[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2974-2983]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   CPSC REFORM ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2663, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to consider Calendar No. 582, S. 2636, a 
     bill to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 
     provide greater protection for children's products, to 
     improve the screening of noncompliant consumer products, to 
     improve the effectiveness of consumer product recall 
     programs.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 5:30 p.m. shall be equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this is a historic day for the Senate 
because we have the opportunity, starting today, to consider the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission Reauthorization Act.
  What I would like to do, if I may, is, when Senator Stevens of Alaska 
comes--apparently he has an urgent, pressing need, and he cannot stay 
for what would have normally been his allotted time. I would like to 
allow him to use his time--I think it is about 10 minutes or so--to 
speak, and we will cross that bridge when he walks in.
  For most Americans, when they hear the term ``CPSC,'' they think of 
some sort of alphabet-soup Federal agency. They do not really 
understand what it does, why it exists, or why it is important.
  In fact, I had that same reaction back when I was the attorney 
general of my State. I was out playing in my front yard with my kids, 
and my kids had some toys, and they were called Star Wars Lightsabers. 
They are like flashlights, but they look like a lightsaber. They were 
out there playing around, and one of my neighbors came up and said: 
Wait a minute, I think those have been recalled. Well, I did not know 
whether they had been recalled. She did not know for sure. I asked her, 
and she said: Well, I think I saw something on television about that, 
but I am not sure.
  Well, one thing led to another. It was very hard for me to figure out 
whether my children's toys had been recalled. So through a process at 
the State Attorney General's Office in Arkansas, we established a Web 
site called childproductsafety.com, which had the goal of making it 
easier for parents like me and grandparents to go to one Web site and 
find all the recalled children's products that are out there. All we 
really did was link to the CPSC Web site. But that gave me my first 
experience with working with the CPSC, and it was through that process 
that I began to understand how important they are and why we need a 
very strong and capable Consumer Product Safety Commission.
  To reinforce this, last year I became the chair of the Subcommittee 
on Consumer Affairs as part of the Commerce Committee. When I looked at 
all of the various consumer issues--and there are many we can focus 
on--I decided that the subcommittee's top priority should be to 
reauthorize the CPSC. The reason I did that is because in 2006 we had 
seen a record number of recalls. We began working on this, and we 
realized that because of the changes in the marketplace, because the 
U.S. marketplace had changed a lot because of imports--and a lot of 
other changes going on in the marketplace--we realized the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission had not kept up with the times. So we made a 
concerted effort to get the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
reauthorized.
  We started that about a year ago, had a few hearings, and then, over 
the summer of last year, we began to see the toy recalls. I may have it 
wrong, but I think it was the Chicago Tribune which had the first 
story. But after that, a series of national news stories came out--
television, radio, newspaper, and other media like the Internet and 
news magazines--to talk about the record number of toy recalls from 
last year.
  In fact, if you look at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, every 
year they think there are about 28,200 deaths and about 33.6 million 
injuries from the products the CPSC overseas. They oversee 15,000 types 
of products. So when you see big numbers such as this, you have to 
understand that these numbers cover almost every product in the 
American marketplace, with a few

[[Page 2975]]

exceptions. There are a few things in the automotive world and a few 
other things that it does not cover, but by and large, consumer 
products are covered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
  We saw this again last year. We saw a record number of recalls. We 
thought 2006 was a bad year, but 2007 was even worse. What we are 
seeing now is we are seeing an escalating effect. We are seeing more 
and more products being recalled all the time.
  So let me give a very quick background, again, for a lot of the 
staffers watching in their offices and for the Senators who have not 
yet made up their mind on how they are going to approach this Consumer 
Product Safety Commission legislation and maybe some amendments. Let me 
give a few minutes of background to talk about why we are here today 
and what role the CPSC plays and why it is so important to Americans 
all over this great country.
  First, let me say that the CPSC was established in the 1970s. They 
have done a good job. In fact, I wish to praise the employees at CPSC, 
because what you have seen in the last few years is a dwindling budget. 
It has either been flatlined or they have had cuts. You have seen the 
staff there shrink over time.
  Let me give you the CPSC overview that they have on their Web site. 
It says:

       The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with 
     protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious 
     injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer 
     products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, 
     and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the 
     Nation more than $800 billion annually.

  Let me read that again for those folks who are watching in their 
offices here.

       Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product 
     incidents cost the Nation more than $800 billion annually. 
     The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families 
     from products that pose fire, electrical, chemical, or 
     mechanical hazard or could injure children. The CPSC's work 
     to ensure the safety of consumer products, such as toys, 
     cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household 
     chemicals. . . .

  Et cetera, et cetera.
  The CPSC is a very important agency, and it is one that, 
unfortunately, Congress and the White House over the last several years 
have neglected. It is very important that we reauthorize the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission. It is long overdue and has not been done 
since 1990 in a major way. There was a little reauthorization in 1992, 
but this is 18 years in the making. And we have seen a lot of changes 
in the American marketplace in the last 18 years.
  Another thing I would like to mention is the personnel at the CPSC. 
When the CPSC was in its early days in 1977, they had 900 employees, 
full-time employees, at the CPSC. Today, they have 420. So this agency 
is less than half the size it used to be. That is a problem. Again, 
especially considering the changes in the marketplace, that is a 
serious problem. But the approach taken in our legislation, S. 2663, is 
not just to throw money or to throw people at a problem but actually to 
restructure the agency and retool the agency so it can be smarter and 
more effective from top to bottom.
  One of the problems, one of the challenges we have with the CPSC 
right now is the matter of a quorum. Back in the old days, back in the 
1970s when the CPSC was set up, there were five Commissioners. 
Somewhere along the line, that got changed to three Commissioners. 
Today, there are only two Commissioners at the CPSC--only two 
Commissioners--and they have a statute that says that after a certain 
time, they cannot function with two Commissioners. So last year, we had 
to get a provision added to the law to allow them to function with just 
two Commissioners. This bill contains that same provision, but also I 
think this bill makes a very important change; that is, it returns the 
CPSC to the five-member Commission it used to be.
  Why is that important? Think about the number of products this 
Commission oversees. In some ways, I think it is a little bit like the 
Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Communications Commission or 
some of these other Commissions that have a lot of jurisdiction. What 
it is, when you have five members, they are able to generally 
specialize in various areas. When you talk to Commissioners on those 
other Commissions, they think that is very important. And when I have 
talked to former CPSC Commissioners, they think it is doing a great 
disservice to the country to only have three Commissioners. When you 
only have three, everyone has to be a generalist and you do not have 
enough manpower to specialize in everything.
  One of the things this bill does is fix that problem. It fixes the 
immediate quorum problem until the full five Commissioners of the CPSC 
can be reappointed, but it also fixes the long-term problem of having 
three Commissioners versus five Commissioners.
  The next thing I wanted to mention is there is, in our bill, in 
section 10, a very important provision that is a major innovation and a 
major improvement over existing law, and that is third-party 
certification for children's products. In other words, if this law 
passes, we are going to set up the situation where children's products 
will have to be certified by a third party. This is something which has 
worked in other contexts--that is, generally speaking, most industries. 
I am not saying every single company, but most like this innovation.
  The goal here is to keep these dangerous products off our shores if 
they are made overseas and certainly keep them off our shelves by 
preventing any need for recall in the first place. If you have third-
party certification, you would hope you would see fewer and fewer 
recalls over time.
  I see my colleague from Alaska has walked in, and as I understand it, 
he has some constraints on his schedule today. So I will be glad to sit 
down and hear from him.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank Senator Pryor very much. I am involved in a 
series of classified briefings with Senator Inouye, but I did want to 
make these comments.
  Mr. President, this measure provides greatly needed resources and 
improved enforcement authority for the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission. And this bill has come a long way throughout this whole 
process. I thank Senators Pryor and Inouye for allowing me to work so 
closely with them to negotiate this bill. I consider it to be a solid 
and fair compromise position.
  One of the favorite parts, I believe, of being a Senator is when we 
have a chance to improve the lives of children. This bill contains 
several important provisions to improve toy safety. When a child 
unwraps a gift on his or her birthday, the surprise should be what the 
toy is, not whether the toy is unsafe. It should not have dangerous 
substances or unsafe parts. Under this bill, children's products would 
require certification that they meet all applicable safety standards. 
Also, the testing and certification process would be strengthened to 
ensure the integrity of the testing.
  Today, toys are not purchased the way they used to be. E-commerce 
allows Alaskans and many people throughout rural States the opportunity 
to find many products that are not on the shelves in rural towns. But 
it can be difficult for a parent to judge a product based on the 
manufacturer's description or photo of a child's toy. This bill would 
mandate that all Internet Web sites are labeled so that consumers are 
informed of any choking hazards or toys that are not suitable for 
children under 3 years of age.
  There is another provision that has been included at my request, that 
I think is very important to my home state of Alaska, and also to the 
millions of Americans who use all-terrain vehicles, ATVs, every day for 
work and recreation. With the popularity of the ATVs, many domestic and 
foreign manufacturers are producing more of these vehicles in an effort 
to meet increased consumer demand, and many of the new market entrants 
are from China or Taiwan. The ATV provision in the bill would require 
all persons who market and sell ATVs in the United States to meet the 
same stringent safety requirements that are currently followed

[[Page 2976]]

by major ATV manufacturers producing in the United States. The 
provisions also would preserve the authority of the CPSC to establish 
additional mandatory ATV safety rules through the normal rulemaking 
process.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Pryor, and our chairman, Senator 
Inouye, for working so diligently on this legislation. It has been a 
privilege to work with them to craft a piece of legislation that will 
help protect the public from dangerous products and return consumer 
confidence in the marketplace. I look forward to working with them in 
the Senate to try to get this bill to conference with the House, so we 
can send it to the President. This is a needed bill.
  I have called the attention of the Senate to the ATV problem several 
times previously this session. I am happy this provision is included in 
the bill.
  I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, again, I want to give a special thanks to 
Senator Stevens because he really has helped make this bill bipartisan 
and make it possible that we could actually pass this bill, hopefully, 
this week. So, I say to Senator Stevens, thank you for all that you 
have done to make this legislation better.
  Let me get back, if I may, to the bill itself. What I am trying to 
do, a lot of it is for the staff, or folks who are watching in their 
offices, and people around the country so they can understand what we 
are trying to accomplish. I want to run through the provisions of this 
bill. It is rather lengthy, but I will try to give an abbreviated, 
highlighted reel of what is in this bill.
  A few moments ago we talked about third party verification for toys. 
This toy, the Thomas and Friends Railway Toys, in some ways became 
almost a poster child for the problem. It had lead. These are toys 
designed specifically for young children, little toddlers, and little 
kids. You know how children do. They put things in their mouths or 
scratch on them or crawl all over them. No telling where they end up. 
The fact that you see lead in so many toys today is a great concern.
  We are trying to fix that. I mentioned one of the major innovations 
of this legislation is the third party certification. The other thing 
we want to do is put tracking label information on the toys. We have 
all been there. As parents we have had dolls or whatever the case may 
be. We like the doll; the doll is passed down from one child to 
another, maybe from a grandparent, a neighbor, who knows what it may 
be. But there is really no identifying information on that doll. So 
this bill makes sure that as practical as it can be, we are going to 
put that identifying information on it.
  I mentioned the Star Wars lightsabers a few moments ago. You can go 
on the Internet right now or to a toy store, and there are probably 10 
or 20 different varieties of those lightsabers. So if they did a 
recall, it is important that there is something on there, some batch 
number or some ID number that parents and grandparents can know and, in 
fact, daycare can know when those toys should be taken away from their 
children.
  Another major improvement is the corrective action plans. Some people 
might call these voluntary recalls. Sometimes they do end up in 
voluntary recalls--not always. But the importance of the corrective 
action plan is that as it stands today, basically under current law--I 
believe it is fair to say--it is up to the manufacturer to come up with 
a plan. Under this bill, if this bill were to pass and become law, that 
shifts, and it means the Consumer Product Safety Commission lays out 
the parameters of that action plan. That is a very important shift in 
responsibility.
  Believe it or not, with a lot of these products that come onto our 
shores today, we have no idea who makes them. Right now it is not clear 
whether the CPSC even has the authority to ask the question about who 
actually makes the product, in many cases a toy. This bill fixes that. 
We also go through a long list of prohibitive acts. Some of those are 
just clarifications. Sometimes we make it clear in the law that it is 
unlawful to sell or distribute a product that has been recalled. Right 
now there is no law on the books that says it is unlawful to do that. 
It clarifies that. We go through a long list of things that you can't 
do. For example, you can't take a recall product and dump it on Third 
World markets. You can't take a recall product and send it over to 
Dollar Stores. You can't just willy-nilly go out and sell it on the 
Internet.
  We have a list of prohibited acts. These are commonsense acts. These 
are acts that will save lives if this law is implemented.
  We also enhance the penalties over what they are today. Again, the 
penalty section is a little complicated. Under current law, our fix 
therefore is a little bit complicated. I don't want to spend a lot of 
time on it today. But the committee bill actually had a $100 million 
civil penalty. We have chopped that down now with a bipartisan 
compromise to $10 million, plus an additional $10 million if there are 
aggravated circumstances. We doubt that will be triggered very often, 
but we think it is important for the CPSC to have that added ability to 
enhance that penalty, to go after the really egregious behavior, maybe 
repeat offenders, maybe people who are just absolutely thumbing their 
nose at U.S. law.
  Sharing information with Federal, State, local, and foreign 
governments is very important. Again, we believe the information 
sharing is good. We have talked about stove piping when it comes to 
intelligence, when it comes to homeland security, when it comes to DOD. 
We have talked about the stove piping and how unhelpful that can be. We 
feel the same way about this type of information. We need to share this 
information and make it available to State governments, local 
governments, foreign governments, et cetera.
  We also have a financial responsibility provision in this law. Again, 
this is a big improvement over current law. What we do with financial 
responsibility is under certain circumstances a company may have to 
have an escrow where they put certain dollars in or they have proof of 
insurance or they provide some sort of security. Again, I don't think 
the CPSC will require that all the time, but we give them that 
authority because right now they don't have it.
  We also are asking the GAO to do a study and get back to Congress 
about injuries to minority children. There is anecdotal evidence that 
these defective and unsafe products disproportionately harm minority 
children. We don't have the facts to know that for sure, but there is 
some anecdotal evidence to that effect. We want to make sure GAO takes 
a good look at that and lets us know.
  There are a lot of other miscellaneous provisions in here. I will not 
spend too much time on these, but there is a provision about child 
resistant portable gasoline containers. We have seen this problem all 
over the country for a long time. There is not a national standard. 
Most people are surprised to know that. We want to have one standard 
that is a good standard, and this bill takes care of that. We want a 
toy safety standard. There is not even a toy safety standard on the 
books. There is one in the private sector that industry has agreed to. 
We want to codify it. We want to make sure we have a strong toy safety 
standard.
  All-terrain vehicles, Senator Stevens mentioned something he has been 
working on a long time, and so have I, as part of the Commerce 
Committee. There is a garage door standard. Right now almost all garage 
doors--it is not required in most States--have two mechanisms for 
safety. One is like a laser beam mechanism, and the other is a motor; 
that if it feels too much pressure, it will stop or go back up. That is 
not required. We want to make sure on the Federal level all the new 
garage doors have those two safety mechanisms because we believe that 
will save lives.
  I can go through a lot of other issues with regard to this 
legislation. Let me cover three of the issues that have been

[[Page 2977]]

somewhat controversial. I want everybody to hear what I am saying about 
these controversial issues because we have found common ground. We have 
found the commonsense solution to some issues that had been very 
controversial and very negatively received as this bill came out of 
committee, but we have made major changes to these three areas.
  First is the database. The goal is to have more transparency in the 
system. I will talk about this in the upcoming days. But we are trying 
to fix a real-life problem that has caused a lot of injuries. That is, 
there are many examples of when a product is dangerous, and that 
product is being sold in stores, people are buying it, people are using 
it, but the CPSC is in negotiations or discussions with the company, 
that product has been identified as dangerous, but the public doesn't 
know about it. We are trying to provide the transparency. The public 
has a right to know. So we have been working on this for a year. We 
have come up with this database idea. We have put a lot of parameters 
around it. If it is not true information or not accurate, it can be 
pulled off, and the companies are able to list an explanation. We don't 
identify the people, so you would not be able to use this, for example, 
where trial lawyers could go out and troll around and find new 
plaintiffs. We have tried to build in safeguards around this to take 
the objections away. But at the end of the day, if someone has a better 
idea on how to increase this transparency, we would love to hear about 
it. So far the best thing we have been able to come up with is this 
database.
  The second controversial provision--and it was very controversial 
when it came out of committee--is this State attorneys general 
provision. I am a former State attorney general, so the AG provision is 
not going to cause me as much heartburn because I have lived through 
that for 4 years. I know how the State AGs work, and I know how 
diligent and careful they are. They have to manage their resources as 
well. But we have done two major things to the provision that came out 
of the committee.
  First, we make sure--and we write it into the statute. We make sure 
the State attorneys general have to follow what the CPSC does. They 
can't get out in front of the CPSC. We are not going to have 51 
different standards out there. They follow what the CPSC does. We made 
that very clear in the statute. The second thing is, we limited the 
State AGs to injunctive relief only.
  So the situation that would be the most common would be that the CPSC 
does a recall, 6 months later in a State, whatever State it may be, 
they notice these recall products start to end up in the Dollar Store. 
Well, the CPSC has moved on. They are working on other things now. They 
don't have the resources or the time to deal with that. But the State 
might. If it is important enough for a State AG, he can get an 
injunction and make sure those products come off the shelf. These are 
products already identified as dangerous. We are not letting the States 
get out in front of the CPSC on this issue. They are following the 
CPSC. It is limited only to injunctive relief. We believe we have found 
the balance there.
  The last thing I want to talk about in terms of the controversial 
parts of this legislation that have changed substantially since we have 
come out of committee is the whistleblower provision. The goal is to 
make sure people are not punished for doing the right thing. If an 
employee finds something his company is doing and he actually tells the 
CPSC about it and he later gets fired, we want to make sure he has some 
whistleblower protections such as in other areas of Federal law. We 
took this provision from a transportation act, the STAA, that the 
Senate passed not too long ago. So it is based on existing law. We have 
some statistics on how it should really work. So I want to encourage my 
colleagues to look at that.
  Mr. President, how am I doing on time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 28 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRYOR. OK. Mr. President, let me speak just for another couple 
minutes. I see a couple colleagues coming in the Chamber to talk.
  There has been a little bit of discussion about the House bill. 
Again, I want to thank our House colleagues for working hard down the 
hall here in getting a bipartisan bill. We have a bipartisan bill. But 
I think there are three fundamental differences between their bill and 
our bill.
  One, our bill has more transparency. I think that is good. I think 
that is something we, the Senate, should insist on.
  Second, our bill has more enforcement. We are able to get these 
products off shelves quicker and able to make sure they stay off 
shelves more so than the House bill.
  Third, our bill is more comprehensive reform. I have gone through a 
long list of items on how our bill has a lot of comprehensive reform in 
it.
  I think our bill should stand. I understand there are some people who 
might be interested in looking at the House bill and some of those 
provisions, but I think when you lay them down side by side you will 
see the Senate bill is stronger because it is more transparent, there 
is more enforcement, and it is more comprehensive.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a 
question?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the great Senator from 
Arkansas for his leadership on this issue and handling the whole 
package having to do with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He is 
the chairman of that subcommittee in the Commerce Committee. He has 
done an excellent job. He has crafted together all the ideas.
  The one little idea this Senator contributed is the requirement of 
independent testing of the products when they come out of these foreign 
countries because of the experience we had with China in which they had 
all these tainted toys that were coming in and hurting our children 
because they did not have any independent testing. It was like the fox 
guarding the hen house. You cannot put a fox in there and know that the 
hens are going to be safe unless you have someone who is independent to 
see that those items that are coming from another country are, in fact, 
safe.
  I thank the Senator for the leadership he has given us and reaching 
out and melding a number of these ideas: the increased staff, the 
increased spending--which the CPSC Acting Chairman even said she did 
not want, of all things--and the independent testing, the standards. I 
express my appreciation to the Senator.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota is 
going to speak next, but I would ask the manager of the bill if he 
would be willing to enter into a unanimous consent agreement where it 
would just sequence our statements on this bill so that I would follow 
the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
Reform Act of 2007 represents some of the most sweeping reforms we have 
seen in consumer product safety laws in 16 years. In fact, the Wall 
Street Journal called it ``the most significant consumer safety 
legislation in a generation.''
  I am proud to be a member of the Commerce Committee that passed this 
legislation under the leadership of Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, 
and Consumer Subcommittee Chairman Pryor, and with the help of Senator 
Bill Nelson and Senator Durbin. I thank all the Senators for their help 
on this bill.
  I am pleased this legislation contains two key bills that I drafted. 
The first

[[Page 2978]]

bans lead in children's toys, and the second makes it easier for 
parents to identify toys once they have been recalled.
  This bill is not just a matter of implementing consumer safety laws 
and regulations, it is a matter of protecting consumers from harmful 
products. This bill is a matter of saving the lives of children. We 
have seen children who have died from lead paint or choking on toys. It 
means saving lives like that of a little boy named Jarnelle from 
Minnesota, who died after swallowing a charm that was 100 percent lead. 
That is how I got interested in this bill.
  This bill is a matter of helping parents to understand toy recall 
procedures and making it easier to identify toys that are not safe. It 
is a matter of keeping consumers informed about whether products are 
safe and where the products are from. It is getting serious about 
consumer safety.
  This is a good bill, a comprehensive bill, and a necessary bill. With 
the bipartisan help of our Senate colleagues, we can pass a meaningful 
consumer safety bill that gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
the tools to do their job and also sets clear and unequivocal standards 
for consumer products in this country.
  It is clear that the current system we have in place is broken. It is 
broken for the most vulnerable consumers: the children in this country. 
It needs to be fixed.
  In 2007, nearly 29 million toys and pieces of children's jewelry were 
recalled--29 million. They were recalled because they were found to be 
dangerous and, in some cases, deadly for children.
  As a mother and as a former prosecutor and now as a Senator, I find 
it totally unacceptable that toxic toys are on our shores and in our 
stores. When I first got involved in this issue last June, my 12-year-
old daughter was not that excited because it involved things such as 
SpongeBob SquarePants. But when the Barbies started to be recalled, she 
came into the kitchen and said: Mom, this is getting serious.
  As we all know, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's last 
authorization expired in 1992, and its statutes have not been updated 
since 1990. Not surprisingly, the marketplace has changed greatly in 16 
years, and this summer we saw firsthand how ill-equipped the Commission 
is to deal with the increased number of imports coming into this 
country from other countries that clearly do not have the same safety 
standards as our country.
  Today, the Commission is a shadow of its former self, although the 
number of imports has tripled--tripled--in recent years. As the number 
of recalls is increasing by the millions, the number of Commission 
staff and inspectors at the Consumer Product Safety Commission has 
dropped by more than half. So you see a tripling of the imports while 
you see the Commission staff being cut in half. At the same time, you 
see an enormous increase in the number of recalls.
  Let's look first at the number of staff. Well, it dropped by more 
than half, falling from a high in 1980 of 978 to 393 today. At the same 
time, the number of total recalls in 1980 was 681,300. In 2007, the 
number of toy recalls alone was over 28 million. So you go from 680,000 
to 28 million at the same time you cut your staff in half. In total, 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission has only about 100 field 
investigators and compliance personnel nationwide.
  This legislation we are proposing today more than doubles the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission's budget authorization by the year 
2015.
  We now know that this past year the Commission had only one official 
toy inspector--pictures of his office have been shown in newspapers 
around this country--one toy inspector to ensure the safety of $22 
billion worth of toys. His name is Bob, and he just retired. This bill 
provides some needed help to increase the CPSC inspection, research, 
and regulation staff. It puts 50 more staff at U.S. ports of entry in 
the next 2 years to inspect toys and products coming into the country.
  Not only does the bill give necessary funding and staff to the Safety 
Commission, but it gives the Commission the ability, by giving them 
more tools, to enforce the laws. I think it is shocking for most 
parents when they realize we never had a mandatory ban on lead. We 
never had a Federal mandatory ban on lead. Instead, we have a voluntary 
guideline for lead. It is this voluntary guideline that is clearly not 
being followed as it should which led us to the sad situation we are in 
now.
  To me, the focus is simple: We need to get these toxic toys out of 
our children's hands--not just voluntarily, not just as a guideline, 
but with the force of law. As millions of toys are being pulled from 
store shelves for fear of lead contamination, it is time to make 
crystal clear that lead has no place in children's products. This bill 
finally gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission the enforcement 
mechanisms it needs to do its job.
  On top of these critical improvements to the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, this bill finally sets standards for lead in children's 
toys and establishes requirements for recalls and the labeling of toys.
  As I mentioned at the outset, this past year we saw a record number 
of recalls of children's toys, totaling 29 million pieces of children's 
jewelry, toys that were choking hazards or contained deadly amounts of 
lead paint. This is about little kids swallowing jewelry, but it is 
also about teenagers chewing on jewelry while they are sitting in 
class--teenage girls not realizing the jewelry is full of lead.
  For months now, news of recalled toys has dominated our headlines--
and for parents, this news has been pretty scary.
  In November 2007, more than 4 million children's craft toys called 
Aqua Dots were recalled because they morphed into a dangerous, 
dangerous date rape drug. Now, I had cases as a prosecutor involving 
that date rape drug. It is nothing to fool around with. Just to think 
that you have 4 million children with products, when these kids 
accidentally put them in their mouth because they are these little Aqua 
Dots that suddenly became a date rape drug and put these kids into a 
coma. At least two children slipped into comas after swallowing this 
dangerous toy.
  Another 9 million toys were recalled last year for containing toxic 
levels of lead. The lead levels in these toys can lead to developmental 
delays, brain damage, and even death if swallowed.
  As if the appalling number of recalls this past year is not bad 
enough, these recalls have illuminated other problems with pulling toys 
from the store shelves, the daycare center floor, or the drawer under a 
child's bed.
  Except for my mother-in-law, I have to say I do not know a lot of 
mothers and grandmothers who keep the packaging that comes with toys. 
So what happens is, if you get rid of the packaging and there is a 
recall, you do not really know if the toy is one that should be 
recalled. It is very hard to tell one Thomas the Train Set from 
another, one SpongeBob from another, one Barbie doll from another. That 
is what parents have been struggling with.
  So what this bill does--instead of making parents sort through the 
red caboose and the green car and the blond Barbie and the brunette 
Barbie--what it does is it puts a requirement in place that says the 
date stamp, the recall stamp, has to be on the packaging because 
sometimes you might be selling the toys on the Internet or it might be 
in a small mom-and-pop grocery store that will not allow for the 
computer systems we have in our bigger stores, but it also requires 
that the date stamp be on the actual toys whenever practical. It is not 
going to go on a pick-up stick, but it sure can go on a Thomas the 
Train Set.
  This legislation also requires, as I said, that it be on the 
packaging. Again, it is for small retailers and people selling things 
on eBay. Big major outlets, such as Target, are able to, once they find 
out that a batch number is on the toy, close down their register so 
these toys cannot be sold. However, if you are selling on eBay, you 
want to have that number on the packaging. So that is why our 
legislation requires

[[Page 2979]]

that the batch number be not only on the packaging but also the toy 
itself.
  The other piece of this bill I drafted addresses some of the most 
deadly discoveries of this past year.
  As more and more toys are coming in from other countries such as 
China with lower safety standards, we are seeing deadly amounts of lead 
surfacing in children's toys. The people in my State know this well.
  Two years ago, a 4-year-old boy named Jarnelle Brown went with his 
mom to buy a pair of tennis shoes. He got this pair of tennis shoes, 
and with the tennis shoes came a little charm. She did not buy this 
charm. She did not ask for this charm. It was given free with a pair of 
tennis shoes. So they bring the shoes home with the charm, and this 
little boy is playing with it. He swallowed the charm. He did not die 
from swallowing the charm. He did not die from choking on the charm. He 
died as the lead in this charm seeped into his system one day after one 
day. His airway was not blocked. He just swallowed that lead charm, and 
it went into his stomach. Over a period of days, the lead in this charm 
went into his system and it went into his bloodstream. Over a period of 
days, he died. When they tested him, his lead level was three times the 
accepted level. When they tested that charm, that charm from China was 
99 percent lead--a little free charm given to a mom with a pair of 
shoes.
  This little boy's death is made so much more tragic by the fact that 
it could have been prevented. He should have never been given that 
charm in the first place. It shouldn't take a child's death to alert us 
to this problem, but now we know it for a fact, and we cannot now sit 
here and do nothing.
  Parents should have the right to expect that toys are tested and that 
problems are found before they reach their toy box. The legislation I 
originally introduced to address this problem, the lead ban, is what is 
included in this bill and we are considering on the floor today. It 
basically says any lead in any children's products shall be treated as 
a hazardous substance. It sets a ceiling for trace levels of lead and 
empowers the Consumer Product Safety Commission to lower the ceiling 
even further through rulemaking as science and technology evolve.
  This was reached after many discussions with toy manufacturers and 
retailers to get a sense that there sometimes are trace levels of lead. 
That is why we included this in here, to be practical, but allowing as 
science develops for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to go below 
that trace level. We see similar trace levels in some State legislation 
throughout the country. Some of it is different for jewelry than it is 
for toys, but we have yet to see a mandatory threshold for trace levels 
of lead in the Federal Government.
  For 30 years we have been aware of the dangers posed to children by 
lead. The science is clear. It is an undisputed fact that lead poisons 
children. It shouldn't have taken us this long to take lead out of 
their hands and out of their mouths. It is the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission's job to do that. In recent months, it has become all too 
obvious that this commission needs much reform and that reform is long 
overdue.
  We have seen too many headlines this year to sit around and think 
this problem is going to solve itself. As a Senator, I feel it is very 
important to take this step to protect the safety of our children. When 
I think about that little 4-year-old boy's parents back in Minnesota 
and I think about all of those other kids who have been hurt by these 
toys--they have no control over these toys. They don't know where they 
came from.
  At this moment I say that the time has come to get this bill passed. 
I thank the retailers from Minnesota, including Target as well as Toys 
'R Us. Their CEO testified before the Appropriations Committee and was 
very positive about moving forward and understood the need to beef up 
the tools the CPSC has, as well as increasing the resources for that 
agency. We can beef up this agency that has been languishing for years 
and that is a shadow of its former self. We can put the rules in place 
that make it easier for them to do their job. We cannot sit around 
bemoaning the results anymore; we have to act. We have our opportunity. 
Our opportunity is this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission Reform Act of 2008. I applaud the leadership of 
Senators Pryor, Stevens, and Inouye in this effort to strengthen 
protection for America's consumers, especially our children. It has 
been a pleasure to work with the sponsors of this bill to strengthen 
Federal protections against dangerous toys moving through the global 
supply chain.
  We must detect and counter threats to children before, not after, 
toys reach store shelves so that they don't end up in homes, schools, 
and daycare centers as, unfortunately, they can now.
  The pressing need for this bill was dramatized last year by numerous 
and significant safety recalls of children's toys. The recalls have 
involved some significant threats to life and health. For example, last 
November the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled 200,000 units 
of imported jewelry for children: earrings, charms, and bracelets that 
contained unsafe levels of lead. Earlier in 2007, the Commission 
recalled millions of other hazardous toys.
  The tragic trend continues. CPSC recalls last month included other 
items that violate lead paint standards or that can burn, poison, or 
even strangle children.
  The Pryor-Stevens bill takes a comprehensive and thoughtful approach 
to these threats. It authorizes increased staffing and funding for the 
Commission, toughens penalties for safety violations, bans the resale 
of recalled products, requires safety certification of children's 
products, and mandates permanent identification markings on the toys 
and other products themselves--not just on their packaging--to make 
safety recalls more effective. The bill also essentially bans lead from 
children's toys.
  The need for these safeguards and resources became evident through an 
investigation by my staff on the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. In August, I assigned investigators from my staff 
to examine the toy industry, import concerns, and the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission itself. The committee's investigators conducted 
numerous interviews of manufacturers, representatives of retailers, 
consumer advocacy groups, Federal regulatory agencies, and other 
experts. They also conducted port visits and visited a manufacturer's 
testing lab. What we were attempting to do is to build on the expertise 
the committee has gained through its work on port security which 
resulted, working in cooperation with the Commerce Committee, in 
landmark port security legislation in 2006.
  The Committee's findings confirmed that our current system had 
serious weaknesses. These included that the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission is understaffed and has inadequate resources and authorities 
for its mission.
  We also found that voluntary standards can be useful in quickly 
addressing safety concerns, but that they lack the full force of law.
  We found that the inability to effectively enforce safety standards 
at our ports limits the ability of Federal agencies to stop hazardous 
imported products from entering the American marketplace.
  The bill before us will remedy these serious weaknesses in our 
current system, especially in the area of product safety standards. Our 
investigators found that the current reliance on voluntary safety 
standards developed by a consensus among the industry, Government, 
consumer advocates, and other interested parties has both some 
advantages and some significant limitations. That doesn't mean we 
should do away with the system of voluntary standards.
  On the plus side, the voluntary standards process, overseen by a 
standards-setting body, allows safety standards to be developed much 
more quickly and efficiently than in many governmental

[[Page 2980]]

regulatory processes. This was shown in the collaborative response to 
the reports of serious injuries after children ingested powerful 
magnets that had come loose from toys. There were no safety standards 
for these particularly powerful magnets for toys, but within a 
relatively quick period of time, the consensus process produced new 
safety standards.
  By contrast, if the Commission were to go through a formal safety 
regulation, it would have required a detailed notice and comment 
process that could have taken years to accomplish. It would have taken 
at least 4 months, and it could have stretched on for years, delaying 
that protection to our Nation's children. A perfect example of this is 
the failed effort to formally regulate the lead content standards for 
children's jewelry. In numerous other cases, the system of voluntary 
standards, self-reporting, and collaborative recalls has led to safety 
recalls before injuries could occur. Despite these achievements, the 
fact is that dangerous toys still arrive at our ports, and far too many 
of them are making their way to retailers' shelves and then on to the 
homes of American children.
  Under current law, the Customs and Border Protection Agency has only 
limited authority to seize dangerous products and to prevent them from 
entering the marketplace. Instead, what happens too often--the standard 
process and practice--is that these products are simply turned away and 
that gives unscrupulous importers an opportunity to try to slip their 
defective products into the marketplace by simply going to another 
American port. So if they don't succeed at one port and they are turned 
away, what happens in too many cases is the importer simply tries to 
ship the defective toys through another port.
  Our committee's investigation has also underscored the importance of 
imposing standards on global supply chains. With nearly three-quarters 
of toys sold in America being manufactured overseas, promoting toy 
safety cannot start or stop at our borders. Our investigators heard 
reports that unethical importers can bring products into the United 
States and then simply disappear by changing their company's name, 
address, and other information in order to avoid safety regulations. I 
also note that they can do this to avoid tariffs, import quotas, and 
intellectual property laws as well.
  Toys from abroad must meet American safety standards. While the 
Chinese Government has reportedly tightened its own standards, closed a 
few factories, and signed a new agreement with the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission on the use of lead point in toys, China has not yet 
demonstrated that it can adequately enforce this regime. Until then, we 
must take strong and effective action to prevent Chinese products that 
violate our safety rules from entering America.
  Now, of course, we need better consumer product protections 
regardless of a product's origin, but I call special attention to 
imports because of their overwhelming share of our toy market and 
because of the special challenges posed by the global supply chain. Our 
committee's investigation led me to offer four recommendations, and I 
am very pleased that those four recommendations have been included in 
the bill before us. Again, I thank Senators Pryor, Stevens, and Inouye 
for adding my proposals to their bill.
  First, the language I authored would empower Customs and Border 
Protection to seize and destroy shipments of products that the 
Commission believes pose a threat to consumers and violate safety 
standards. This is so important. It closes a glaring loophole in the 
current law and would abandon a practice that allows unscrupulous 
importers to bring their dangerous products in through a different 
port, depending on the Customs and Border Protection officers catching 
it a second time. My provision would ensure that the agency has the 
right to seize and destroy these unsafe toys and other consumer 
products.
  The second provision I authored would establish a database so that 
potentially unsafe products could be identified by the Commission 
before they reach our shores. With that information, that cooperation 
between the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Customs and 
Border Protection Agency, we can much more effectively target these 
shipments for further investigation.
  Third, I authored a provision that would require the CPSC to develop 
a risk assessment tool so we can focus attention on those points in the 
supply chain where defects and dangers are most likely to occur, be 
detected, and stopped.
  Fourth, I drafted a provision that would place an official from the 
Consumer Products Safety Commission at the National Targeting Center 
run by Customs and Border Protection. That will allow real-time 
information to be shared. We can pool the resources, pool the 
information we have to identify likely shipments of dangerous products.
  Mr. President, neither the Consumer Products Safety Commission, nor 
any other Federal agency, no matter how good, can guarantee a 
marketplace free of all risk. But we can and should strengthen the 
Consumer Products Safety Commission, as this bill would do, and expand 
its authority and provide it with the resources that are necessary to 
do a good job.
  The commission needs to continue to work closely with importers, 
retailers, industry associations, and consumer groups to improve 
product safety.
  A safety regime for children's toys will only be effective if 
everyone takes responsibility. But this should not be a detective game 
for the parents of America. They should be able to rely on Federal 
standards, enforcement--tough standards to make sure the toys they are 
purchasing for their children are indeed safe.
  The foundation of this effort must be an effective and efficient 
system to help prevent defective and dangerous products for children 
from reaching store shelves in the first place.
  The Consumer Products Safety Commission Reform Act adds important 
protections for America's children. I support the bill, and I am 
pleased that we are now considering it. I think it is going to make a 
real difference to the safety of America's children.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed on the consumer products 
safety legislation.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will ask a question. I ask unanimous 
consent to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PRYOR. Reserving the right to object, would the time run on the 
Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The understanding is that it will be counted 
toward Republican time.
  Mr. PRYOR. I have no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                     Northrop Grumman EADS Contract

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, last Friday, the U.S. Air Force announced 
that the Northrop Grumman EADS team won the contract to assemble our 
military's next generation of air refueling tankers, known as the KC-
45.
  This decision awarded the largest acquisition program in the history 
of the Air Force. To have expected controversy not to follow, 
regardless of the winner, would have been a little foolish.
  What is unfortunate is that the uproar from the losing side is based 
upon mendacity rather than logic and reason. After the announcement, 
some falsely proclaimed that our military was selling out to a foreign 
country; that this award would outsource U.S. jobs; that these planes 
should be made in America.
  The facts behind this selection should allay any of my colleagues' 
fears or concerns. Northrop Grumman EADS capable, advanced multimission 
tankers will be made in America by American workers. Any assertion that 
this award outsources jobs to France is simply false. This award does 
the exact

[[Page 2981]]

opposite. It insources jobs here. In Mobile, AL, where the tanker will 
be assembled and modified, 1,500 direct jobs will be created. 
Throughout Alabama, 5,000 total jobs will be created.
  This contract has ramifications well beyond my State's lines. 
Friday's announcement also means that 25,000 additional jobs at over 
230 companies around the United States will be created by the Northrop 
Grumman EADS tanker win. This will result in a $1 billion annual 
economic impact on the United States.
  It is also important to note that job creation was not a factor that 
the Air Force considered in making their selection. The objective of 
the acquisition by the Air Force was clear from the outset: acquire the 
best new tanker for the U.S. Air Force.
  Five factors were used to score the two competing proposals: mission 
capability, proposal risk, past performance, price, and the Integrated 
Fleet Air Refueling Assessment.
  Mr. President, the Air Force, in a lengthy, full, and open 
competition determined that the KC-30 was superior to the KC-767 and is 
the best tanker to meet the Air Force's needs.
  The Air Force rated the KC-30 superior in every one of the five 
categories used to assess the tanker offering.
  Mr. President, I believe this illustrates that the Air Force made the 
right decision, the right selection, not only for the men and women in 
uniform but for the taxpayer as well. To claim otherwise is simply 
illogical.
  Additionally, charges have been raised that by awarding a contract to 
a team with a foreign company, our national security may be at risk 
because the U.S. military would have to rely on foreign suppliers. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The prime contractor of the team that won, Northrop Grumman, is no 
less an American company than its competitor, Boeing. While Northrop's 
proposal uses a European-designed airframe, a close scrutiny of the two 
competing proposals shows that both have a relatively similar amount of 
foreign content.
  Further, this is hardly the first defense program to be awarded to a 
U.S.-European team. In fact, Boeing itself was part of a team that 
recently won the Army contract for the Joint Cargo Aircraft, an 
Italian-built aircraft that will be assembled in Florida at a Boeing 
facility.
  I find it quite ironic that there was no outcry at this award from 
Boeing supporters, even though it would seem that the Joint Cargo 
Aircraft Program would likewise ``take American tax dollars and build 
this plane overseas.''
  The global environment in which we live makes it virtually impossible 
for any major military product to be 100 percent American made--
especially when our goal is to provide the best equipment for our 
warfighters.
  Moreover, U.S. aerospace firms have supplied billions of dollars' 
worth of equipment built by Americans to foreign countries, and they 
still do.
  As Members of Congress, we are all concerned about U.S. jobs. Yet any 
assertion that this award ``outsources'' jobs to France is simply 
false.
  With this new assembly site in Mobile, AL, this contract will bring 
tens of thousands of jobs into the United States.
  According to the Department of Commerce, Northrop Grumman will employ 
approximately the same number of American workers on the tanker 
contract that Boeing would have employed had they won.
  As John Adams once said: ``Facts are stubborn things.''
  If the U.S. Air Force and Members of Congress wanted the tanker to be 
a job creation program for Boeing, they should have eschewed a 
competition and sole-sourced the contract in the first place. But they 
didn't want that. Instead, the intent was to provide our men and women 
in uniform with the best refueling aircraft in the world at the best 
value for the American taxpayer.
  In the final analysis, that is precisely what the Air Force did.
  I am very proud to know that the KC-45 American tanker will be built 
by an American company, employing American workers.
  This decision is great news for the warfighter, the American worker, 
and the U.S. taxpayer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I associate myself with the wise 
comments of Senator Shelby on this question. I will share a few 
thoughts about where we are in this process. It was a big, long, fair 
competition for this new KC-45 tanker aircraft. The Air Force announced 
it last Friday. They announced they had selected Northrop Grumman as 
the lead contractor for the new plane. Northrop plans to build it in my 
hometown of Mobile, AL. We could not be prouder. I, at one point, 
chaired the Air/Land Subcommittee as we discussed the need for this 
aircraft. Long before there was any indication that any of it would be 
built in Alabama, I became convinced that it was a needed plane.
  I will say this to my colleagues who seem to be arguing that it is 
not an American aircraft: The lead contractor is Northrop Grumman, 
which is a Los Angeles/American company. They partnered with EADS, a 
European company.
  Some have said openly that it is an aircraft that is going to be 
built in Europe. A lot of people probably have heard that. But the 
truth is, it is going to be built in the United States, in Mobile. I 
can show you the spot and the place. Old Brookley Air Force Base. They 
had as many as 40,000 employees. It was closed in 1965. Indeed, the 
econmy of the town of Mobile's was impacted, until the last half dozen 
years when it has taken off strongly. But in these last 35 or more 
years, it has genuinely been believed not to have kept up with the rest 
of the country as a result of the closure of that huge base. This will 
be at that facility.
  I suggest and state that in reality what we are talking about is the 
insourcing into America of an aircraft production center that will 
bring 2,500 jobs to our area, 5,000 for the State, and, more 
importantly, even 25,000 jobs nationwide at 230 different companies 
that will be involved in the building of this tanker.
  I just want to say one thing. I think Senator Shelby talked about it. 
I want to say one thing in the beginning, as a recovering former 
lawyer. We had a competition for this aircraft. We had two bidders and, 
to my knowledge, during the time that this bidding process was going 
on, no one was saying we should not have competition. No one was saying 
that because one of the partners was European based--of course, they 
are our allies fundamentally on most issues of importance in the world, 
and our partners in the Joint Strike Fighter, one of our top fighter 
aircraft. But nobody said that disqualified Northrop's bid. Do you 
follow me?
  So we go through months and months of meetings with the Air Force, 
and with their hard work they developed an objective set of criteria 
and evaluated the aircraft. Nobody was saying that somehow this 
Northrop team should not be in the game, should not be allowed to bid 
because we all know the fact that there was a vigorous competition 
reduced the bids substantially of both companies because they had to be 
competitive. If it had been a sole-sourced bid, it would not have been. 
This was a good thing for us to have had. That is all I am saying.
  Now, some have hinted that we ought to have politics enter into this 
process after 2 years, and the right company didn't win and we ought to 
somehow overturn that. It is not good sense to me to make that 
argument. Of course, it would not hold up in a court of law. The Air 
Force, rated the aircraft objectively, and they made an objective 
decision. It was not contested before, and I do not think it will be 
successfully contested now.
  The Northrop aircraft won, according to the Air Force officials, 
because it offered the best value to the Government and the best plane 
for our war fighters. Sue Payton, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, 
said during the announcement on Friday:

       Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the 
     Government when you take a look at it, in accordance with the 
     RFP--


[[Page 2982]]


  That is request for proposal--

     the five factors that were important to this decision: in 
     mission capability, in proposal risk, in the area of past 
     performance, in cost price, and in something we call an 
     integrated fleet aerial refueling rating.

  She said in each of these categories that when you added up all that, 
the Northrop Grumman aircraft was, as she said, the best value for the 
Government. Isn't that what we pay her to decide?
  I thank the Air Force for going through this process. There were some 
real questions about whether there would be fair competition for the 
KC-X. There was some doubt about Northrop's team, whether they would 
even bid if they were not going to have a fair chance. They were all 
assured they were going to have a fair and transparent competition, so 
the Air Force promised to use objective criteria and to communicate 
continuously with the two bidders. In the words of one official:

       The winner will know why he won and the loser why he lost.

  To a degree we have never seen, that I think was followed in this 
case. John Young, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics, Secretary of Defense Gates' point man for 
the fairness of the acquisition competition, said yesterday:

       The Air Force did its homework and did it well . . . The 
     Air Force, in my opinion, did an outstanding job.

  Now that the Air Force, in the opinion of many, has run a textbook 
fair competition, the key is for us to get moving on replacing these 
tankers. Most of our tankers were built before 1957. Can you imagine? 
It is time to recapitalize that fleet with newer and more modern planes 
for both the safety of our pilots and the effectiveness of our 
military. That is why the KC-45s are the No. 1 budget priority of the 
U.S. Air Force. They have said that for a number of years. This is a 
big project, but it is critical to the effectiveness of the U.S. Air 
Force in its ability to protect air power at great distances around the 
globe.
  I know there has been intense debate, and I know how important this 
process has been. But, again, I say no one was objecting to the 
competition then, and if you have a competition, shouldn't the one with 
the best proposal win? The Northrop team clearly provided the best 
value, said Sue Payton. It carried more fuel for longer distances, and 
the fuel is in the wings of these aircraft, not in the main area of the 
aircraft, in the fuselage area. In that area, you can carry soldiers, 
cargo, and all kinds of equipment that the war fighter might need. It 
can supplement substantially our existing airlift capability, and 
Northrop's team aircraft had more cargo capacity, more fuel load 
ability, could carry more soldiers, and could go longer distances. That 
is why, when they calculated it up, when they buy these aircraft, they 
need 19 fewer of the Northrop team's aircraft than needed if they 
bought the other aircraft, a big savings right there in itself.
  We are not saying there is anything wrong with the Boeing aircraft, 
that it is somehow a defective aircraft. It did not meet the needs of 
the Air Force as well as the other one did.
  The Air Force has run the most open competition in history. It 
appears it is going to be a model for such competitions in the future.
  In the days ahead, not too many days from now, the bidders will be 
brought in to the Air Force, and they will be given a detailed briefing 
on exactly why the Air Force reached the decision it did, why one won 
and the other lost, and if the bidder concludes that a protest is 
called for, if they find something they think is unfair under the rules 
of bidding, they have every right to appeal and protest. But no such 
decision has been made to date. I am hopeful the process was conducted 
fairly, as it appears to be, and that no protests will occur.
  I further note we have a critical need to bring this tanker online. 
Much more could be said about the importance of the whole replacement 
process. I will say we had a fair competition, it appears by all 
accounts. The process went on for months. It was the most open in terms 
of the bidders were told precisely what weaknesses their planes may 
have or what other strengths they would like to see in a plane and gave 
them an opportunity to respond in a way that did not blindside them by 
saying: Sorry, you lost because of one little problem here, and they 
never told them what that problem was, as we have had in the past. This 
whole process was much more open, one on one in a way that I think was 
filled with integrity and a practical goal. The practical goal was to 
allow the Air Force to be in a position to pick the best aircraft they 
could pick for our Defense Department.
  I am excited about this, just from our own local interests. I had 
absolutely no idea how it would come out until the announcement was 
made. I did ask on several occasions that we have a fair and level 
playing field. I believe that has occurred. The Air Force has said they 
clearly believe this is the better aircraft. And if that is their 
decision, they had no choice honorably to do anything other than make 
the decision they did.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of the quorum and ask 
that it be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, we are going to vote in a couple of 
minutes on the motion to proceed to the CPSC--the Consumer Product 
Safety Act--and I want to urge my colleagues to vote for this motion 
and to move to this legislation so that we can consider it over the 
next couple of days in the Senate.
  I think the American public saw the record number of product recalls 
last year, especially in the toy sector but in all sectors of our 
economy. The people back home understand how important it is for the 
Senate to act on this and act in a way that is responsible and balanced 
and act in a way that is very meaningful.
  Again, our legislation as compared to the House bill is more 
transparent, there is more enforcement, and it is more comprehensive 
reform. I thank my House colleagues for doing what they have done and 
also thank my Senate colleagues, especially Senator Ted Stevens and 
Senator Collins. We have several on our side who have all come together 
to make this a bipartisan bill, and I appreciate the Senate's 
consideration.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 582, S. 2663, the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission Reform Act.
         Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Russell D. Feingold, 
           Max Baucus, Charles E. Schumer, Kent Conrad, Patty 
           Murray, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin, 
           Mark Pryor, Edward M. Kennedy, Patrick J. Leahy, 
           Bernard Sanders, Debbie Stabenow, Carl Levin, Byron L. 
           Dorgan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2663, a bill to reform the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.

[[Page 2983]]

Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from 
Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), and 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from 
Alaska (Mrs. Murkowski), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 86, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Coburn
      

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Biden
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Obama
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 86, the nays are 1. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________