufacturer. We need not do that.
  The Senate bill has some problems, and we have a number of amendments 
we can add. Right now, my amendment has the support of the National 
Association of Manufacturers, chamber groups; business journals, such 
as the Wall Street Journal, are supportive of this amendment, and they 
are not supportive of the Senate version, frankly.
  So we have a better alternative tonight. I encourage my colleagues to 
set aside partisanship, to set aside maybe particular special interests 
we may want to do some favors for in the Senate bill. The House set 
that aside, and they did the right thing. That is really what I am 
encouraging my colleagues to do tonight: Do the right thing.
  This is not a bill I created. This is a bill which is supported by 
Speaker  Nancy Pelosi and Chairman Dingell, as well as the Republicans 
on the House side. We probably will not have another opportunity this 
year as a Senate to vote for a bill that has unanimous support in the 
House. Yet we have it on the floor tonight. I encourage my colleagues: 
Do the right thing. Let's practice what we preach for once and be 
bipartisan and support an amendment that will get a consumer product 
safety bill to the President right away so we can start the 
implementation process.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I know my colleague, the 
chairman, wishes to speak before the vote. I yield the remainder of my 
time. He can have the rest of that time. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for 
his gracious allotment of time and tell him how much I appreciate his 
spirit of cooperation and trying to come together and find as much 
common ground as we can on not just his amendment that is pending but 
other amendments and other matters. He has been a true gentleman in how 
he has conducted himself, and I appreciate that.
  I wish to say a few words about the DeMint amendment. Really, all the 
DeMint amendment does is it cedes us to the House version of the bill. 
It is significantly different. As I said before, the House, during 
their process, basically took about half, maybe a little more of the 
Senate committee bill and basically cut and pasted it into their 
legislation. So we have a little bit of, I guess you can say pride of 
authorship in the House version. There are a lot of good provisions in 
the bill.
  The House version is different in several material ways. I went 
through some of those before, but let me touch on about 8 or 10 more 
items right now. And I can do this very quickly.
  First, the Senate bill gives a financial responsibility in the sense 
that it requires, under certain circumstances, manufacturers to put 
funds in escrow or to get insurance in the event of a recall. It is not 
automatic, but it allows the CPSC to do that under cases that might 
warrant that action. The DeMint amendment takes that away.
  The Senate bill has a specific provision on portable gasoline 
containers and makes it clear that there will be a national standard. 
Again, the DeMint amendment takes that away.
  The Senate bill has several provisions on all-terrain vehicle safety. 
It sets a national standard. It sets all kinds of benchmarks that need 
to be met, and it makes the Federal law very clear about ATV safety 
standards in this country. Unfortunately, the DeMint amendment takes 
that away.
  The Senate bill also contains a garage door opener standard. We all 
know how dangerous garage door openers can be. They do not have to be. 
There is technology available. We set a national standard which is a 
good belt-and-suspenders type of standard. Again, we are talking about 
garage doors that have a track record of causing injury, in some cases 
death, not just to children but mostly to children. The DeMint 
amendment takes that standard away.
  The Senate bill also contains a provision on carbon monoxide 
poisoning, specifically with generators. Again, this has been a 
problem, not just with Katrina and Rita and other situations such as 
those but just generally for people who use these generators in various 
contexts. There has been a carbon monoxide poisoning problem. The 
Senate bill takes care of that problem. Unfortunately, the DeMint 
amendment takes that away.
  The completion of a cigarette lighter rulemaking is something that 
has been pending with the CPSC for quite some time. We clarify that 
there will be a national standard. We set that standard. We pretty much 
tell the CPSC what needs to happen with this issue. Unfortunately, the 
DeMint amendment takes that away.
  The last point I want to make--there are several other points I could 
make, but the last one I want to mention is under certain 
circumstances, the Senate bill provides for the destruction of imported 
products that violate our safety standards. This is important because 
if we do not destroy those products, somehow, some way, oftentimes they 
end up in the U.S. market even though they are not supposed to, but 
also we see the dumping of these products in Third World countries. If 
we do not take a principled stand on this issue, we are just going to 
be dumping our problems on other countries. Unfortunately, the DeMint 
amendment takes that away.
  I am certainly not critical of Senator DeMint or critical of the 
House. The House came together in a bipartisan way. The bottom line is, 
we just have a stronger bill in the Senate. It is a bill of which we 
can be proud. It is a bill people in our home States would love to see 
us pass. I tell you, most people in Arkansas, most people around the 
country in the other 49 States probably could not tell you what CPSC 
stands for, but they could tell you they want stronger and tougher 
protections when it comes to imported products. They want to make sure 
someone is watching to make sure the toys they buy for their children 
and grandchildren are safe. They want to make sure that someone in the 
Federal Government is watching to make sure products, such as lighters, 
are safe and products as simple as gasoline cans are safe and that when 
you use a portable generator, you do not get carbon monoxide poisoning. 
People in our country expect those kinds of standards, and that is 
exactly what the Senate bill does. It is good not just for the CPSC, 
but it is good for this country.

  As I have said before, we have several specific differences I have 
just articulated, differences between the House version and the DeMint 
amendment, which is basically the House version. The bottom line is, 
the Senate bill has more transparency, more enforcement, and more 
comprehensive reform. This bill is something of which we can all be 
proud. Not that we go home and brag to people in our home States about 
getting something right up here, but this will give every Senator in 
this Chamber an opportunity to go to their home State and talk about 
something good the Senate is doing for this country, something that is 
nonpolitical, something that is bipartisan, something that is good 
public policy, and that is the Senate bill.
  Again, the House bill is good. It is OK. It is an improvement over 
current law. I do not have any criticism of our House colleagues for 
doing what they did, I really do not, especially considering that about 
half of that bill is really the Senate committee bill. Regardless of 
that, I do not have any criticism of them, and I do not want anything I 
have said to be interpreted as criticism. But the Senate bill is 
stronger, it is better, it is more comprehensive, it is better for the 
American people, and I think it will, over time, lessen the amount of 
litigation, and I think over time you will see fewer recalls and you 
will see consumer confidence in products they buy go up.
  Overall, this is a very good bill for the people of this country. I 
encourage my colleagues to vote no on the DeMint amendment, and on 
final passage of the Senate bill, whenever that happens--tomorrow or 
the next day--I

[[Page S1517]]

encourage all my colleagues to vote yes.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I move to table the DeMint amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Byrd
     Clinton
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 37, I voted aye. It 
was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motor Coach Safety

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last Sunday marked the 1-year anniversary 
of a tragic bus crash outside Atlanta, GA, which was transporting 
members of the Bluffton University baseball team from my State of Ohio 
to play baseball in Florida. The crash took the lives of Tyler Williams 
and Cody Holp, Scott Harmon, Zack Arend, and David Joseph Betts. The 
driver, Jerome Niemeyer, and his wife Jean were also killed in the 
crash. Most of the other 33 passengers were treated for injuries.
  While the investigation into the cause of the crash is ongoing, one 
thing is clear: Stronger safety regulations could have minimized the 
fatalities and injuries resulting from the crash.
  John Betts, who lost his son in this accident, sees upgrading the 
safety laws for motor coaches as an opportunity to save the lives of 
future riders. One year ago, Mr. Betts made a promise to his late son. 
He promised to dedicate himself to motor coach safety. Thus, through 
this tragedy, a movement began to adopt commonsense safety regulations 
that lower the risk of injury or fatality in accidents. Mr. Betts 
launched a Web site to educate the public about motor coach safety. He 
agrees to do regular interviews so he can use his own heartbreaking 
experience to gain momentum for his cause.
  Mr. Betts visits his son's grave twice a day. Of his visit the other 
day, he said:

       I just asked him to give me strength, give me wisdom, give 
     me the words to keep fighting to make sure something good 
     comes from something so bad.

  Last fall, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and I joined this 
effort, introducing the Motor Coach Enhanced Safety Act. This bill, 
which has the support of Mr. Betts and countless safety advocates, 
would codify recommendations from the National Transportation Safety 
Board. It surprised me--and it will surprise my colleagues--that the 
safety improvements in this bill are not already standard safety 
practice. They include such basic and logical safety measures as the 
use of seatbelts and fire extinguishers. These are not new 
technologies. These are safety features widely used in other 
transportation equipment. They are commonsense. They save lives. They 
should be a given, not some distant goal.
  Many of the injuries sustained in motor coaches could be prevented by 
incorporating high-quality safety technologies that exist today but, 
unfortunately, are not widely used, such as crush-proof roofing and 
glazed windows to prevent ejection.
  Unfortunately, the Bluffton University baseball team's bus crash was 
not an isolated incident. Senator Hutchison quickly pointed to the many 
accidents in Texas while this bill was being drafted, such as the crash 
involving the Westbrook High School girl's soccer team in 2006.
  As a father of four and recently a grandfather, it upsets me to know 
motor coaches are such unregulated vehicles that our kids don't have 
the option to buckle up. The tragedy of these and other motor coach 
accidents has created motivation and hope in Mr. Betts and others for 
increased safety in this industry in the future. It is our job to take 
that motivation and that hope and turn them into action.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the Motor Coach Enhancement Safety 
Act. Passage of this bill would undoubtedly mean saved lives in the 
future. It is my hope in the future parents will not have to endure the 
anguish and the rest-of-his-life grief that John Betts and other 
families' members have experienced.
  For those who suffered from the tragedy in Atlanta of the Bluffton 
baseball team on March 2, 2007, I offer my thoughts and prayers.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Selection

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was pleased to learn last week that the 
Air Force had made a selection for the development and procurement of 
its new aerial refueling tanker fleet. I am told that the replacement 
of the 1950s-era fleet of KC-135s had been the Air Force's No. 1 
procurement priority. By the time the last one is replaced, it will be 
over 80 years old. It is good to see the Air Force move forward to 
replace these aging aircraft.
  GEN Arthur Litche, the commander of Air Mobility Command, whose 
mission it is to provide rapid global mobility and sustainment for 
America's Armed Forces, recently said:

       Tanker modernization is vitally important to national 
     security.

  I have been told this acquisition selection process is the most 
documented selection process the U.S. Air Force

[[Page S1518]]

has ever conducted. Last Friday, Secretary of the Air Force Michael 
Wynne said:

       Today's announcement is the culmination of years of 
     tireless work and attention to detail by our Acquisition 
     professionals and source selection team, who have been 
     committed to maintaining integrity, providing transparency, 
     and promoting a fair competition for this critical aircraft 
     program.

  The Air Force advises us that 25,000 American workers at 230 U.S. 
companies located in 49 States will support the assembly of these 
aircraft. The winning proposal was submitted by the team led by 
Northrup Grumman and includes EADS North America and General Electric 
Aviation. It was judged to provide the best value for the U.S. Air 
Force and for the U.S. taxpayer. General Litche said the winning 
proposal gives the military more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to 
offload, more availability, more flexibility, and more dependability.
  I am pleased to congratulate the winners of the competition, and I 
look forward to the day when this new aircraft joins the fleet.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________